Talk:Raymond Allen Davis incident/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Let's be realistic

The CIA has a huge operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They have a long history of working with ISI, going back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The famous Stinger missiles were smuggled to the Afghan Insurgents through Pakistan and with ISI's help. The current drone operation that made hundreds of strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas and caused hundreds of victims in Pakistan is not flown across the border from Afghanistan but from airfields located inside of Pakistan. This operation requires reliable intelligence for targeting information, which requires CIA operatives inside Pakistan, in addition to the CIA technicians who operate, maintain and arm the drones. Now, are we to assume that all these US CIA assets that work and live in Pakistan are diplomats and have immunity from prosecution if they commit crimes in Pakistan ? By all versions, Raymond Allen Davis had an official passport with an official business visa in it. The Pakistan government knew who he was, who he worked for and why he was in Pakistan. But did he have diplomatic immunity ? If the US government believes he did, then they also believe that all of the thousands of Americans who work in any capacity for the US government in Pakistan are diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US government controls the local government, they signed with the local governments non-diplomatic immunity agreements for all US personnel,civilians as well as military, who could commit any crimes and just fly home with no fear of prosecution or punishment. In Pakistan, the is no such immunity from prosecution of US citizens, so the only way to protect US citizens from prosecution as the US does elsewhere, is to claim, retroactively, that Raymond Allen Davis was a "Diplomat".

I personally think that anyone who can write with a straight face that Raymond Allen Davis was a bona fide "diplomat" and enjoys diplomatic immunity in Pakistan is biased. He did not have a Pakistani Foreign Office issued diplomatic ID card that the US ambassador and all other foreign diplomats in Pakistan carry on their person at all times. This "detail" seems to be avoided by the MSM and by this article because it annoys. He was not driving a Diplomatic car. He was not listed at the Foreign Office as a diplomat. But a large chunk of the world seems to back the notion that anyone who has a US passport and works for Uncle Sam can get away with anything once he does it overseas, in classic imperialist or colonial fashion.

The U.S. Embassy states that he was a member of its "administrative and technical staff" not a diplomat.http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/backgroundbriefing.html. Further, it asserts that to be established as a member of staff with full immunity from criminal prosecution under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf, all it needed to do was notify the Pakistani government that he was on its staff, which it says it did. If this is true (and I have yet to read anyone refute it) then it is immaterial whether Davis had a diplomatic ID, was driving a diplomatic car, or was listed at the Foreign Office as a "diplomat". I apologize if pointing this out with a straight face makes me biased. Michael E Piston (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not claim RAD did not act in self defense. He may well have. The two men he killed were armed and I saw a picture of Faheem's corpse still clutching his pistol in his hand. Although there was no bullet in the pistol's chamber, Davis had no way of knowing that. Where Davis clearly went overboard in his self-defence claim, was when he got out of his car to finish off, with two slugs in the back, an already wounded Faizan as he was running away. This court case is one where Davis could have hired a good US paid and appointed lawyer, who could have successfully pleaded his defense in a court of law. He could have even been cleared of all charges. But the US decided to take the high road: How dare Pakistan attempt to prosecute a US citizen ?

All this time, a US court in NY is indicting the head of the Pakistan Intelligence Service for his alleged role in the Mumbai attacks. Could the head of the CIA not also be indicted in Pakistan for the killing of many Pakistani civilians in CIA drone attacks in the Pakistani tribal areas ? But how can we compare worthless Pakistani victims to precious US victims ? The US victims are important and require attacking and bombing foreign countries, even killing hundreds of thousands. Pakistani, Iraqi and Afghan victims, on the other hand, are not even worth acknowledging. They are nothing but terrorist propaganda.

How about the hit-and-run incident? You would think the US embassy would declare that the accident had been caused by one of its vehicles, driven by a US diplomat, and that because he had immunity, he had been whisked out of the country but would face prosecution in the US for reckless driving and involuntary manslaughter? Nope! Total silence. The US's policy is not to respond to inferior country's complaints. They can just ignore it. Had this happened in London or Paris, we would know the name of the 'diplomat' and what actions had been taken against him, but since it occurred in a "native" country, those responsible are shielded, protected, whisked out of the country and probably have another assignment in a another country where people's lives are as worthless to the US, as they are in Pakistan.

Just for those of you who think I'm biased because of my origins, I'm Canadian, Caucasian looking, and was born to Catholic and Methodist parents.

You guys want to have a balanced article on the Raymond Allen Davis incident ? Stop acting like US citizens are superior and are worth more than other nationalities. RAD may have acted in self defense, but he is no diplomat and all of you know it. Hudicourt (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Great opinion piece. Now please find a reputable source for these claims and we can add it in to the article. This page is an encyclopedia page, not breaking news, not what we think is true, not what we would like to be true and not what we would like to have included to influence an outcome for this gentleman based on our personal political views. I've spend the last 3 days now trying to get this article back to facts from reliable sources and it's becoming really tiring constantly chasing those that are seeking to manipulate this page in to an anti-american hit job. And for the record, I poses all the same attributes as your self exception I'm protestant not catholic. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Because you do not think that some others are also trying to manipulate this page into a pro-US page ? This page must be neutral and must state the facts. Had this been an article about a Pakistani ISI-hired armed "security contractor" who had killed two armed robbers in NY, there would be no talk here about him having immunity or being a a 'diplomat'.Hudicourt (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no suggestion of Hudicourt adding that to the article. The point Hudicourt appears to me to be making is that editors are recently coming to this story and trying to make te article more pro-american and NOT more factual. The first point to ask is 'why'? And the second point is that won't be easy to do applying Wiki policy as the facts themselves are NOT very 'pro-american'. That is what I think Hudicourt is trying to explain to you.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If these guys were given a free hand in Wikipedia, they would even try to make the article on the My Lai Massacre more "balanced", "neutral", and less "anti-American". Some would even tag the article for deletion, for not meeting wikipedia standards for fair and balanced articles Hudicourt (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Could anyone please link the word "Exit Control List" in the third paragraph of the "Aftermath" section (and elsewhere, if neccessary for clarity) so that readers can go to the page? Mar4d (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In "Diplomatic status" there seems to be an error with a date: "Davis was not one of the embassy employees listed on January 25, 2010, two days before the incident However, a revised list submitted a day after the incident on Jan 28 carried his name." That should be changed to "...listed on January 25, 2011, two days before the incident. However..."Zebaba (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected

The article has been protected due to an ongoing edit war. The involved parties are requested to resolve it through discussion. Please note that the protection is not an endorsement of the current article revision. --BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Request you unprotect it - There is still a lot of work to be done on the article, verifying RS sources, cleaning up the POV language, cleaning up the cites (properly formatting them, etc.), and some proper editing for readability/organization. I think it was prematurely protected - the only edit war that seems to be going on is the removal of a "dodgy news source" and "a routine discussion about reliability of sources" in the words of a fairly active editor - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Information_lock_down_Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident. One editor is screaming "censorship" and reverting good faith edits to make an article sourced from RS vs. speculative "reporting" from Pakistan. If anything, that editor should be mentored and the article unprotected.Bevinbell 03:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Guardian / The independent / The Atlantic / Dawn / Tribune / BBC ... that got repeatedly removed like in this edit by "206.108.31.36 / 207.216.253.134 / Macutty" and others (in an edit war style) are obviously NOT "dodgy news source" and any claim that suggest that theses sources are "dodgy" follows the argumentation that was used in the Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia black out. They are reliable sources. IQinn (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The article history clearly shows that multiple editors are engaged in an edit war from both sides, meaning that it is not just one editor being a troublemaker. If you don't think that it is likely solved through discussion, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia's content-dispute resolution process. If you believe that the protection is premature or unnecessary, you might want to request unprotection here. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article, since it now needs important updates regarding the release. Please do not engage in the same old edit war. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CIA contractor Ray Davis freed over Pakistan killings

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12757244

Recent major development. Once we got some more sources, or if this is enough we should go about editing the article and refocusing the 'Aftermath' to what happens in the coming days. AlexTheBarbarian (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this needs to be added asap. multimillion dollar payout was done as expected.[1],[2]--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, add it straight away, the bbc citation is plenty, Off2riorob (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - subject released

I would like this inserted to the bottom of the lede, on its own and separate from the current content. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On 16 March Davis was acquitted of the charges against him after eighteen relatives of the dead men attended a court held in a prison in [[Lahore]] and pardoned Davis under [[Sharia law]] after receiving compensation, commonly referred to as [[blood money (term)|blood money]]. Davis was released from prison.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12757244|title= CIA contractor Ray Davis freed over Pakistan killings|publisher=The BBC|date=March 16, 2011|accessdate=March 16, 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/cia-contractor-raymond-davis-freed-after-blood-money-payment-/2011/03/16/AByVJ1d_story.html|title= CIA contractor Raymond Davis freed after ‘blood money’ payment|publisher=The Washington Post|date=March 16, 2011|accessdate=March 16, 2011}}</ref>

Done --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hillary clinton,: "no blood money was paid"

Compensation was never paid, according to hillary clinton

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-pakistan-usa-clinton-idUSTRE72F6V120110316

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was paid by the CIA or the someone else without her knowledge, but clearly the relatives were there so someone paid them. The edit recently made doesn't say who paid it just that it was paid. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion (important development needs to be added)

She said "The United States did not pay any compensation" this probably means, no one from the USA, including the CIA, which represents the USA, has paid any compensation whatsoever.

This is a significant development which will cause controversy in Pakistan. I nominate it to be added to main page --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, its a bit like denying something that isn't claimed though, you will end up adding all the denials. I would allow the dust to settle for a few days, perhaps the person or group that paid will be revealed or confirmed, however I wouldn't object to your addition. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. Looking at this report in the here and now http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12757244 and the way it tackles the issue is, that Paksitani media report the £1.1m was paid and Clinton is denying it. I think this would be most useful as the US state department also denied the use of torture or enhanced interrogation techniques on the likes of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed (no matter how applicable they may be) but after the release of papers on the issue individual members have come forward. Personally I think its time Davis was sent to Antartica to do some intelligence on the penguins. A more important thing to note is that he has not been treated as a diplomat but as a US citizen. --Omar418 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

deleted counterpunch quote

I deleted a long quote from someone writing for CounterPunch, which basically asserted the opinion that the Pakistani investigating organizations acted correctly. First, this is in a section on his diplomatic status and isn't directly relevant to that issue; second it doesn't seem to add much useful to the discussion, which is already filled with quotes. Third, CounterPunch is well-known to be strongly leftist in its viewpoint (often asserted as far-left); i.e. they are expected to come out in favor of Pakistan in almost any US-Pakistan conflict, so the fact that they do so here doesn't really say much. Benwing (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

rework

Now that the subject has been released most of the article needs to be reworked as it all is written in current tense as if it is ongoing. He is no longer facing charges as he has been acquitted so the article should reflect that 207.216.253.134 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

please stop trying to censor this article. 98.246.154.135 (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Circuitous Route for the Blood Money

Do others think this Wash. Post claim is a notable as I do? If so it should be expanded. "Clinton insisted that the United States had not made any payment to the families or agreed to reimburse the Pakistani government. But other U.S. officials signaled that Washington had endorsed the “blood money” payments and that it expects to reimburse Pakistani authorities,.."[[3]]. I think its notable because it means either the Secy of State intentionally deceived the American People or else she doesn't know what is going on. Obviously such synthesis is not for the article directly but can be used here for establishing a high level of notability, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted/pardoned/whatever

Some Pakistani sources [4] say he was acquitted after being pardoned by the family which is probably confusing to those unfamiliar with Pakistani law. I don't know if those terms are commonly used in that way in Pakistan but the normal assumption is you can't be pardoned without actually being guilty of something. Perhaps what happened is he was pardoned by the victims families (regardless of whether he admitted to the crimes) so the court acquitted him since they said it didn't matter if he was guilty or not? Mind you some of our articles while not mentioning Pakistan seem to suggest in our countries the perpetrators still serve short sentences (and not the death penalty) even if diyya is accepted so perhaps what happened here is not that common in Pakistan (if it's even legal). Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"Pardoned" per CIA man free after 'blood money' payment (Al Jazeera, 16 Mar 2011): "The practice of pardoning those accused of murder under such an arrangement is permitted under Pakistani law." WikiDao ☯ 03:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually that ref also says he was acquitted (at the bottom) similar to the Pakistani one. It may be there's not perfect English term for what happened here (although Pakistan is a commonwealth country). IIRC we have similar problems when it comes to Swedish law on some of the charges for the wikileaks guys (not naming per BLP) and for some alleged? killer cop in Greece where there was some confusion over whether we should say he was being charged with murder or manslaughter (refs couldn't agree) since the Greek term is something like homicide which covers both. Nil Einne (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this really a front-page worthy news story?

I am failing to see how this news story is all that noteworthy. While I know this isn't saying much, I haven't seen very much reporting on it, just a news article here and there. Seems strange to have it as English Wikipedia's #1 news story. --Triadian (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You might also want to discuss that at Talk:Main Page#Errors in In the news. (That's where Main page items are considered and discussed, this page is mostly just for this article itself whether it is "in the news" or not). WikiDao ☯ 03:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the place to discuss items is Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. The errors page is for suggesting corrections to items after they have gone up. But even after the item has gone up, if you want to suggest it shouldn't the candidates page is still the best location to discuss that (although from my experience it's far harder to get an item down once it's gone up then stop it in the first place). Also this isn't the number 1 news story. We don't have news stories nor do we have a number 1. It's the most recent ITN entry is all since ITN items are sorted chronologically not by importance. And actually it seems a fairly hot story on Al Jazeera secondary to Japan, Libya and Bahrain and from what I gather is causing some fairly major protests in Pakistan and appears to be the main end result of what threatened to be a major problem between Pakistan and the US. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"The errors page is for suggesting corrections to items after they have gone up." – it's been up on the Main page for a while already, though. WikiDao ☯ 04:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors is for grammatical or factual mistakes in the little blurb they put on the main page (as opposed to concerns about the topic or article).--Banana (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

official testimony

does a press briefing count as official testimony? yes it is official, but it isn't the same as going before a hearing, being under oath or what not. Governments never lie in official briefings anyway right? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

inappropriate sources

could someone please delete these, and everything that cites only them. this is policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources thanks. here are the numbers 6, 80, 81, 87, 89, 90 None of there are third party sources, except maybe redress, which is questionable. Some are links to government documents, used as primary sources. but there should be some secondary source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY I would also like to point out that 6 and 80 are the same source. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

immunity

The statement in the article "The Convention lists cases not covered by immunity in article 31.1" This is true, however it suggest that even if Davis is a diplomat, he may still not have immunity from the charge of homicide. However, the referred to article only lists exception in civil and administrative jurisdictions. this should be corrected. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic status section

This section needs to stay, but the editorials and conjecture from outside parties (former diplomates from pakistan, USA, or other countries) needs to be removed. They are nothing more than individuals personal opinions. The only info that should be stated in this section are the USA claims and the Pakistani reponses (and both only official positions, not opinions or estimations by various gov employees). Right now it is extremely POV as way too many opinions of people who may or may not know the truth are being included. 206.108.31.36 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. As far as I can tell, the official U.S. position is posted on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad under the title "Background Briefing by Senior Administration Official On Diplomatic Immunity" http://islamabad.usembassy.gov/backgroundbriefing.html. Briefly, it states that it notified the Pakistani authorities on January 20, 2010 that he was a member of the Embassy's administrative and technical staff, and that was all that was required for him to have full immunity from criminal prosecution under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf. From the perspective of this argument almost everything in the Diplomatic status section is irrelevant. Michael E Piston (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

have at it!Bevinbell 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Please :-) Do NOT have at it.

WP:RS "Blogs... may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write..." etc.

WP:RS "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic..." etc.

Regarding WP:POV, we have been around that one a few times. Many articles will naturally contain divergent and even contradictory points of view. This is NOT against Wiki policy. Therefore I request restraint and some caution before rashly deleting information. The only requirement is that POV be presented in a balanced way. People who object to one POV being included I suggest are stepping away from the basic principles of Wikipedia. Former diplomats represent expert opinion abnd therefore qualify as [WP:RS]. It would not be co-operative nor constructive to delete expert opinion from reliable sources merely because they represent a POV that we don't agree with or find questionable. That is censorship.

I think the problem is that the western media are not giving this story much coverage, as the revolutions in the middle east have been considered more newsworthy. But this is a HUGE story in Pakistan and India and other predominantly muslim countries in the Far East. Naturally the most detailed sources will therefore be coming from these countries. It would be very biased for Americans and Canadians who know little of the story due to the lack of media coverage in their own countries, to now come here and start deleting material merely because they are unfamiliar with the story, and unfamiliar with media sources from countries other than their own.

Again, regarding WP:RS policy: reliability of ALL sources is undetermined and "must be assessed on a case by case basis". Applying this fairly and neutrally should help everyone feel that the article is being updated and edited from a neutral POV and NOT from either a predominantly American or Pakistani perspective.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of the sources you are pushing are not in question, they are just not RS for the content that is being added. Counterpunch is never an RS blogs, speculating, based solely on a non-neutral individuals personal point of with is the essence of POV pushing and is not RS. Nice try though!207.216.253.134 (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What IS in question then? ;-J Can you provide provide more than just your opinion stated as fact? Otherwise anyone can just reply and say the contrary and we get nowhere. E.g. "they are RS for the content that is being added. Counterpunch is an excellent RS." etc., etc. D'ya see what I mean?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Many of the blog/opinion sources have been replaced with actual RS sources - that is great and should be the direction we head in. I am not sure how opinion pieces from former British diplomats fit in - they are not from either country to the dispute (maybe thats not so bad) and are not legal experts recognized internationally. Its just some retired British hack with a published opinion piece. If we were to get a similar piece from a more internationally recognized source, or better from two, it would be more appropriate. I still am not sure about Dawn as a RS. Many of their articles do seem to be examples of professional first hand reporting, but some of their stuff comes from dubious newswires. For their articles, I think a case by case makes sense - when it is primary reporting, they seem to be RS. For newswire, the underlying source has to be reviewed. I can't imagine that Counterpunch opinion pieces belong on wikipedia - however, they sometimes have actual reporting that seems RS on a case by case basis. There is still a lot of work to be done on the article, verifying RS sources, cleaning up the POV language, cleaning up the cites (properly formatting them, etc.), and some proper editing for readability/organization. I think it was prematurely protected - the only edit war that seems to be going on is the removal of a "dodgy news source" and "a routine discussion about reliability of sources" in the words of a fairly active editor - see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Information_lock_down_Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident. One editor is screaming "censorship" and reverting good faith edits to make an article sourced from RS vs. speculative "reporting" from Pakistan. If anything, that editor should be mentored and the article unprotected.Bevinbell 03:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Guardian / The independent / The Atlantic / Dawn / Tribune / BBC ... that got repeatedly removed like in this edit by "206.108.31.36 / 207.216.253.134 / Macutty" and others (in an edit war style) are obviously NOT "dodgy news source" and any claim that suggest that theses sources are "dodgy" follows the argumentation that was used in the Kidnapping_of_David_Rohde#Role_of_Wikipedia black out. They are reliable sources. IQinn (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How Immunity is determined for foreign Diplomats in the United States by the US Department of State

For those editor wishing to clarify the immunity aspects of the Raymond Davis issue. I noticed that some editors want to remove sections of the article based on supposed anti-American bias of certain sources. So I decided to find a source that no one could accuse of being "Anti-American": The US Department of State. The US Department of State published a document entitled "Diplomatic and consular immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities" It can be consulted here: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf Here is an excerpt from that document:

Identification of persons entitled to privileges and immunities in the united States

IT IS CRITICAL FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER to identify quickly and accurately the status of any person asserting immunity . Numerous documents are associated with foreign diplomats; only one provides an accurate indication of the status of the holder . This section endeavors to explain the array of documents and clarify for police officers which one may be relied upon: identification cards issued By the U.S. department of State. The only authoritative identity document is the identity card issued by the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Protocol, or by the U .S . Mission to the United Nations in the case of persons accredited to the United Nations . There are three types of identification cards (see sample cards beginning on page 16): Diplomatic (blue border for diplomats), Official (green border for embassy employees), and Consular (red border for consular personnel) . The identification cards are 3¾” x 2½” and contain a photograph of the bearer . The bearer’s name, title, mission, city and state, date of birth, identification number, expiration date, and a U .S . Department of State seal appear on the front of the card . A brief statement of the bearer’s criminal immunity is printed on the reverse side. Space is provided for the bearer’s signature . While this form of identification is generally to be relied upon, law enforcement authorities are nonetheless urged to immediately seek verification as indicated below in connection with any serious incident or in any case where they have reason to doubt the validity of the card . Police officers should be alert to the fact that newly arrived members of diplomatic and consular staffs may not yet have these official identity documents and should contact the U .S . Department of State’s Office of Protocol for verification if confronted with such situations.

Foreign diplomatic passports and U.S. “diplomatic” visas: not conclusive Foreign diplomatic passports containing U.S. “A” or “G” visas are issued to a broad range of persons, including those who are not accredited to the United States or to international organizations and who therefore enjoy no privileges and immunities in the United States. This situation is often not fully understood, even by the bearers of such documents, so police officers must be alert to good faith, but erroneous, assertions of immunity by those not entitled to it. The possession of these documents is an indication that the bearer might be entitled to privileges and immunities in the United States. As mentioned above, temporary duty visitors to the United Nations might have only such documents and might nonetheless be entitled to immunity in the United States. A similar situation could arise in connection with the foreign officer who has just joined a diplomatic mission or consular post and has not yet received the appropriate U.S. identity documents. In cases of doubt, police officers should always coordinate with U.S. authorities on the list of useful Phone Numbers.

++++++++++++++++++++++

To editor who want to make this article "balanced". Do not expect one set of rules to apply to foreign Diplomats in the US, but then have another set of rules to apply US personnel in Pakistan. Most countries adhere to the same set of rules governing Accredited Foreign Diplomats. By all accounts, Raymond Davis had no diplomatic ID card issued by Pakistan's Foreign Office (the US Ambassador in Pakistan has one) and was not listed in the Pakistani Foreign Office as a diplomat. Yet there are editors here who want to overlook this and twist these simple facts in a way to turn what is by all accounts a CIA security contractor into a fully accredited US diplomat having diplomatic immunity in Pakistan. Apply the standards and rules of the State Department to Raymond Davis, transpose them in Pakistan and it all becomes crystal clear. Hudicourt (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Blood Money

The very idea of using the term "Blood Money" is ludicrous in the context of an encyclopedia. The connotations of the word make it inherently negative, and it should be reworded, and certainly taken off the front page of Wikipedia. Basejumper123 (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article on it: Blood money (I'll link the use in the article to that, and I think we should keep it in -- the sources use that phrase, too). WikiDao ☯ 02:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The article blood money amply demostrates why the term is so vague as to be almost useless. The specific and correct term diyya should be used instead. Rwflammang (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But that term is likely to be unfamiliar to many of our readers at English wikipedia, and is already linked to through "blood money". Blood money is the phrase used in English-language sources; we should use it, too. WikiDao ☯ 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But, sure, diyya works. :) WikiDao ☯ 17:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Adebisio, 18 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} "Davis was not one of the embassy employees listed on January 25, 2010, two days before the incident"

Please change the date January 25,2010 to January 25, 2011 because the article states the incident took place on January 27 2011 on the first line of the article. Adebisio (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, Adebisio.

There are two dates being discussed in the sources cited. US pressure likely to win immunity for Davis only mentions "Jan 25" and "Jan 28" without years -- presumably these are dates in 2011. Another date is discussed in Background Briefing by Senior Administration Official On Diplomatic Immunity, which is clearly stated to be referring to January 20, 2010. WikiDao ☯ 17:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable content

These two sentence and their support references do not appear to meet RS standards. So as not to create another edit was I would like some feedback/review from others:

Reportedly, the driver and occupants of this vehicle were secretly transported to Afghanistan by road and from there were flown to the US.[58] Regarding the legal status of those involved, it has been suggested that the driver and occupants of the SUV are now runaway offenders and that Carmela Conroy, Consul General in Lahore comes under the felony of harbouring the accused, refusing to hand them over to police and then facilitating their escape.[59]

The refs for this are:

http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showexclusives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1298341019&archive=&start_from=&ucat=15&var1news=value1news

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/02/22/davis-case-has-thrown-overboard-america%E2%80%99s-rules-terrorism

The first link is broken, and the site does not appear to be in any way reliable either way. The second is an opinion piece from an obviously anti-american author and is mostly speculation rather than factual reporting. Macutty (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Further questionable content:

A former British diplomat has listed the five circumstances in which Davis might have diplomatic immunity.[76] They are these. 1) He was notified in writing to the government of Pakistan as a member of diplomatic staff of a US diplomatic mission in Pakistan, and the government of Pakistan had accepted him as such in writing. 2) He was part of an official delegation engaged in diplomatic negotiations notified to the government of Pakistan and accepted by them. 3) He was a member of staff of an international organisation recognised by Pakistan and was resident in Pakistan as a member of diplomatic staff working for that organisation, or was in Pakistan undertaking work for that organisation with the knowledge and approval of the Pakistani authorities. 4) He was an accredited diplomat elsewhere and was in direct transit through Pakistan to his diplomatic posting. 5) He was an accredited courier carrying US diplomatic dispatches in transit through Pakistan. The former diplomat went on to write that information from senior Pakistani ex-military sources is firmly that the necessary diplomatic exchange of notes does not exist that would make Davis an accredited US diplomat in Pakistan, but that the US State Department is putting huge pressure on the government of Pakistan to overlook that fact: "if the documents did exist Clinton would have waved them at us by now."[77]

My issue with this is Craig Murray is knows as a human rights activist to be anti-american and beyond that his past as a diplomat should not necessarily make his opinions notable on the subject (there are literally tens of thousands of "former diplomats") Macutty (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I talked a to a career diplomat who tells me that what Craig Murray stated is 100% correct.Hudicourt (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

i.) I think we have to be careful with epithets like "anti-american" which are difficult to prove and can be seen as slanderous (i.e. who decides what is relevant discussion of US foreign policy and what is "obviously anti-american"?! :-0)

ii.) Any ex-diplomat and former ambassador from a country like the UK will obviously be qualified to speak with some authority on diplomatic immunityand related subjects.

iii.) "...It has been suggested..." reports an opinion regarding the legality of the actions of Carmela Conroy. An opinion that on the face of it seems accurate, fair and which represents a Pakistani consensus view. Therefore the source seems a reliable one for Pakistinai opinion and is an RS.

iv.) Naturally a sensitive issue like the killing of three young men in Pakistan by CIA operatives will not easily appear favourable to the US, But please, no censorship to protect US self-image. This is an encyclopedia, not a US PR outlet.

--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

craig murray

really citing a personal blog to say that it is an absolute fact that Raymond Davis is not a diplomat. The blog does not even make that strong of a claim. It sets out a series of conditions for diplomatic immunity, and suggests that none are met. Do I really need to point out all the problems with this? First, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources This is self published. If this was published in an article, and we overlooked his obvious bias, and assume complete good faith on his part, and he is really an expert on international law, he assumes things just because they seem probable. (ex. Davis could have been a courier and an assassin) Where he offer evidence, it is from anonymous Pakistani ex military leaders. a class of people with a reputation for corruptness, and an interest in the story. What he says may be true, but he is self puplished, and the claim in this article doesn't even match his. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. Please see previous discussions.

WP:RS "Blogs... may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write..." etc.

WP:RS "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic..." etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Move

Requested move from "Raymond Allen Davis incident" to Raymond Allen Davis controversy or Raymond Allen Davis affair. Reason being that "incident" implies an event, and usually refers to a something trivial or technical. Whereas this was/continues to be a significant series of events.VR _talk 04:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose this. An event that has some lasting consequences (as we see here) is an incident. Wikipedia uses the term to describe many "significant series of events" such as the Mayaguez incident or Gulf of Tonkin incident. The primary meaning of the term is an "individual occurrence or event" or "distinct piece of action, or an episode," which fits here; another sense is "an occurrence of seemingly minor importance, especially involving nations or factions between which relations are strained and sensitive, that can lead to serious consequences" which fits even better. Neutrality^talk 05:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How journalists use Wiki

Editors might be interested to see this online article at the follwing URL. I think it demonstrates what we are engaged in here at Wikipedia and how journalists use wikipedia as an easy reference source. This for me demonstates the need for neutrality and lack of bias. Because it doesn't just applty to Wikipedia pages but goes out further. This is surely why some editors feel the need to eliminate certain information that does not accord with their own viewpoints. But that strikes me as practising a form of censorship. Any thoughts?

http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/raymond-davis

I myself feel that many recent edits are not neutral and appear to be attempting to put as good a spin on this incident as possible from an American perspective. All negative perceptions from a Pakistani perspective being systematically removed based on what I regard as dubiously corect application of wiki policy regarding RS. RS is a subject that has been quite thoroughly discussed in the discussions page previously but sadly those points of view appear to be repeatedly ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Davis's military rank

"Weapons sergeant" is not a rank in the US military, it's a position within a Special Forces team. His rank was probably Staff Sergeant or Sergeant First Class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.15.162 (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I also thought this sounded peculiar. I'll change it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving the talk page

Could somebody please set up the auto archiving for this page? Let's say for post older than 2 weeks or something like that. IQinn (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder it that is wise considering it is a developing story. Archiving should be to remove closed discussions as to not clutter the page. Many of the discussions above seem to be contingent on unresolved issues. I agree that the page is rather long though...but archiving every two weeks seems likely to cause repetition of previously discussed subjects as more info becomes available, and more editors become involved. --Quinn ^➳WINDY 18:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that there are quite a few older threads that could be archived without problem. There are still easily accessibly. Any way to do that? Yeah the page is pretty looooong that is the problem... IQinn (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there's a dispute, better let it be, so people can see what it is about for the time being. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the bot, as 90 days for a talkpage such as this will be unlikely to have any effect, an IP comes along after two and a half months of inactivity in a section and adds some comments and your stuck with it for another three months. - I created a archive page and as there is a lot of dispute here, you can suggest and discuss archiving stale and resolved sections, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I set it to 21 days - the talk page was really getting long. Now that he departed Pakistan, perhaps the anons wont be doing the drive by's?Bevinbell 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Victims section

The victims section has an error at the beginning "the three victims" --81.23.48.100 (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there were three victims: The first two victims were shot, the third was run over and killed by a hit-and-run vehicle driving illegally.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Disputed "victim" status, i.e. NPOV violation. Labeling the two people who got shot as victims presupposes that Davis is guilty of murder and did not just defend himself. Davis and U.S. supporters would claim that there are two victims - Davis, victim of a robbery attempt - and the pedestrian that was run over. Pakistani anti-Americans, various conspiracy theorists, Al Qaeda supporters et al would argue that the victims were the people performing the robbery (alt. the two peace-loving friendly nice guys who just happened to drive by on a motorcycle) and the pedestrian who was deliberately run over. Pär Larsson (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

I just did a massive amount of edits, kept them distinct in case an individual edit needs discussion. I have removed some dead links, changed verb tense to past tense, removed large swaths of text that was repetitive, removed a number of very dubious sources (opinion pages are not factual reporting), changed a bit of language to make it more neutral, took out extraneous facts, and generally shortened the article to focus on the salient issues and facts. I think there should probably be some more attention paid to cleaning up the citations - formats, naming, etc. - they are all out of order too. There are plenty of viewpoints from both sides supported by RS. Do we really need to know what high school he went to to understand the incident and its implications? There are further edits to shorten, and make more clear, needed. I'm tired. Bevinbell 07:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes a massive amount of edits. But is it for the better? And what was your aim and intention? I myself think the current status of the page now is a great diminishment from what has been built up over many weeks by many editors. I don't believe it is now any more clearer nor a more informative exposition of the incident. On the contrary. Much has been deleted and the overall impression given is that THE INCIDENT IS OVER. i THINK EVENTS WILL SHOW THAT IT ISN'T. Allegations in the Pakistani media state that the family members who "pardoned" Davis say they were forced to do so against their will. Pakistani clerics and lawyers are arguing that the application of Shariah law was not properly followed and therefore the outcome is invalid. The false name allegation is still being pursued in Pakistan and many feel that a great many questions still remain unanswered, etc., etc. Will any of that be added by you? Or does Pakistani opinion, reaction and perception hold no interest for you?

I request that a revert be done to how it was a few days ago.

And I also suggest that the page should be changed to a current news item.

I don't think this should ever have been a BLP as it has always been in my opinion more a current news item. Trying to make it a BLP I feel has diminished the article's overall worth and also regretably led me to feel that a form of censorship has been applied to make the information fit a pro-American perspective. Whether that has been applied unconsciously or knowingly I can only guess. (E.g. changing the status of Rehman from 'victim' of a clearly reckless and illegal traffic manouvre to casualty is just one very blatant example). Sadly this (and other examples) has greatly lessened my respect for the worthiness of Wikipedia, which is a shame and I feel a small sense of loss. But there you go... Oh well... :-(--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to turn this into a quality article and remove the clearly dubious sources and duplication of information. using Victim is clearly POV, if there is a better term than what is used in the article that stays neutral, feel free to edit. There is a lot of quality, RS backed information in the article and it is pretty balanced currently. Its not pro-american and its (now) not pro-pakistani. Its just a still too long article on something that people in Pakistan feel pretty pasionate about. Details like where vehicles were coming from and going, false names allegations, etc. - whats the relevance to the incident? Take a deep breath, take a chill pill, and find some RS if you feel that there is a section that needs more detail or a missing point of view from the article.Bevinbell 05:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Doubts about GPS record

First sentence in "Incident" section sources http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\02\15\story_15-2-2011_pg7_17 saying that the GPS found in his possession proves that his statement that he'd just come from the Embassy was false, and that he had in fact come from his home. Can someone find a more reliable 3rd-party news source (this one seems to presuppose Davis being guilty of double murder, see second line in article) for this attack on Davis' truthfulness? Reason I'm asking is that unless the GPS was actively recording or mounted and turned on in his car, then it'd be impossible to check its record. The line "GPS found in his possession" would imply that it was not car-mounted. I realize I'm straying dangerously close to original thinking here, but a cursory search of google found nothing but Pakistani pseudo-news sites like the Daily Times and a bunch of very anti-American blogs. I don't think this is enough reason to do an edit, but enough for someone knowledgeable to check. Anyone care to help? Pär Larsson (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

name issue

correct me if I am wrong, but the only source for the idea that Raymond Davis is not Raymond Davis, is Crowley. No current Pakistani official is quoted in this article saying that Raymond Davis is not the name on the passport, or anything on the issue. Most of the article assumes that his name isn't Raymond Davis, but for his background which appears to have evidence that is his name. Also, Crowley's denial seems suspicious. Is there not a good third party source? If his Passport says Raymond Davis, does that not make it legally his name? In the US, one can change his name at will. Anyway, we need sources on this, and I can't edit the article. Basically, there is great uncertainty about his name, and the article does not reflect that 98.206.155.53 (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There was Crowley's denial and the fact that initially, all US Embassy, State Department and White House Press releases went through great pains to avoid mentioning his name. They refereed to him as "The US Citizen" or "Our diplomat". This stopped around the time President Obama said his name. This was compounded by the fact that no family was produced. What imprisoned American has no wife, no mother, no father, no children, no relatives, no neighbors? This total black out on Davis's roots compounded this identity suspicions. Hudicourt (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Crowley did deny the name. And secondary reliable sources did report it. It therefore is releveant to a discussion of the incident.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I searched US media for any sign of Raymond Davis arriving in the US or just being back in the US and found none. US media reported his release and then.... zilch. He vanished into thin air. Unless someone else is able to find any US media reporting on Davis being back home.Hudicourt (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear on why it matters if he had a fake name or not - its interesting, but what relevance does it have? If his passport had the name that was in the diplomatic notes/id cards/visas/whatever, does it impact the story or implications of the incident? Lets be realistic, he was a CIA contractor (according to published reliable sources) - does the possible use of a fake name by a CIA contractor strike anyone as a surprise or newsworthy? Is it a big factor in the story or aftermath?Bevinbell 04:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a bio sections on a person with date and place of birth, his early life, the name of his wife, and you don't see why it matter if his name is coccrect or not ? Because if his name if fake, the rest is fake also, thats why Hudicourt (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Be specific when reverting

@user:Bevinbell: Please provide diffs of what you are reverting, and why. For instance, you could write "this [5] is not baseda reliable source", to which I could reply "The Telegraph is a major British paper of Tory political orientation considered to be well connected with sources in the British military establishment and generally considered very reliable in matters pertaining to security and defence". ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclear

"The police report says that witnesses saw Davis fire at Faizan Haider at a time when he left the motorcycle and ran to save his life. Davis himself also admitted that he fired at Haider from the back when he was running." "from the back", did whoever wrote this mean in the back? It's an interesting way to phrase this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.121.103.75 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article

the article seems to presuppose that Davis was in the wrong. His claims of self-defense and the Department of State's claims of immunity appear to be given less weight or credibility than Pakistani nationalistic newspapers or British newspapers. The former certainly should not be given any credibility. While there is value in using third party sources (such as the latter), anything they have is second hand information with fore-drawn conclusions.

Also, I want to clarify that a CIA employee is not the same as a CIA contractor. For this reason, his employer should not be listed as the CIA.--166.205.138.216 (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Any relationship to Osama's death?

I realize that the Western media might be under pressure from the highest levels to keep a lid on this incident, but I think that the death of Osama bin Laden so soon after this Raymond Davis incident is a little too coincidental. Could there be a connection? From the article alone we know that the CIA has been conducting extensive activities in Pakistan - and I'm not at all surprised by that. Surely the mission to find Osama was somewhere on their list of priorities when Davis felt the need to empty his magazine. - Richard Cavell (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The plan to assassinate Osama was put into motion after this event. Obama knew of Osama's position in October of 2010, but did not start planning of the May 1st raid until march. The Raymond Davis event may have played a part in the planning of the May 1st raid.

"In September 2010, the CIA presented Obama with a set of assessments that indicated bin Laden could be hiding in a compound in northwest Pakistan. Starting in mid-March, the president convened at least nine National Security Council meetings to discuss the intelligence suggesting that bin Laden was possibly hiding out virtually in plain sight."

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/step-by-step-how-the-u-s-killed-bin-laden-20110503 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.254.175 (talk) 20:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The CIA's Last-Minute Osama bin Laden Drama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.161.187 (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ammo

The article states that buckets of ammunition were found for Glock and Beretta handguns. Neither Glock nor Beretta have handguns that take proprietary ammo and neither Glock nor Beretta manufacture ammo (to my knowledge), so I'm confused as to why the article lists the ammo relative to the gun manufacturer rather than the caliber (which is probably 9mm), which seems more appropriate. For those unfamiliar with firearms, it's hard for me to find a comparison, but it would be like suggesting a gallon of fuel was found for Fords and Toyotas. I think the article is attempting to lead the reader to a conclusion rather than stating just the facts. 74.218.207.65 (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article just uses verfiable and reliable secondary sources. That is why the article states that "according to news sources" the Pak police report that he had buckets of bullets. It states a verfiable facts only, viz. that news media reported that. This is perfectly in alignement with wiki policy. I.e. they state that buckets of bullets were found in his car that fit the calibre of guns he had. Of course, if you can find a verfiable and reliable secondary source that states the issue you have written of above with that then we can add it to the article. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Except neither of the cited sources say he had buckets of bullets. Which is hardly a surprise, because of course he didn't.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

widow's death

Somebody needs to add an update on the death of the widow of one of the victims. She and her mother were recently killed by her father — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.210.63 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? How is that relevant to this article?--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As one widow had committed suicide and is mentioned in the article, it would be noteworthy. That said, a citation would be needed that described such a murder and hopefully, a motive for such a murder.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased

I get that it was mostly US editors who wrote the entry, that therefore the obscene pro-American bias is not unexpected, but do and try to make it less subtle. As the story unfolded, the man was widely referred to even in the Western press as a spy. The main text, however, mentions the word "spy" only twice, and both times far away from the lead. There are more references to that word in the citations (5) than in the main text (2). The consensus there is now, at least outside the US, is that the man was not a diplomat and was not covered by Geneva's diplomatic conventions; most of the information contained in the section about his status, however, only undermines this impression; it even suggests — based on the words of anonymous US officials — that it was the Pakistanis who were going against the Geneva conventions, not the Americans by lying on his status and claiming immunity to a spy. I get it that what the US government and media say or report needs to be in the article, but what the Pakistani government and media say is of import too, and they have English-language outlets. The US-centric narrative in this story is an outrage. 177.40.252.69 (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

First, there is no evidence that he was a spy. A CIA employee can be anything from a clerk to security. In this specific situation, he may well have been an espionage agent. Still, you also fail on a second point: The Geneva Convention covers prisoners of *war*, not covert operations, which are completely not covered by that treaty. Indeed, only diplomatic courtesy applies and as is evidenced here, is rather variable at times. What is operable here is, two nations disputed on technical grounds his protected status. That blood money was awarded shows that the US lost that dispute and rightfully so. But, you lose on one final point. Wikipedia is international and has international editors, including yourself. If you make an entry that has a valid citation that supports it, it will remain in the article. Now, what he did, was it wrong? Yes. But, consider the situation. In rather hostile territory, conducting a necessary (whether you agree or not, the US considers it necessary and the Bin Laden bit rather proves it was necessary, not to mention *Taliban* roaming across borders), he was confronted by a hostile situation and reacted. Sorry to tell you about it, but in the real world, when you really believe you're going to die, you'll react in rather inhuman ways. We all do, it's human nature. I'm a combat veteran and know quite well how easy it is to overreact and learned to counter it after being stopped by experienced superiors. It gets that ugly and confused in adrenaline land. Sorry to other editors, but I had to vent and try to explain some problems with a viewpoint that could submit OR to an article.Wzrd1 (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)