Did Israeli Lobby Stage a Coup Against Petraeus?

Did the Israeli Lobby Stage a Coup Against the Director of the CIA?

New York Times Hints that the Downfall of Petraeus was Politically-Motivated

By Michael Hoffman

Motives Questioned in F.B.I. Inquiry of Petraeus E-Mails

By Scott Shane And Charlie Savage

New York Times online, Nov. 12, 2012

WASHINGTON — Is a string of angry e-mails really enough, in an age of boisterous online exchanges, to persuade the F.B.I. to open a cyberstalking investigation?

...e-mails sent anonymously to Jill Kelley...prompted the F.B.I. office in Tampa, Fla., to begin an investigation last June....The inquiry traced the e-mails to Mr. Petraeus’s biographer, Paula Broadwell ...Some commentators have questioned whether the bureau would ordinarily investigate a citizen complaint about unwanted e-mails, suggesting that there must have been a hidden motive, possibly political, to take action. 

...Ms. Kelley, a volunteer with wounded veterans and military families, brought her complaint to a rank-and-file agent she knew from a previous encounter with the F.B.I. office... Ms. Kelly was fairly prominent in Tampa social circles and had previously had dealings with the F.B.I. agent who took her complaint...That agent, who had previously pursued a friendship with Ms. Kelley and had earlier sent her shirtless photographs of himself, was “just a conduit” for the complaint, a law enforcement official said. He had no training in cybercrime, was not part of the cyber squad handling the case and was never assigned to the investigation...But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case...

Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, officials say — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct. 31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns. The official said the agent’s self-described “whistle-blowing” was “a little embarrassing” but had no effect on the investigation. (End quote from the New York Times online).

 There’s definitely a hint in the preceding report by the New York Times that Jill Kelley invites erotic responses from male FBI agents, one of whom was an asset of a powerful Israeli lobbyist, Republican Rep. Eric Cantor. On his own initiative this “shirtless” agent reported the case to Cantor. The New York Times does not say if this FBI agent breeched security by doing so.

Eric Cantor said “an F.B.I. employee whom his staff described as a whistle-blower told him about Mr. Petraeus's affair and a possible security breach in late October... 'I was contacted by an F.B.I. employee concerned that sensitive, classified information may have been compromised and made certain (FBI) Director Mueller was aware of these serious allegations and the potential risk to our national security,' Mr. Cantor said in a statement.” (New York Times online, Nov. 11).

 One wonders if Petraeus was set up, like Mordechai Vanunu; only in this case Broadwell may have been a patsy: “On Monday night, F.B.I. agents went to Ms. Broadwell’s home in Charlotte, N.C., and were seen carrying away what several reporters at the scene said were boxes of documents. A law enforcement official said Ms. Broadwell had consented to the search” (NY Times online, Nov. 12).

Her surrender of documents from her house without a search warrant would appall any competent defense attorney. It is the action of a scapegoat, or a person under some type of duress or mind control.

In 2010, General Petraeus fingered the Israeli-Palestine conflict as making life difficult for US troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan. His assessment violated the Israeli lobby’s sacred taboo against any such linkage:

“In March 2010, when Petraeus was still head of the US Central Command, he gave testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee which included this observation about one of the “challenges to security and stability” faced by the United States:

"The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR [Area of Operations]. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world...’

“Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was so alarmed he issued a statement condemning Petraeus’ testimony, asserting in part of it: ‘Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.’

“....Obama appointed Petraeus as CIA director after he made his Senate statement about Israel.” (Source: “When former CIA chief David Petraeus enraged the Israel lobby” http://electronicintifada.net/)

 In this writer’s opinion, the Petraeus sex scandal may have been intended to break during the presidential election campaign to embarrass Obama and cost him votes. The fact that it became public only after Nov. 6 shows that Obama’s forces inside the Cryptocracy successfully kept it under cover, and that’s some feat.

Nonetheless, there is a thinly-veiled message here for the President of the United States from the wing of the Cryptocracy which opposes him: we can bring you down too, if you don’t get on the Israeli bus and do the bidding of the necon war lobby, at least to the extent that your base will permit.

Of course, Petraeus should not have committed adultery. It is certainly gravely wrong. A man who will betray his wife will betray his country. But there are hundreds of high-level adulterers, to say nothing of thousands of practicing sodomites, working in La Cesspool Grande (Washington D.C.), who fornicate and sodomize with impunity. When one among this legion is singled out it is prudent to ask why.

Observe that the Zionist New York Times is subtly hinting at a possible conspiracy against Petraeus. By this means they display to the world the intimidating power of The Lobby. They don’t mind suggesting that Petraeus was deposed by hidden forces, knowing that informed observers are aware that Petraeus bucked the Israelis at one point in his career, and that’s all it takes for the axe to fall.

Unless serious investigative reporting and Congressional hearings dig up the conspirators behind this honey trap, we see in the Petraeus scandal a case of the Israeli lobby flexing its muscle on the national stage. The warning to Obama and his allies is unmistakable: pay and obey -- or else. It’s the old mobster’s dictum and that’s who Petraeus and company are dealing with -- hoodlum grandees with the power to ruin the director of America’s Central Intelligence Agency.

Think about the kind of clout this represents and then ask yourself, does anyone in gentile America have the power to depose the director of Mossad? Not bloody likely.

Petraeus was brought down in a coup d’etat. He is fortunate it happened like this, rather than in that other classic gangland sendoff, the arranged “accident” -- the chemically-induced heart attack; the automobile with “defective” brakes that sails off a cliff, or a strategic shove, like the one that led to the defenestration of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal in 1949.

Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press, where he investigated the Son of Sam and Double Initial serial murders. His latest book is Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not, due to be published by Independent History and Research in December. He edits Revisionist History Newsletter. As an independent scholar Hoffman’s writing is funded by the sale of his publications and broadcasts, and donations mainly from the working poor and middle class.

***

Read More

Those “Iranian” Bombings

By Michael Hoffman
www.revisionisthistory.org

Soon after India agreed to buy Iranian oil and circumvent western sanctions against Iran, a car bomb attributed to Iran was detonated in India.

Today in Thailand, on China's doorstep, explosions are being blamed on an "Iranian national." Until now, China has refused to support a war on Iran.

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, stated: "Israel has bombed its embassies in New Delhi, India and Tbilisi, Georgia to tarnish Iran's friendly ties with the host countries," adding, "Israel perpetrated the terrorist actions to launch psychological warfare against Iran."

False flag operations are a means by which the secret services of nations like the Israeli entity and the US Federal government rule the world. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the 9/11 terror attacks are but two examples of this.

The media are complicit by reporting the bombings in India and Thailand according to the American/Israeli script, rather than stating the fact that the Mossad is an organization known to have mastered false flag "black ops," and then launching an investigation into the likelihood that the recent attacks attributed to Iran are the work of the CIA and/or the Mossad.

Mossad Commander Tamir Pardo

The psychological warfare includes constantly maintaining the American people in a pressure cooker of extreme anxiety over the likelihood of an imminent terror attack by supposed Iranian agents operating in the U.S. 

Classic war propaganda from Mossad’s mouthpiece: The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 14, 2012

This dose of ludicrous fear-mongering comes in the form of a nearly half-page editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “The Iranian Threat to New York City.” Like 9 years ago with Iraq, the media drums of war are again beating, this time for destroying the Iranian nation based on false flag bombs planted by the Mossad and CIA and blamed on Iran. 

The author, Mitchell D. Silber, the New York City Police Department’s chief of intelligence, writes the following gibberish: “As the West’s conflict with Iran over its nuclear program heats up, New York City — with its large Jewish population — becomes an increasingly attractive target.” This rhetoric is almost identical to Zionist propaganda in the New York Times ten years ago asserting a “mushroom cloud” over the U.S. if we didn’t stop Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Silber does not tell his frightened Wall Street Journal readers that Iran’s own Judaic community, which is entirely at the mercy of the government, lives in comfort and safety. Silber is giving advance cues to the American people so that if Mossad plants a bomb in a Judaic neighborhood in New York, the public will immediately surmise, “Iran’s behind it!” This is lynch mob thinking which the Wall Street Journal ought to denounce rather than enhance.

Record of Terror by U.S. and Israelis Dwarf Alleged Acts by Iran

Harvard University Prof. Steven M. Walt observes: "...two very capable states -- the United States and Israel -- threatening to attack a country that hardly seems worth the effort. The U.S. and Israel together spend more than $700 billion each year on their national security establishments; Iran spends about $10 billion. The U.S. and Israel have the most advanced military hardware in the world; Iran's weapons are mostly outdated and lack spare parts. The U.S. and Israeli militaries are well-educated and very well-trained; not true of Iran.

"The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons and Israel has several hundred, while Iran has a vast arsenal of -- zero. Iran does have a nuclear enrichment program (which is the reason for all the war talk), but the most recent National Intelligence Estimates have concluded that Iran does not presently have an active nuclear weapons program.

"The United States has several dozen military bases in Iran's immediate vicinity; Iran has exactly none in the Western hemisphere. The United States has powerful allies in every corner of the world; Iran's friends include a handful of minor nonstate actors like Hezbollah or minor-league potentates like Bashar al Assad (who's not looking like an asset these days) or Hugo Chávez.

"Moreover, the United States has fought four wars since 1990. It has bombed, invaded or occupied a half dozen countries in that period, leading to the deaths of thousands of people.

"Israel has been colonizing the West Bank since 1967, it invaded and occupied much of Lebanon from 1982 to 1999, and its armed forces pummeled Lebanon again in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-09.

"Prominent U.S. politicians have repeatedly called for "regime change" in Iran, and U.S. government officials now report that Israel has been murdering civilian scientists in Iran, in cahoots with the MEK, a terrorist organization that is still on the State Department's terrorist "watchlist." Iran's past conduct is far from pure, but it has done nothing remotely similar in recent years..."

As Prof. Walt points out, the United States and Europe are not actually threatened by Iran, even as we terrorize the Iranians with crippling sanctions, sabotage of their infrastructure and assassination of their scientists. All of these acts are, as Rep. Ron Paul has stated, acts of war.

Iran does threaten the status quo in two areas: in Palestine, where the rest of the world, including the Arab world, are sunk in complacency concerning the periodic masacres which the Israelis inflict and the ongoing theft and occupation of Palestinian land; and in countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia which viciously repress Shiite populations. In Bahrain the Shia are a majority tyrannized by a Sunni minority.

Neither situation is any of our business. We should be sending medical and humanitarian aid and goodwill and cultural ambassadors to all sides in the Middle East, and otherwise taking a hands off approach to these never-ending religious wars which are none of our affair, especially in view of our "budget deficit."

Thanks to a Zionist-dominated American media however, and church leaders who teach that contemporary Israelis are genetic descendants of Abraham and the Israeli state is a Biblical (rather than a Talmudic) nation, we have a U.S. Congress which is Israeli-occupied territory.

Not all the fault is with the Traditional Enemies of Truth. For the past thirty years the Iranians and Syrians have done almost nothing to cultivate influence over the propagation and marketing of news and information in the United States. As a result of their neglect, quite naturally their enemies have obtained a monopoly on reporting conflicts to the American people.

If Iran does become a threat it will be due to the fact that we made them a threat and goaded them into attacking us, just as the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt did to Japan on the eve of America's entry into World War Two (cf. Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover's Secret History of the Second World War, edited by George H. Nash; and Day of Deceit by Robert B. Stinnett).

We’ve forgotten the lies that prodded us into war just nine years ago

In a speech by then President George W. Bush of October 7, 2002, Bush cited alleged Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear programs - as well as concerns about possible Iraqi connections to international terrorist groups. With respect to how close Iraq was to developing a nuclear weapon, Bush said that "we don't know exactly." He went on to state that "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."

In the face of requests that the U.S. provide further evidence in support of its position that Iraq was failing to comply with U.N. resolution 1441 and that a resort to military force would be necessary unless Iraq's behavior changed, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003. The bulk of Powell's remarks involved his presentation of "additional information about what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement with Al Qaeda associates. In his February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell charged that Iraq had begun constructing mobile facilities to produce biological weapons.

On September 8, 2002, the New York Times published a front page article by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction which was one of the most serious cases of misreporting in the entire run-up to the war. The piece provided a major boost to the administration’s case for war and proved to be wrong in almost every detail.

Michael Massing writes: "It was the prospect of Saddam Hussein’s getting an atomic bomb that caused the most fear about his regime, and it was this fear that the Bush administration most sought to fan as it pushed the case for war. Yet it had little concrete evidence to show that Iraq was actively seeking a bomb. Enter the New York Times. In that September 8 story, Gordon and Miller, leaning heavily on Bush officials, offered the aluminum tubes as evidence that Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear weapon. The article did not simply raise this as a possibility — it asserted it in bold and unequivocal language. 'US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts' ran the headline. Iraq, the lead declared, 'has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

Another New York Times report by government mouthpieces Gordon and Miller, published on Sept. 13 was heavily slanted to the CIA’s position. It iced out critics of the claims that Iraq was trying to gain nuclear weapons and insulted the critics, trivializing and dismising them. Prior to Sept. 13 David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security warned Judith Miller concerning her support for CIA claims. He states: "...an administration official was quoted as saying that 'the best' technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessment. These inaccuracies made their way into the story despite several discussions that I had with Miller on the day before the story appeared — some well into the night. In the end, nobody was quoted questioning the CIA’s position, as I would have expected."

Massing notes "...the Times‘s heavy reliance on official sources and its dismissal of other sources...on the critical issue of whether Iraq was actively seeking a nuclear bomb, the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) had found strong indications that it was not. And how did the Times cover these key statements? With two short, pro forma stories buried inside the A section...The Times ran three front-page stories on Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. Security Council speech, one by Michael Gordon...Gordon offered unqualified praise for Powell's assertions about Iraq’s WMD. 'The case Mr. Powell presented today regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction' was 'remorseless,' Gordon wrote. “Even the skeptics,” he added, 'had to concede that Mr. Powell’s presentation had been an important milestone in the debate. Critics may try to challenge the strength of the administration’s case and they will no doubt argue that inspectors be given more time. But it will be difficult for the skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.'

"On the nuclear issue, Gordon wrote, Powell 'presented new details to buttress the administration’s case;' in particular, he cited Powell’s claim that the United States 'has intercepted aluminum tubes that had a special coating that would make them useful for making centrifuges to enrich uranium.' Remarkably, Gordon did not see fit to mention the IAEA findings that undermined this claim and that he, Gordon, had twice written about in the previous month. So, at this key juncture in the debate on Iraq, Gordon uncritically transmitted a key US claim, one that the inspectors had effectively discredited. In the light of such reporting, is it any surprise that the IAEA findings had such limited impact?"

Doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars

The American people continue to maintain faith in the credibility of the corporate media and as a result of this willful gullibility, they are on a nightmarish merry-go-round, doomed to repeat ruinous scripts from past wars like the war with Iraq, which was fought on the basis of a barrel of (now forgotten) lies about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi tries to Al Qaeda.

Any armed resistance against Israeli occupation on the part of national liberation organizations such as Hezbollah, which years ago liberated the El Khiam concentration camp in Lebanon from the control of the Israeli proxies who ran that hellhole, is considered "terrorism." In the eyes of the West the sacred nation of fraudsters who deceitfully call themselves "Israel" cannot be opposed by force of arms. Shiite Islam views the Israelis as Nazis and uses the same tactics against them which the much hallowed partisans of World War Two employed against the Germans.

America's Talmudic mentality will not entertain the analogy however: bombing German Nazis is considered heroic; bombing Israeli Nazis is regarded as the lowest form of demonic evil. Unfortunately for the Zionist occupiers of the U.S. government and media, much of the rest of the world doesn't buy this Talmudic double-standard.

We doubt that the recent spate of bombings on the doorstep of China and Russia, and in India's backyard, will be viewed by the governments of those nations as Iranian in origin.

What a coincidence that the three nations most sympathetic to Iran are suddenly experiencing "Iranian" bombings within or near their territory.

Copyright ©2012 www.revisionisthistory.org

Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered and Judaism's Strange Gods, and co-author of The Israeli Holocaust Against the Palestinians. He wrote the introduction and compiled the annotated bibliography for Johann Andreas Eisenmenger's The Traditions of the Jews. Hoffman edits Revisionist History newsletter. His work is supported solely through donations from readers and the sale of his books, recordings and newsletters.

***

Read More

Wall Street Journal Reporter Responds to Hoffman’s charges

In yesterday’s On the Contrary column we took the Wall Street Journal to task for omitting important contextual facts in  the newspaper’s reporting on the “opposition movement” in Iran ("Iran opponents said to be jailed," Wall Street Journal, March 1).

The reporter who wrote the "Wall Street Journal" article has responded. Our rejoinder follows the reporter’s reply.

On Mar 1, 2011, at 6:59, Fassihi, Farnaz wrote:

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your note. The points that you refer to as being omitted are not facts, they are theories mostly put forth by Iran's government in defense of its crackdowns on the opposition. The reason we don't elaborate on Iran's charges that opposition are agents of U.S. and Israel is because Iran has given no evidence for us to elaborate. It has not presented or proved these charges in court or trial or made public any evidence to back these claims.

We diligently report our stories and try to stay away from conspiracy theories and repeating rhetoric.

Regards,
Farnaz

On Mar 2, 2011, Michael Hoffman wrote:

Dear Farnaz Fassihi

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that Iranian scientist Majid Shahriari was killed by a bomb and a second scientist, Fereydoon Abbasi, was seriously injured in Tehran on Nov. 29 and that Dr. Abbasi's wife was also killed in the bombing?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that Seymour Hersh reported in "The New Yorker":

"Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership...The Finding was focussed on...trying to undermine the government through regime change...in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions (is) the pursuit of 'high-value targets'..." (--"The Bush Administration Steps Up Its Secret Moves Against Iran," The New Yorker, July 7, 2008).

Is it “Iran’s government” that put this forth, or Seymour Hersh?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States government?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that the Israelis are on record seeking the overthrow of the Iranian government?

Is it a "conspiracy theory" that "The Telegraph" newspaper reported:

"Israel has launched a covert war against Iran as an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran's nuclear program...The most dramatic element of the 'decapitation' program is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations...Reva Bhalla, a senior analyst with Stratfor, the US private intelligence company with strong government security connections, said the strategy was to take out key people....'Without military strikes, there is still considerable scope for disrupting and damaging the Iranian program and this has been done with some success,' said Yossi Melman, a prominent Israeli journalist who covers security and intelligence issues for the Haaretz newspaper." ("Israel launches covert war against Iran," The Telegraph [UK], Feb. 16, 2009).

Is it “Iran’s government” that put this forth, or “Haaretz" newspaper and "The Telegraph" newspaper?

By pretending that the U.S. and Israel have no programs in place to overthrow the government of Iran, you give the false impression that Iran is secure from foreign subversion and terror and that the controversy over the opposition movement is an internal matter.

You are reporting the Iranian opposition movement in a vacuum. You serve the neocon agenda, not the truth.

Shame on you!

Sincerely,
Michael Hoffman

***

Hoffman's writing and research is entirely reader-supported - through donations and the purchase of his books, newsletters and recordings.

***

Read More

Pakistan: Mystery of US gunman Raymond Davis continues to grow

UPDATED Feb. 21: The incident took place about eight miles from the U.S. consulate. CIA “contractor" and former Blackwater mercenary Raymond Davis was carrying loaded weapons and had a GPS satellite device in his possession. Police say Davis shot each victim five times, including in their backs, and lied to police about how he arrived at the scene. Television stations have broadcast leaked photos, allegedly recovered from Davis's cellphone and camera, that include images of bridges, markets and the road leading to the border with India. Senior State Department officials have said that Davis was not supposed to carry a weapon in Pakistan, while other U.S. officials said that he was a security contractor and did have permission to carry the weapon. Pakistani news reports have said Davis worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, but the United States has steadfastly declined to say anything beyond the fact that he works for the U.S. government. As an investigative-journalist my job is to think outside the box and ask tough questions. If I were in Pakistan I would be asking, is western intelligence covertly directing Al-Qaeda? If so, was Raymond Davis or his commanders in the Toyota (see below) spotting potential target-sites for the next Al-Qaeda bombing. Far-fetched? Perhaps, or perhaps you are too gullible. (Pakistan protestors refer to Davis as a "terrorist"). The U.S. media is doing very little with this story. On Feb. 21 the NY Times reported that Davis was acting as a reconnaissance “scout” for  covert operations in Pakistan, “part of secret war run by the CIA." Here is the BBC report from Feb. 17:

 Q & A: Lahore Shootings - Unanswered questions

Street protests

Continue reading the main story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12491288

A court in Pakistan has delayed a hearing to decide whether an American who shot dead two men in Lahore last month has diplomatic immunity. The arrest of Raymond Davis has severely damaged relations between the countries. Much of the detail in the case remains unclear - the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan looks at some of the unanswered questions.

Is Raymond Davis a diplomat?

If you are thinking of a suavely dressed man in a three-piece suit who holds meetings with local officials to further or broaden his country's agenda, you would be wrong. Mr Davis was definitely not employed for his diplomatic skills - he is more a "hands-on" person, working in what the US embassy says is its "administrative and technical affairs section". Reports from the US say he is a former special forces soldier who left the military in 2003 and is working for the US embassy in Pakistan. As such, the US insists he is covered by the Vienna Convention which guarantees immunity from prosecution for all diplomatic staff.

Could he be a spy?

Many Pakistanis believe he is - there seem few other credible explanations as to why he was going around Lahore with a Glock pistol in a car with local number plates without informing local authorities. It is a requirement for embassy staff - especially those from Western embassies - to inform local police of their movements, simply because they are prime targets for militants in Pakistan. Mr Davis's department in the US embassy is widely seen in Pakistan as a cover for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations. Mr Davis himself said he was a consultant employed by the US government. Researchers in the US say that since leaving the military, Mr Davis worked for a security firm called Hyperion LLC. But subsequent investigations by the US media have now shown that Hyperion exists only as a website. The offices that the company says it has in Orlando have been vacant for several years and the numbers on its website are unlisted.

 Mystery man Davis 

Can Mr Davis be convicted for the murders?

Maybe. It all depends on how eager the Pakistani authorities are to punish him. The fact that he is possibly a spy does not mean he is not covered by diplomatic immunity. It is common practice for intelligence services across the world to send operatives under the cover of assignments to embassies. Both Pakistani and US "diplomats" have been caught in such situations - and every time have been asked to leave the host country immediately with no possibility of a return. That is the maximum punishment that has been levied in the overwhelming majority of cases in countries which have signed the Vienna Convention. However, in some countries there are exceptions for serious offences committed, such as murder. Pakistan is one of those countries. The matter is now in the hands of the judiciary. But it is important to remember that Mr Davis has been charged with murder - the maximum sentence here is the death penalty.

Should Mr Davis have been carrying a gun?

Legally speaking, only Pakistani citizens with licences issued by the interior ministry are allowed to carry arms. No foreigner is allowed to carry arms, except soldiers or guards within the premises of an embassy. Both Pakistani nationals and foreigners caught carrying arms can be charged under a Pakistani criminal law which stipulates a jail term of six months to two years in addition to a fine. Mr Davis has also been charged under this law.

Widow committed suicide

Was he acting in self-defense?

That was the initial plea made by Mr Davis and the US embassy. However, subsequent investigations by the police, forensic labs and the local and international media suggest that the two men were driving away from Mr Davis when they were shot. In February Lahore's police chief said that Mr Davis was guilty of "cold-blooded murder" - he said that no fingerprints had been uncovered on the triggers of the pistols found on the bodies of the two men. Furthermore he said that tests had shown that the bullets remained in the magazines of their guns, not the chambers, suggesting they weren't about to shoot him. On the face of it, this leaves Mr Davis's claim that they were robbers - with one even apparently cocking a gun at his head - looking very thin. In addition, police say ballistics evidence shows that the pair were shot in the back - which again suggests they were moving away from Mr Davis, rather than about to attack him.

Who were the Pakistanis that Mr Davis shot?

In his initial statement, Mr Davis said they were robbers who were trying to steal his valuables. He and the US embassy have maintained this story. However, the men have no criminal records as such. Both have been identified as residents of Lahore by the police. The pair were carrying licensed pistols - a fact which led many to believe they might indeed have been robbers. However, security sources in Lahore say that they were part-time or low-level operatives for the local intelligence services. Although reports are sketchy about what they were doing in relation to Mr Davis, security officials believe it could be the case of a surveillance operation gone horribly wrong. Pakistani intelligence services routinely tail and monitor all embassy staff, Western or otherwise.

 Victim of Toyota driver

What about the second car and its victim?

A side event to the main drama concerning Mr Davis was the fact a third man was also killed during the incident. He was an innocent bystander run over by a US embassy vehicle, which was initially said to have arrived to rescue Mr Davis. The fact that an embassy vehicle was able to get to the spot so quickly was a source of astonishment to anyone who is even vaguely aware of the geography of Lahore. Given the incident was over within minutes, it seems incredible that anyone could negotiate the 12km (7.4-mile) 40-minute drive in peak traffic in less than five minutes. But subsequent investigations have now shown that the second car - a Toyota Landcruiser - was with Mr Davis at the time of the incident. In fact, according to eyewitnesses, Mr Davis was leading and clearing the way for the Toyota when the incident took place. In the light of what happened afterwards, it seems Mr Davis was in "protective mode" and opened fire to "secure" whoever or whatever was in the Toyota - the interior of this vehicle was not visible as its windows were tinted. It is evident in local TV footage that the second vehicle is going away from Mr Davis at the time of the incident. As it disappears into the dust, Mr Davis calmly pulls over and gives himself up. Pakistani authorities have asked for the Landcruiser and its driver to be handed over - a request with which the US has yet to comply.

What about behind-the-scenes negotiations?

As well as public pressure, US officials have also privately warned Pakistan's government of far-reaching and severe consequences if Mr Davis is convicted. Unnamed US officials have also used the media to issue veiled warnings to Pakistan that diplomatic ties could be cut and all aid stopped. Despite Islamabad's public stance on Mr Davis, Pakistani officials are said to have privately assured Washington that he will eventually be released. However, public pressure means that at the moment this could lead to a massive anti-government backlash. Pakistan's Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, has hinted that blood money could be paid to the families of the two men Mr Davis admits shooting, which could enable his release. There is speculation that US officials may try to establish contacts with the families in this regard. However, it is not clear that Mr Davis has been charged under laws which would allow blood money to be paid. 

***

Read More