Pakistan: American arrested after shootings worked for CIA

From The New York Times: "The American arrested in Pakistan after shooting two men at a crowded traffic stop was part of a covert, C.I.A.-led team of operatives conducting surveillance on militant groups deep inside the country, according to American government officials."

At the request of the U.S. government, the Times previously held the fact that he was CIA. Only after the UK's Guardian newspaper published this fact, and the White House gave the Times the okay, did the above-linked details go live at the Times.

Photo, above and below: Protesters demonstrate against U.S. citizen Raymond Davis in Karachi this wekend. A Pakistani man is demanding the arrest of a second U.S. embassy employee in Pakistan, his lawyer said on Friday, adding fuel to an incident that has severely strained ties between Washington and Islamabad. The move comes as U.S. officials pressure Pakistan to release Davis, a U.S. consulate employee who is locked in a Lahore jail after shooting and killing two Pakistanis in the city of Lahore last month in what he said was an attempted robbery. Ijaz-ur-Rehman, whose brother Ibad was killed when a U.S.vehicle came to Davis' rescue in the aftermath of the Jan. 27 shooting, filed a petition in the Lahore High Court demanding the car's driver be arrested, lawyer Noman Atiq said.

(REUTERS/Athar Hussain, above; Mohsin Raza, below)

• [Thebes]

  From ANI News Service:

  [quote] Double murder-accused US official Raymond Davis has been found in possession of top-secret CIA documents, which point to him or the feared American Task Force 373 (TF373) operating in the region, providing Al-Qaeda terrorists with “nuclear fissile material” and “biological agents,” according to a report. [/quote]

  It seems that the two ISI agents who Davis shot were tracking his and his teams movements in regards to collaborating with terrorists to provide them with WMD materials to attack the US “Homeland”. This would demonstrate Pakistan’s inability to contain its nuclear arsenal and allow the USA to exert global military force in an effort to renew economic hegemony. At least thats what the rest of the story alleges.

• [forgeweld]

  The thing that really jumps out of the story for me is the NY Times’ meek subservience to the Administration in sitting on the story until they got the o.k. Have all the major news outlets in this country been lobotomized?

  • [Anonymous]

    well said. can we claim press freedom is real when only at the permission of the federal authority?

• [splinterfoot]

  Just in case you are really really really naive, I’d like to point out, this is Obama’s foreign policy.

• [Anonymous]

  Being a Pakistani; I just wanted to say this is probably not the first time something like this has happened. Just that the dude was unlucky enough to get caught on camera and have the images flashed on network news all over the country.

  The Pakistani political “leadership” is pretty darn scared these days; what with all the uprising happening all around them (although I hate being bundled into the “Middle East”, we’re more Indian than Middle Eastern). They’re going to release him once the whole Revolution Fever dies down.

  Also, there are now reports that Mr. Davis had link to the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan.

  Also, please, YouTube the videos of his interrogation. They’re quite “fun”.

• [stuhfoo]

  I like the part where he shot the ‘robbers’ in the BACK…funny how self defense works sometimes.

  I know I would be scared for my life if I saw two people running away from me when I had a gun.

• [stuhfoo]

  btw it is now confirmed he was a CIA contractor…

• [gandalf23]

  Two armed men try to rob him and he kills them. Where is the problem with that?

  They were armed, and chose to use those arms to rob someone, and by having arms they signified a willingness to use them, thus putting his life in danger. They caused the shootings. Unless y’all are saying that he just rolled up to a stop light and randomly shot two dudes (probably who were minding their own business on the corner) and gosh it just happened that they had guns on them? Or maybe he planted them?

  As for shooting them each five times? So? Is that really worse than shooting them each once? Dead is dead.

  “Oh noes! He took their pictures after shooting them!” yeah, he did. US Government employee, attempted robbery. Was it random, or was he targeted specifically? Take pictures of the dead guys and send them off and see if they are in any databases and figure it out. Makes sense.

  • [MomentEye]

    [quote]Two armed men try to rob him and he kills them. Where is the problem with that? [/quote]

    Pakistani Officials say that the men he shot were members of their secret service.

    So the problem, broadly speaking, is that when a Xe operative being paid by the CIA shoots people in their own country they will sometimes also lie about why they did it.

  • [stuhfoo]

    The Times reports that a Lahore police report published in English by The Daily Times over the weekend raises questions about the self-defense case, pointing out that the victims were shot in the back.

    so first off he shot them in the back – as a CIA contractor he should know when to and when not to shoot. Killing someone for stealing from you is not proportional retaliation.

    Secondly, he did this in a country whose population CLEARLY has an unfavorable disposition towards America… what did he expect ? Roses?

    This was a HUGE laps in judgment or training.

    also what strangefriend said… i bet you this all goes away if we free aafia Siddiqui … gotta love politics

• [Anonymous]

  The US has been up to dirty business in Pakistan for decades, and Pakistan has been playing them in turn all the while. Historians are going to be puzzling over who was gaming who for a long, long time.

  Meanwhile, the poor in Pakistan get repeatedly shafted. But hey, as far as Americans and Brits are concerned, they’re basically all terrorists anyway, so who cares?

• [phisrow]

  The CIA? Doing something covert, sinister, and almost certainly counterproductive by the standards of America’s foreign policy objectives? I wish I were more surprised…

• [a_user]

  More fall out from Bush foreign policy.

  • [bobthecitizen]

    “bush foreign policy”?

    When is it Obama’s foreign policy? He could have cut the budget for our wars, he didn’t, or not followed in bush’s warrantless wiretapping footsteps, yet he did. In the worlds eyes Obama and bush are equally war mongering.

    Bad foreign policy is bad, saying “blame the last guy” while doing the same crap just perpetuates it. Whoever comes after Obama will undoubtably blame this crap on him.

    We need to stand up to our aggressive foreign policy in general and demand it stop now. If eqypt can do it, so can we.

    • [a_user]

      I’m not inferring that this “operation” was organised/sanctioned by Bush, but I am saying this has become a very public spat is down to the use of Chuck Norris Diplomacy ™ by the Bush regime.

      So anyway here’s my plot idea for the next episode of “24″

      Fade up from black to see Jack Bauer driving a black SUV along a dusty city road in Unnamed Middle Eastern Country. A rusty white Nissan pickup drives alongside and a stuntman wearing a black beret and sunglasses pokes an AK47 out of the window. A high speed tussle ensues ending with Jack forcing the Nissan to stop so he can go mano a mano with the terrorists on board. Jack guns down the occupants but suddenly find himself surrounded by angry people trying to grab him. He uses his encrypted bluetooth headset to call for help, his back up arrives in a second SUV which cuts across the central reservation to get to him, killing a civilian on a motorcycle which just seems to make people more angry at Jack, so they drive off, dumping ammunition and surveillance gear onto the street straight to the American consul so they can stash the car and call a taxi to the airport. Meanwhile Jack jumps back into his car then drives off while being peppered with bullets and is caught by 2 parking wardens after a gruelling 5 minute chase. A daring young journalist just out of journalism school, through a source he calls “the US serviceman’s employment record” discovers in that Jack was infact an ex employee of Blackwater. Fade to black, roll credits behind “To be continued?” caption.

      What d’you mean it’s too realistic?

    • [Anonymous]

      When is it Obama’s foreign policy?

      Never. Bush foreign policy was a notable change in what the US were doing, and Obama is part of it. There is no Obama foreign policy.

      • [bobthecitizen]

        Bush, Obama, whoever comes next… Same bullshit, different flavor. We need to rise up as Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Dubai, Yemen, Libya, Algiers, etc. are doing and demand justice and democratic representation. Our foreign policy is not only loathed by the world at large and provides constant danger to us personally, but is also not the will of the people.

        It’s time to take to the streets, general strike anyone?

        • [buddy66]

          ”It’s time to take to the streets, general strike anyone?”

          Let’s not confuse the two…

          Taking to the streets, one can get hurt. Staying home, shit, I’m good at that!

    • [Ugly Canuck]

      Oh come on: the USA has sought for and had an avowedly and openly bi-partisan foreign policy, throughout the term of my entire life, and in fact for quite some time before I was born.

      That that has not recently changed comes as no surprise.
      At least to me.

      Nor do I think that the bipartisan nature of US foreign policy will change in the foreseeable future.

      I just don’t find that bipartisan character to be particularly remarkable or noteworthy, much less a reason for any discomfort.

  • [Anonymous]

    You cannot seriously still be blaming Bush? Obama is in charge now. He is responsible for the wellbeing of every U.S. Citizen on earth. If you disagree with this statement, ask yourself what a president IS for.

    • [Ugly Canuck]

      Anon # 34:

      Sure , President Bush had no lasting effect on how things were then, so how could he have any effect on how things are now? LOL.

      As to what “a President’s for” (interesting choice of words, that), that’s none of my business, really, but I don’t recall seeing “responsible for the well-being of every American citizen” anyplace in the US Constitution….so I think it is you who are making things up, that are simply wrong about the the duties and the nature of the Presidential office.

      Here, ya don’t even have to look it y up yourself, to see how wrong you are as to the President’s duties. Quoting from the Constitution of The United States of America:

      “Article II – The Executive Branch

      Section 1 – The President

      The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

      Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

      ….

      Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

      “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

      Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

      The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

      Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress

      He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

      From:

      http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1

      Gee, Anon, you must not be much of a patriot, spreading misinformation about the duties of the President like that. You really ought to watch what you say – as President Bush’s spokesman once wisely warned us!

• [strangefriend]

  You know, after Obama pardons Aafia Siddiqui & deports her back to Pakistan, I bet this whole thing blows over.

• [Chrs]

  Seriously, we couldn’t just hold this off for a while? Not shooting some guys, just let some democracy happen while we sit on the sidelines for a bit?

  • [Ubernostrom]

    These guys were in the country long before any of this civil unrest began. Anyway, IMHO, they can keep the bastard, and we’ll just stop giving them billions of dollars in aid. Seems like a fair trade to me, seeing as how they hate us so much.

• [Anonymous]

  As an anarchist I’m inclined to see CIA plots behind everything. As a skeptic and defender of rational modes of thinking, I need to be aware of that fact. Hence: devil’s advocate.

  Firstly, the CIA (Central *Intelligence* Agency) would have people monitoring important political events like this even if they were to remain neutral or hands-off, so the presence of CIA agents in Pakistan isn’t by itself a demonstration of black ops.

  Second, even CIA agents occasionally are victims of robbery. Robbery attempts, looting, etc… tend to increase in frequency during political upheavals (whether abroad or at home… when the NSM marched in Topeka, antifa counterprotests ended up being used by opportunists to riot and loot around). Further, the likelyhood of an American in Pakistan being CIA is a lot higher than, you know, an American in a random country. Finally, being an American might have made him a target of opportunity by actual robbers (probably richer than average, probably less likely to be helped by authorities or the community).

  Still, it seems fishy.

• [Krüzεr ΦΘΩδ∞]

  Democracy isn’t going to work in these countries. We found a system (democracy) that works (more or less) for us. That doesn’t make is a cure all solution for political unrest in other countries, especially in ones that have been warring for thousands of years.

  • [sirkowski]

    You don’t watch the news often, do you?

  • [Anonymous]

    Whether democracy works or not does not depend on whether you are “us” or “them”. It depends on what the people believe. Once people truly believe in democracy, it will work; if they’re indifferent to corruption, it will become corrupt; and if they aren’t interested in governing themselves, it will revert to an oligarchy. This is true the world over, and all that differs is how much time democratic values have had to become ingrained or lost.

  • [brillow]

    So these people should be happy with their dictatorships? Is that all they deserve? If American-style democracy doesn’t work, what style of democracy will work for them?

  • [travtastic]

    So these people are too stupid to vote?

• [AsteriskCGY]

  Well I think being robbed warrants some degree of self defense. If that was what happened. Probably not at this point.

  • [Chrs]

    Honestly, that’s the thing that makes the most sense, though. Who the hell would think it was a good idea to make a “we’re the bad guys!” ruckus right now?

  • [Anonymous]

    greenwald put up a couple of pieces on this. it’s more than just a robbery
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/21/heartsandminds/index.html

• [Ugly Canuck]

  Anon #34:
  Sorry, perhaps I have been too harsh.

  Perhaps you have merely confused the duties of the office of the president of the USA, with those of the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman catholic Church.

  The President of the USA is not the Pope of the “United Religions of America”, as your formulation of his duties would make him out to be.

  I think you really meant to say that the President was “responsible for the moral well-being of every American”….sheesh! Back to the Spanish Inquisition, eh?

  Hmmm..maybe I’ve not been harsh enough.

  “Oh ye Judges and Leaders! you are responsible for the well-being of the people! if ye allow sin to go unpunished, you too shall be cast into hell, and denied salvation, even though you personally have lived blameless! Thou leaders and Judges, MUST punish and root out all sin amongst the people for your very own sake!” etc etc etc etc

• [Ugly Canuck]

  A non-religious civil leadership is collectively responsible for the physical well-being of the people who live under their jurisdiction….but that is true not only for the USA.

  But just a tiny little step out of the skin, a small step into “spiritual jurisdiction”, and it’s back to rule by priests, imams, rabbis and other superstitious zealots, who consider themselves “responsible” for the “spiritual” state of the people under their jurisdiction.

  And such people historically have never shown themselves, once in governance, capable of NOT in some way afflicting or torturing their people – always being careful to say, that such affliction or torture is “for the good” of those being tortured or afflicted.

• [Anonymous]

  Remember, they hate us for our freedom.

• [zyodei]

  I have heard that, since his arrest, there haven’t been any predator drone strikes in Pakistan. Make of that what you will…

  That seems consistent with earlier reports that he is a diplomat, because that is how the US conducts diplomacy, right?

• [Ugly Canuck]

  How’d those Marines bombed in Lebanon get to be there in the first place?

  I remember the battleship USS New Jersey shelling the villages of the valleys of the Shouf Mountains, as it cruised off the coast of Lebanon…is that what “pussies” do in your opinion?

  Whatever. Here’s a song about that action:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as3ItSBrKnI