Well, well...looks like Mr. Akram has been sent home packing with his wife beaters.. Excellent move by the Pakistani government. We don't need diplomats making a more news on a personal front.
Finally, as I expected, it was all hot air with no substance.
Investigations against Pak envoy to UN dropped
NEW YORK: The ‘interest’ the district attorney of Manhattan took in the investigations of an incident of personal nature, occurring in January at the residence of Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Munir Akram, had perturbed the diplomatic community.
The matter raised the issue of waiver of diplomatic immunity of the ambassador by Islamabad. Apart from personal anguish and public embarrassment to the ambassador, speculations about his withdrawal and replacement were also in currency. Pakistan’s role at the UN seemed to be compromised, as the news about the ‘interest’ was reported by the US and Pakistani media. However, a sudden ‘drop of interest to investigate the incident’ has brought some relief to Pakistanis.
Sources said the district attorney could not find any evidence to develop a case and dropped the investigation. This would pave way for Munir Akram to continue serving Pakistan at the UN. 
The speculations that Islamabad would send a new envoy to the UN to replace Munir Akram also died down and now it is clear that he will continue as Pakistan’s envoy.
“I look forward to serving the national interests of Pakistan at the United Nations and in the Security Council as it takes up issues of vital concerns to International Community and Pakistan,” Munir Akram said after he learnt about the district attorney’s decision to drop ‘interest in investigations’. **“The facts were yet to be established if there was any proof or substance; but the diplomat’s image was put at risk. That is not fair in the case of a diplomat who is serving at the UN and not in the US,” ** said one diplomat.
PT, am I to then understand that you'd actually want this chap to continue? wouldn't it be like Trent Lott continuing as majority leader?
secondly, such weakness can lead to blackmail...imagine, acompromised ambassador
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
PT, am I to then understand that you'd actually want this chap to continue?
[/quote]
Just to keep the record straight and clear.
[quote]
wouldn't it be like Trent Lott continuing as majority leader?
[/quote]
Case of Akram and Trent Lott is different, therefore, your comparison is lame.
[quote]
secondly, such weakness can lead to blackmail...imagine, acompromised ambassador
[/QUOTE]
No one able to proved charges against Munir Akram. Case finally closed. No games. Just sports.
alright. so even if this guy is a woman beater, you will have him represent pakistan to outside world! ofcourse, the 911 call tape is not evidence in your eyes? seems the skin is getting thicker and thicker
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
alright. so even if this guy is a woman beater,
[/quote]
ahem
His ex-girlfriend. No proof that he beated that woman. Do I made myself clear or are you havin' a tough time readin' between the lines?
[quote]
you will have him represent pakistan to outside world!
[/quote]
Not your problem.
[quote]
ofcourse, the 911 call tape is not evidence in your eyes? seems the skin is getting thicker and thicker
[/QUOTE]
JJ, there's a forum on Gupshup, known as Jokes. Try again. :)
PT, why are you defending a criminal like this? what does pakistan loose by throwing the rascal out and getting someone with some decency and common sense in? don't you see the credibility of your country negatively impacted by such behavior?
people do dumb things...beating women up (whether current or ex-girlfirend does not matter) is more evil than just dumb. but having such a person represent a country is shameful in the eyes of normal upstanding people. defending that stance is as bad too.
what am I missing? it is uncharacteristic of you to be defending this crook!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
PT, why are you defending a criminal like this?
[/quote]
First of all, he's not a criminal.
[quote]
what does pakistan loose by throwing the rascal out and getting someone with some decency and common sense in?
[/quote]
Use common sense, JJ.
[quote]
don't you see the credibility of your country negatively impacted by such behavior?
[/quote]
It's not what you know, it's what you can prove! Was investigation able to proof any charges against him? NO
[quote]
people do dumb things...beating women up (whether current or ex-girlfirend does not matter) is more evil than just dumb. but having such a person represent a country is shameful in the eyes of normal upstanding people. defending that stance is as bad too.
[/quote]
JJ, this accident never happened. Why the hell district dropped charges against him? Was he threatening by the ISI as well?
[quote]
what am I missing? it is uncharacteristic of you to be defending this crook!
[/QUOTE]
Either you are naive or have no idea what the discussion of this thread is about. Has the case againt him proven? Has he found guilty? The answer is NO. Dig yourself, go over the thread again. If you won't able figured out either, then you are just a cry little poor soul.
In the end, he's not a crook. Watch your mouth.
so how do you explain the 911 call? you do know all such calls are taped. was the woman faking it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
so how do you explain the 911 call?
[/quote]
Don't have to as the case closed with lack of evidence.
[quote]
you do know all such calls are taped.
[/quote]
Correct.
[quote]
was the woman faking it?
[/QUOTE]
Precisely. District attorney could not find any evidence to develop a case and dropped the investigation.
EOD
sadly PT you may be on thin ice in this matter. Following is the White House press briefing; if at all charges let go it’ll only be to avoid further embarassment to islamabad. this dude will be gone in a fe months once the press forgets the incident
============================================
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03010804.htm
Question: Richard, you said that it’s a police matter or law enforcement matter. My understanding is that the other party in this case has said that she doesn’t want to press charges. So how does the – you know, what are the grounds on which the New York City Police Department would have to prosecute someone if they don’t have charges –
Mr. Boucher: I think that’s a question of New York law, New York prosecutors, New York police, and I’m sure they’ll be happy to explain all that to you.
Question: Sure. I recognize that, but in terms of your asking the Pakistani Government to waive diplomatic immunity –
Mr. Boucher: They decide on the legal grounds, on what happens legally in terms of the allegations and possible legal proceedings. Our job is to try to get the other government to waive immunity so that those procedures can take place. So any explanations of the legal aspects of this really need to come from the local authorities.
Question: So then – sorry. So then is it the case that any time a law enforcement official comes to the State Department and asks you to get a government to waive diplomatic immunity, you take that at face value and ask that government to do so?
Mr. Boucher: We trust our legal system.
Question: Richard, it is the State Department’s –
Mr. Boucher: That’s our general policy. I’m not sure if there might have been some exception some time, but yes, our general policy is that whenever there are legal proceedings based on US law involving diplomats that we go and ask for a waiver of the diplomatic immunity.
Question: Richard, the State Department does – operates on the theory that in US criminal law, it is not the victim who brings charges against the accused; it’s rather the state, right?
Mr. Boucher: There’s an abundance of lawyers who can explain US criminal law to you –
Question: I’m just trying to maybe explain why –
Mr. Boucher: You can explain it to your colleague, if you want. I’m not going to – not going to use the podium to do that.
Question: Richard, a technical aspect of this. When you – if you do waive – if they do waive immunity, does that waiver only apply to one particular complaint, one particular incident, or is it broader than that?
Mr. Boucher: That is normally the case. I’m not sure if there have been situations where it was broader than that, where we might have asked for it to be broader than that, but it usually pertains to the particular matter.
Question: While we’re on this, do you know if this has been raised in Islamabad, or has it just been between here and New York?
Mr. Boucher: It’s been raised in a number of places.
Question: Including Islamabad?
Mr. Boucher: Including Islamabad, yeah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
sadly PT you may be on thin ice in this matter. Following is the White House press briefing; if at all charges let go it'll only be to avoid further embarassment to islamabad. this dude will be gone in a fe months once the press forgets the incident
[/quote]
Jagjeevan, you are still clutching at straws; embarassin' to yourself .
Your source doesn't proof Munir Akram's case, which is closed. If yes, give that evidence to District Attroney of Manhathan.
Btw: Are you still havin' a tough time readin' between the words?
are you willing to bet this dude will be around in this job 6 months from now?
Could be.