SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
In a feature at Foreign Policy, I explore in greater depth the case of Raymond A. Davis, a CIA contractor who shot and killed two Pakistanis on a motorcycle back on January 27. Many Americans know this as the case involving a clean-cut former Special Forces soldier turned diplomat who fired in self-defense as two Pakistanis were trying to rob him. Many Pakistanis know it as the case involving a U.S. spy who, in cold blood, shot and killed two Pakistani intelligence agents sent to tail him. The conflict is about more momentous questions than a double homicide in central Lahore.
One angle of the story that merits further attention is Washington’s attitude toward diplomatic immunity. It is of course standard operating procedure for governments around the world to give their intelligence agents diplomatic cover. But this means following a process of formal registration, and that process may have been botched in the Davis case. More generally, Washington’s recent attitude toward this process is riddled with contradictions and increasingly hard to comprehend.
As Eileen Danza notes in her recent work on diplomatic law, the United States has become aggressive in attempting to weed out spies in diplomatic clothing. It requires foreign missions to provide accurate and complete descriptions of the job assignments of staffers to help it in this process—those who are not in fact performing diplomatic tasks can be quickly sorted out and invited to leave. But the United States itself continues to abuse diplomatic cover, relying on loose and unclear descriptions of personnel as being involved in “security” or “technical assistance” or simply as “technical staff.”
Even more puzzling is United States practice as to when to assert the diplomatic privilege and when to bail after cover is blown. Juxtapose the Davis case, in which diplomatic immunity is tenaciously asserted on fairly flimsy grounds, with the Abu Omar prosecution in Italy, in which the United States abandoned the pretense of diplomatic immunity for a number of figures, like Robert Lady and Sabrina De Sousa, even though their diplomatic cover was well established, while asserting it aggressively for Jeffrey W. Castelli, widely known as the CIA’s Rome station chief and the apparent mastermind of the kidnapping scheme. The practice seems to be a series of subjective calls that may tell us only who has the most pull at Langley. The outcome alone suggests that decisions about invoking immunity are taken by the CIA rather than the State Department. That would also explain the government’s incoherent secrecy demands in cases like the De Sousa suit. Is secrecy being asserted to protect legitimate state secrets, or to cloak a government employee who has acted capriciously?
Whether diplomatic cover will effectively protect spies is increasingly questionable. The Abu Omar case shows that prosecutors are reluctant to accept diplomatic immunity when the actors aren’t actually diplomats and they have engaged in extremely serious criminal conduct—like kidnapping, torture, and murder. On the other hand, it is clear that these spy games undermine confidence in the entire concept of diplomatic immunity and thereby threaten the security of legitimate diplomats around the world. That’s a consequence that merits some attention in Washington and elsewhere.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
On a Friday evening in January, a thousand people at the annual California Native Plant Society conference in San Jose settled down to a banquet and a keynote speech delivered by an environmental historian named Jared Farmer. His chosen topic was the eucalyptus tree and its role in California’s ecology and history. The address did not go well. Eucalyptus is not a native plant but a Victorian import from Australia. In the eyes of those gathered at the San Jose DoubleTree, it qualified as “invasive,” “exotic,” “alien” — all dirty words to this crowd, who were therefore convinced that the tree was dangerously combustible, unfriendly to birds, and excessively greedy in competing for water with honest native species.
In his speech, Farmer dutifully highlighted these ugly attributes, but also quoted a few more positive remarks made by others over the years. This was a reckless move. A reference to the tree as “indigenously Californian” elicited an abusive roar, as did an observation that without the aromatic import, the state would be like a “home without its mother.” Thereafter, the mild-mannered speaker was continually interrupted by boos, groans, and exasperated gasps. Only when he mentioned the longhorn beetle, a species imported (illegally) from Australia during the 1990s with the specific aim of killing the eucalyptus, did he earn a resounding cheer.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A tourism company in Australia announced a service that will allow users to take the “world’s biggest selfies,” and a Texas man accidentally killed himself while trying to pose for a selfie with a handgun.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”