Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 18, 2010 ………………………….
QUESTION: P.J., another topic. There is a New York Times story about the – one of the wives of David Headley, who was involved in the Mumbai attacks, that apparently a year before that attack, she went to the American authorities in Pakistan to warn them that she thought that he was involved in some type of plotting for an attack, but it was never followed up on. And this was not the first warning – that there was another wife who did it years before. Is this a communications breakdown? Do you know anything about this? Number one, can you confirm that that is the case and –
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me – I will respond in the context of two meetings that we did have with one of Mr. Headley’s spouses in late 2007 and early 2008. She did provide us some information. We followed up on that information and provided it to relevant agencies across the U.S. Government.
QUESTION: Just to follow up on – P.J., as far as – I’m sorry, you want – as far as these training camps are concerned which Mr. David Headley told U.S. and Indian officials when they interviewed him. And also, in an interview General Musharraf also told a German magazine that 22 terrorist camps were in Pakistan. One, are they closed now? Can you make sure that those camps are now closed, if you have told the Pakistani authorities or if you are going to tell them here when they meet during this coming meeting?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, there’s a lot to your question, Goyal. We have cooperated extensively in investigating the tragic Mumbai attacks, including giving Indian officials access to Mr. Headley. Beyond that, I’m not going to comment about any alleged particulars in those discussions. We have been pressing Pakistan to take more aggressive action inside its borders to deal with a threat that is of concern to us, a concern to the region, and a threat to Pakistan itself.
We – as we’ve noted many times, Pakistan has taken aggressive action within its own borders. But clearly, this is an ongoing threat and more needs to be done. That will be among the issues talked about during this week’s Strategic Dialogue.
QUESTION: And P.J., when President and Secretary visits Mumbai in November first week and they will be staying at the same hotel which was the target of the terrorist bombings from Pakistan, what message do you think they are carrying for the people of Mumbai?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we continue to cooperate extensively with Indian officials. We were doing so prior to the Mumbai attacks. We have done so since the Mumbai attacks. Security is an area of significant dialogue between our law enforcement and intelligence agencies and those of the Indian Government. We will continue to cooperate with India on the security front, but even as we expand our dialogue and our cooperation with India on many, many fronts. And obviously, this will be part of the President’s visit to India next month.
QUESTION: Can we get back to the wife’s –
QUESTION: Yes, you said that you had this input from them. So did you follow up on that input? Was that input from Islamabad reach Washington? Did you share it with any other countries – India, Pakistan? Because allegations in the articles are coming out you did not do anything on it.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s go through those. Did we follow up? The answer is yes. Have – did we share information with our security partners, including India, prior to the Mumbai attacks? The answer is yes. We have cooperated with India since then. I think Ambassador Roemer put out an extensive statement in Delhi over the weekend that highlighted both the – our cooperation with India in – prior to and after.
Needless to say, I will just say that going back over some of the information provided to us, there was concern expressed by both spouses at the same time; the information was not specific. I think everyone should understand that if we did have specific information on this, we would have absolutely provided it to the Indian Government beforehand. The fact is that while we had information and concerns, it did not detail a time or place of the attack.
QUESTION: Did – have you noticed has there been any change or uptick in cooperation between India and the U.S. on intelligence matters like this since the – everything you’re talking about now happened under – not – it was not on your watch; it was under the previous Administration. Has there been an increase in cooperation now?
MR. CROWLEY: It’s – I mean, the short answer is yes. We have an extensive dialogue with India, and as we build a strategic partnership with India and security is one of those areas, and I would say that yes, our cooperation with India has expanded.
QUESTION: So can you say if anything would have been done differently – if this administration would have done anything different than what the last one did?
MR. CROWLEY: It’s an impossible question to answer.
QUESTION: A follow-up on the same issue? You said that the information which was provided by the wives of Headley was taken seriously and further investigated upon. Then why wasn’t he arrested during or soon after Mumbai? Why it took so many years – more than one and a half years to arrest him?
MR. CROWLEY: I – that’s –
QUESTION: You had some credible information about Headley.
MR. CROWLEY: That’s not – I can’t – I can’t make – I can’t answer that question.
QUESTION: So what are you --
QUESTION: Same issue, same issue. You said the information was not specific enough to be followed; did I get that right? The wives’ information?
MR. CROWLEY: In the contacts that we had with his spouses, there was not specific information as to who he was associated with or what they were planning to do.
QUESTION: But didn’t she say Lashkar, she was training at the Laskhar?
MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’ll just say there was not specific information provided
US State Dept
