Bomber Kills U.S. Diplomat in Pakistan

[Imran Siddiqui]

I've been past that Consulate. If they wanted a large death toll, it was a dumb target. The Consulate is surrounded by high, thick walls. Though I think they just wanted to kill one American, because they knew there was no way they'd get to the Consulate building.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Elok
Why the devil would the army need to use a diplomat as a go-between? Pakistan has telecommunications systems, and I don't think the terrorists have the ability to reliably monitor all of them

Who's going to make that telephone call, son?

Not all military information is going to pass through military channels. Some information will not be passed between American and Pakistani generals. I guarantee you that a significant amount of it will go through diplomatic channels, depending on the exact nature of the information, who's supposed to know what's being passed on, etc.

Diplomats don't just ****ing attend gala luncheons. There is no doubt in my mind that a large number of US representatives in Pakistan have been involved at one point or another in the passage of military information.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Diplomats don't just ****ing attend gala luncheons. There is no doubt in my mind that a large number of US representatives in Pakistan have been involved at one point or another in the passage of military information.

Well said. This is why I consider them legit targets.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
LOTM - Leave Wiko aside (I'm not a fan).

Diplo's are representatives of the government one is at war with. Unless under some agreed to truce they are fair game. As are government officials and armed forces (police and army).

Let us remember the civ model - "Expel or Attack"

Since we dont know who did this, hard to tell who "they" are at war with. What rights they have about "expelling" anyone.

Your point would therefore seem to strengthen the notion that these folks are illegal combatants, and whomever they attack, its not fair game.

However since some of us want to allow for the possibility of "resistance" and acknowledge that not all of it is terror, we make distinctions, including ones not found in say, the Geneva Convention (which would group all illegal combatants together) To me, targeting a foreign diplomat, who is not carrying a weapon, and is not directing those who do, is in a different category from someone attacking a soldier.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




Who's going to make that telephone call, son?

Not all military information is going to pass through military channels. Some information will not be passed between American and Pakistani generals. I guarantee you that a significant amount of it will go through diplomatic channels, depending on the exact nature of the information, who's supposed to know what's being passed on, etc.

Diplomats don't just ****ing attend gala luncheons. There is no doubt in my mind that a large number of US representatives in Pakistan have been involved at one point or another in the passage of military information.

The individual in question was a consular official, NOT at the embassy, much less a military attache. In all likelihood his job was to hand out visas, help US citizens in distress, etc. I rather doubt that those who killed him cared about that.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Since we dont know who did this, hard to tell who "they" are at war with. What rights they have about "expelling" anyone.

The US can apparently tell who 'they' are. The US has a prison or two (or three) full of 'them'.

Your point would therefore seem to strengthen the notion that these folks are illegal combatants, and whomever they attack, its not fair game.

White House semantics. Let's just call them combatants.

However since some of us want to allow for the possibility of "resistance" and acknowledge that not all of it is terror, we make distinctions, including ones not found in say, the Geneva Convention (which would group all illegal combatants together)

Tell it to the US admin.

To me, targeting a foreign diplomat, who is not carrying a weapon, and is not directing those who do, is in a different category from someone attacking a soldier.

Perhaps the diplo is directing the soldiers to the right house. Said soldiers then direct the 'suspect' to Gitmo.

Unless negotiations are agreed to, diplos are nothing more than spies.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

The US can apparently tell who 'they' are. The US has a prison or two (or three) full of 'them'.

I was referring to the specific inviduals who murdered this diplomat. If they were in Gitmo, how could they have planted a bomb in Karachi?



"White House semantics. Let's just call them combatants. "

Well, er no. If they were soldiers of a country, we could address what treaties they had, which diplos were expelled from where, under what circumstances, etc. But thats not the case here. They could kill any diplo anywhere. Or anyone else. There are good reasons for the distinction at law.

Perhaps the diplo is directing the soldiers to the right house. Said soldiers then direct the 'suspect' to Gitmo.

Well any adult could be an agent of the US govt, doing directing. By that reasoning any adult could be a legitimate target.

[lord of the mark]

from the Daily Times of Pakistan:

"More than a dozen agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation examined on Sunday the site of a suicide car bombing that killed a US diplomat in Karachi last week, a local official said. Pakistani investigators suspect that Islamic militant group Jundullah carried out the attack on Thursday, just metres from the US Consulate, in a heavily guarded neighbourhood of Karachi. Five people, including the bomber, died and 52 were wounded. Jundullah, has been suspected in attacks in the past on the US Consulate, a Christian Bible studies group, a peace concert by an Indian singer and a police station in Karachi. "


Why am I not surprised?

[Wezil]

LOTM - "They could kill any dipo anywhere..."

And the US apparently can scoop up any suspect, anywhere.

As to any adult being a legit target - Possibly. It's tough to declare 'war' but only have it on your terms.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Wezil

{LOTM - "They could kill any dipo anywhere..."

And the US apparently can scoop up any suspect, anywhere.

Except we were discussing the murder of a diplomat, not what you think of US detention policy. By the way AQ started killing US diplomats before the US was detaining folks at Gitmo or Bagram. Perhaps you havent heard of the embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi?

As to any adult being a legit target - Possibly. It's tough to declare 'war' but only have it on your terms.

Good to see you think that terrorism, the deliberate murder of civilians without regard to the laws of war, deserves a smily.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Good to see you think that terrorism, the deliberate murder of civilians without regard to the laws of war, deserves a smily.

Americans thinking it is wrong their enemies don't fight fair is what got the smiley.


Put it this way, if someone is hell bent on killing me, I will bite, gouge eyes and kick scrotums if that is what it takes to survive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The individual in question was a consular official, NOT at the embassy, much less a military attache. In all likelihood his job was to hand out visas, help US citizens in distress, etc. I rather doubt that those who killed him cared about that.

That's why I don't think that there should be open season on diplomats in wartime any more than there's open season on any number of other government functionaries.

But neither should there be a total prohibition on them, which your reference to diplomatic immunity seemed to imply.

I think that the targetting of non-military government personnel needs to be decided on a case by case basis. I neither agree with the blanket condemnation issued by some here, nor the blanket permission slip granted by Wezil.

[Wezil]

Even if he was handing out visas - So what? His efforts support the government at war with AQ.

My 'permission' is for attacks on agents of the enemy government. The US has declared 'war' (as nebulous as this declaration is) on AQ and I would be surprised if AQ didn't take out some diplo's.

I will not support attacks on civilians who are not agents of the government. If the 'adults' referred to earlier were directing government actions then they too would be included (hence my answer of 'perhaps').

[KrazyHorse]

And what about the guy who mops floors at the embassy? Is he a legitimate target too?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And what about the guy who mops floors at the embassy? Is he a legitimate target too?

This reminds of the Death Star discussion in Clerks .