- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
An American CIA contractor facing murder charges in Pakistan has been released after the U.S. paid more than $2 million in "blood money" to the relatives of the victims, a lawyer for the families said Wednesday...
Lawyer Raja Irshad said 19 relatives appeared in court Wednesday to accept payments totaling $2.34 million. He said each told the court "they were ready to accept the blood money deal without pressure and would have no objection if the court acquitted Raymond Davis."
From MSNBC:
'Blood money': CIA contractor freed after payment - World news - South and Central Asia - Pakistan - msnbc.com
IMO, this news report raises troubling issues:
1. Did the U.S. actually pay a ransom to secure Mr. Davis' release. In the story, the U.S. denies a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
2. If the U.S. paid a ransom, no matter how it was packaged, did that indicate that Mr. Davis had actually lacked diplomatic immunity. That immunity was asserted but to the date of his release had not been demonstrated.
3. What precedents would be established if a ransom had been paid and has the U.S. undermined its own credibility when others are inclined to pay ransom e.g., to the Somali pirates, etc.?
I'm not sure it's necessarily accurate to call it a "ransom" since he was being held by the recognized government that is nominally our ally, and since they at least had an actual reason to hold him (no one disputes that he killed two Pakistanis, but he claims it was in self-defense). It certainly indicates extreme corruption though. If the charges were completely fabricated or if the government had a pattern of doing this, that would be a different matter.
I would agree that he isn't entitled to diplomatic immunity based on what is publicly known about this case. The government of Pakistan never accepted his diplomatic credentials to the best of my knowledge.
The payment of blood money is quite common in many societies. The US and Pakistan must be quite relieved that such a system exists, because it's just got them both out of quite a sticky situation.
I agree that it was probably the only solution that was acceptable to both parties. It seems to have pissed off the people of Pakistan quite a bit, as there has been rioting in front of the US consulate today.
A different US president would not have stood for this.
This is beyond disgusting.
What would a different US president have done?
Put the appropriate pressure on Pakistan to release the agent, no strings attached.
Obama is a weak little boy. He does not command respect or fear from other nations. He is a boy wearing a man's suit, and events like this are the result.
Utterly ridiculous partisan speculation.
Put the appropriate pressure on Pakistan to release the agent, no strings attached.
From MSNBC:
'Blood money': CIA contractor freed after payment - World news - South and Central Asia - Pakistan - msnbc.com
IMO, this news report raises troubling issues:
1. Did the U.S. actually pay a ransom to secure Mr. Davis' release. In the story, the U.S. denies a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
2. If the U.S. paid a ransom, no matter how it was packaged, did that indicate that Mr. Davis had actually lacked diplomatic immunity. That immunity was asserted but to the date of his release had not been demonstrated.
3. What precedents would be established if a ransom had been paid and has the U.S. undermined its own credibility when others are inclined to pay ransom e.g., to the Somali pirates, etc.?
What would a different US president have done?
Which different one?A different US president would not have stood for this.
This is beyond disgusting.
So if I were to find even a single example of families being offered compensation for deaths happening under a different president, you would concede that you're wrong?The Paks wouldn't have pulled this **** with a different kind of president than the one we currently have.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?