[Peace-discuss] CIA killings in Pakistan

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The best account I've seen, which nevertheless leaves much unanswered: e.g., 
who were the people Davis killed, and why did he kill them? and will this be 
another step to a more open US war with Pakistan?]

Spy game: The CIA, Pakistan and 'blood money'
CIA contractor and former Blackwater employee Raymond Davis flees Pakistan after 
killing two men in a murky mission.
Chris Arsenault Last Modified: 17 Mar 2011 14:33

The case of Raymond Davis has all the trappings of a 21st century spy novel.

It is a story of murder, prison and clandestine payments, starring a burly 
former US Special Forces soldier tangled in a murky web of intelligence 
agencies, competing diplomats and – differentiating his case from Cold War spy 
sagas – shady private military contractors.

Pakistani authorities released the CIA contractor from prison on Wednesday, 
after families of two motorcyclists he killed in January were paid a reported 
$2.3mn in "blood money".

Details surrounding the case are sketchy at best: a series of claims and 
counter-claims from various diplomats, agencies and organisations which are 
almost impossible to independently verify. And the stakes are high.

Privatising conflict

"The case highlights the fact that the US is engaged in a covert war in Pakistan 
- a country it has not declared war against," says Jeremy Scahill, author of 
Blackwater: the Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Davis, 36, once hustled for Blackwater, the controversial military contractor 
responsible for killing civilians in Iraq, which has since been rebranded as Xe 
Services LLC.

"He worked for Blackwater when the company was working on the drone bombing 
campaign with the JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command], and the CIA against 
high-value individuals in Pakistan," Scahill told Al Jazeera.

Davis owns Hyperion Protective Consultants, according to ABC News. The firm 
sells surveillance equipment and provides clients with "loss and risk management 
professionals".

In the new world of intelligence, individuals can wear several different hats, 
often at the same time.
"In theory, it would be cheaper to have government agents do the work 
contractors are doing: they don't get paid as much and there is no dedicated 
profit margin," says Eamon Javers, author of Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy: The 
Secret World of Corporate Espionage.

"There is a huge open question about the legal jurisdiction these contractors 
are operating under in war zones. They are not accountable to US military 
justice, as special ops would be," Javers told Al Jazeera.

Christine Fair, a Pakistan expert at Georgetown University says, "There is 
nothing abnormal about military contractors gathering intelligence, conducting 
warfare or helping with diplomacy", concerns about high costs, impunity and 
jurisdiction notwithstanding.

"The way we [Americans] do business, fight wars, provide assistance, and the way 
we run our embassies is being done through contractors," Fair told Al Jazeera.

Who is immune?

When Pakistani authorities arrested Davis in Lahore, he carried classic tools of 
the spy trade: a Glock semiautomatic pistol, a long-range wireless set, camera, 
flashlight and small telescope.

The initial public conflict between Pakistan and the US revolved around Davis's 
diplomatic status. The US said the contractor had diplomatic immunity from 
prosecution, while Pakistani authorities disputed the claim.

According to Fair, the issue of diplomatic immunity is simple and was 
"misconstrued" throughout the Davis saga. Whether Davis was a contractor or a 
formal embassy employee is not important for the question of immunity, she says.

"The diplomatic status of staff members is set by the sending countries," she 
says, referring in this case to the US. "The Pakistani government has one choice 
to make: to accept the terms or not to. Pakistan accepted the terms and issued a 
visa and then re-issued it."

There is no debate about the process for getting diplomatic immunity, as 
Pakistan and the US have signed the Vienna Convention which sets out the rules.

But Jeremy Scahill is not sure Davis's diplomatic status is quite so clear. 
"There have been some reports that the US tried to claim he was a diplomat after 
the events took place," Scahill says.

Conflicting crime stories

The events in question transpired on January 27. Davis was driving his car 
through a poor section of Lahore. He stopped at a crowded intersection. Two 
Pakistani men jumped off motorcycles and came towards him, with weapons drawn, 
according to American accounts of the incident. Davis opened fire with his 
Glock, killing them.

He said he fired in self-defence, assuming they were trying to rob him. 
Pakistani authorities disputed this claim, saying the men were shot in the back 
and Davis got out of his car to take photographs of the bodies.

Pakistani security forces chased Davis to a traffic circle a short distance away 
from the crime scene and arrested him. Before being taken down, Davis called the 
US Consulate to extract him from the dicey situation. The US sent an unmarked 
SUV tearing through the streets of Lahore.

It drove the wrong way down a one way street, killing a random motorcyclist, in 
a development that further infuriated Pakistanis. The three killings lead to 
widespread outrage, fuelling anti-American demonstrations.

"Those who oppose the partnership between Pakistan and the US have been making 
noise," says Rasul Baksh Raees, a political science professor at Lahore 
University of Management Sciences.

Wary of anger on the streets, Pakistan's government may have initially denied 
giving the contractor immunity to save face, says Muqtedar Khan, a professor of 
international relations at the University of Delaware.

Intrigue

Many Pakistanis, including the political opposition, are furious about US drone 
strikes and other killings in the country. But this is nothing new.

The intrigue concerns the identities of the men Davis killed - and the nature of 
his mission.

"Some suggest Davis was trying to document links between Pakistan's 
Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) and Lashkar-e-Taiba [the Army of the 
Pure], which would expose the ISI's links to the Mumbai attacks [of 2008]," says 
Khan. The US and UN Security Council have designated Lashkar as an international 
terrorist organisation.

In February, Leon Panetta, the CIA director, said the ISI-CIA relationship is 
one of the "most complicated" he has encountered during his time in intelligence.

"If Ray Davis was targeting Laskhkar or trying to establish links between it and 
Pakistani intelligence, that would be probably one of the most sensitive places 
to hit the ISI," says Jeremy Scahill, the author and investigative journalist.

In a US federal court in New York, a lawsuit was filed in 2010 against the ISI 
for backing the Mumbai attacks. Davis's conclusions could have damaged more than 
the ISI's public image. US tax dollars paid to Pakistani security forces under 
the auspices of fighting terrorism, not to mention a major financial settlement, 
could be at stake.

Christine Fair, the Georgetown professor, says two high-level Pakistani 
officials told her that the men Davis killed were ISI agents tasked with 
following him.

Davis worked out of a safe house in an obscure part of Lahore as part of a CIA 
cell investigating Lashkar, Fair says.

"The CIA cooperates with the ISI on certain issues," Fair says. "But these 
organisations also operate against each other. This is spy versus spy."

The origins of Lashkar can be traced to US support for forces fighting against 
the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s, Khan says. Today, the group 
operates openly in Pakistan from a sprawling compound in the suburbs of Lahore, 
where it runs schools, hospitals and a blood bank. Hafiz Saeed, the group's 
leader, is a frequent commentator in the Pakistani press.

The group frequently espouses anti-Western ideology, targeting India, Israel and 
the US in their literature, says professor Fair, adding that "they never really 
operated to achieve those larger objectives – perhaps until 2004, when they 
started attacking the US in Afghanistan".

The ISI and some other branches of Pakistan's government see Lashkar as an 
important tool against India in Kashmir, a province claimed by both India and 
Pakistan, says Muqtedar Khan.

"In recent years, the balance of power has shifted significantly in India's 
favour, in terms of traditional warfare," Khan says. "The economic disparity is 
such that Pakistan cannot launch a conventional war against India for Kashmir," 
he says. Pakistan sees unconventional forces like Lashkar as crucial defences 
against its traditional rival.

Pakistan also worries about Indian dominance in Afghanistan after the US pulls 
out, and wants Lashkar ready to fill the vacuum of American power, Khan says.

Money talks

Raymond Davis's case has caused head-aches for the US and Pakistan. They both 
hoped it would go-away, but neither could lose face.

The payment of "blood money" to relatives of the men Davis killed - an accepted 
custom in Pakistan - was the easiest solution.

The sum of $2.3mn is exponentially higher than what the US normally pays family 
members when its forces kill innocents in Iraq or Afghanistan, Jeremy Scahill says.

Money talks, and such a large sum illustrates the importance of the case. 
According to Scahill, the blood money suggested by the US state department for 
victims of Blackwater killings in Iraq was about $5,000.

"What is even more important than the money, is what the Pakistanis and the ISI 
extracted from the US in exchange for [Davis's] release," Scahill says.

After "blood money" was paid, American consular officials whisked Raymond Davis 
out of the country. His exact mission, or the conclusions from the intelligence 
he gathered, may never come to light.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, denied that the US paid family 
members. However, she wouldn't comment on who forked over the cash.

"It is rather a charade to suggest [the US] didn't pay family members," says Ray 
McGovern, a former CIA analyst, who alleged that the payment came from 
Pakistan's ISI, which receives money from the US through bilateral military 
cooperation deals.

But Davis's political footprint will last, as anti-American protests spread 
across Pakistan, with people demanding more accountability from foreign forces 
operating on Pakistani territory. "Raymond Davis was basically the tip of the 
iceberg," says Professor Khan.

"He was not the cause, but a part of, the diverging interests between Pakistan 
and the US in the war on terror."

Follow Chris Arsenault On Twitter: @AJEchris

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/03/2011317131348571552.html