In my last update on the Raymond Davis case, I suggested that it appeared that Davis would possibly be convicted for the killing of two Pakistanis on January 27 in Lahore before his March 14 hearing scheduled on the issue of diplomatic immunity. Tuesday, however, proceedings in the murder case were adjourned until March 16, two days after the immunity hearing. Other related developments include the granting of bail for Aaron DeHaven and discussions in multiple venues (see Scott Horton’s discussion in the video and this NPR story) of the increasing tensions between the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI that this case has exposed.
Dawn reports on the delay in the murder trial:
A sessions court adjourned on Tuesday the hearing of the Raymond Davis double-murder case till March 16 after the counsel for the accused pointed out that the prosecution didn`t provide them recovery memos pertaining to the case.
“Though we had provided complete challan papers to the counsel for the accused on the last hearing, on Tuesday they sought recovery memos, the documents relating to the items recovered from the accused,” the Punjab additional prosecutor general (APG) told this reporter.
He said accordingly, the prosecution provided the required documents to the counsel soon after the court ordered them to do so. He said the prosecution team had also requested the court to charge the accused in the case but the judge adjourned the hearing till March 16.
Via AFP, Dawn also has details on Aaron DeHaven, who was detained in Peshawar for over-staying his visa:
A Pakistani court granted bail on Monday to a US citizen said to have been working for a private security company and detained after he outstayed his Pakistani visa, court officials said.
“The US national has been ordered to submit a surety bond of two million rupees (about $23,500). His release orders will be issued soon after furnishing the surety bonds,” a court official said.
De Haven has been ordered not to leave the area without informing police until his case is concluded, the official added.
Meanwhile, the prospects of arranging payment of blood money still seem dim. The widow of one of Davis’ victims spoke out today, accusing the Punjab government of not working hard enough on the case:
Zahra Faizan, the widow of one of the victims of the Lahore shooting case, stated that the Punjab government is not working sincerely in the Raymond Davis case. However, she expressed satisfaction over judiciary’s role in the case.
Talking to media after the meeting, she said that she was not satisfied with the case as yet.
She demanded that the Punjab government should bring the culprits to justice and also thanked the PML-Q leaders for their support.
In addition to Scott Horton’s explanation of CIA-ISI tensions in the video above, consider these tidbits from an NPR story from Tuesday:
Mr. ROBERT GRENIER (Former CIA Station Chief in Pakistan): I think the ISI is feeling embarrassed because this sort underscores that the ISI, you know, doesn’t have control over what foreign intelligence is doing in its country, or at least it appears that way, and I think that they’re very sensitive to that.
Rachel Martin then continues with Dr. Christine Fair, of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University:
MARTIN: Fair says she could see ISI officials asking for more control over which U.S. government employees are issued visas to Pakistan and a bigger say in the size of the U.S. footprint in the country. Much of that footprint is devoted to tracking down militant groups operating inside Pakistan. There are three big ones: Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani Network and the Afghan Taliban.
Christine Fair says the CIA and the ISI have totally different views on these groups. The CIA sees them as existential threats to America.
Ms. CHRISTINE FAIR: In contrast, the ISI sees these groups as existential assets, and so this is where our two countries are at absolute loggerheads. Theres really no way of finessing this fundamental difference.
Wow. When the CIA is working to destroy groups that it sees as existential threats, while the intelligence service of the home country in which those groups operate, the ISI, sees these same groups as existential assets, it is very hard for me to see how the two intelligence services could ever be expected to work together or find areas in which they are comfortable sharing information with one another. While the Davis case has perhaps brought full attention to this fundamental difference between the CIA and ISI, those differences will persist long after the Davis case is resolved.