Bharat Rakshak

ramana wrote:chaanakya, So if a person absconds from India after committing a crime he cant be charged? Is that what the law says?

If his whereabouts are known in a foreign country, Interpol's help can be sought to execute the arrest warrant or extradition could be done if the accused also arrested for crimes in the country of his current residence.

There are several cases where this has happened. LTTE supremo Pibhakaran was PO. Dawood Ibrahim and all his cronies ( those not yet caught) and quatrocchi warren anderson. The list can go on and on.

Its a sad fact of Indian Criminal Justice System, but that's it.

According to Outlook, the Pakistani-American terror suspect Headley has reportedly identified Major Sayeed, Major Iqbal, Major Sameer and Colonel Shah as the officers involved in the 26/11 attacks.

arun wrote:

SSridhar wrote:India to write to US for access to Headley

The battle to get Pakistani origin terrorist Daood Gilani aka David coleman Headley is going to be a long and bruising one as the US has practice at shielding terrorists.

Take the case of the terrorist Luis Posada Carrilles.

The association of Luis Posada Carrilles with the CIA and FBI besides the fact that his terrorism targeted long time US bête noire Cuba and more recent US bête noire Venezuela, has ensured a long and tortuous path just to bring the terrorist to trial in the US.

This foregoing should be a pointer on what the US could dish out to India notwithstanding protestations of combating global terrorism together.

Check out the declassified documents available at the National Security Archives website maintained by George Washington University which establishes the prior knowledge of the CIA and FBI of the career Luis Posada Carrilles’ in International Terrorism and his connections to U.S:

LUIS POSADA CARRILES : THE DECLASSIFIED RECORD

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 26, 2010 …………………………..

QUESTION: On Pakistan and the David Coleman Headley case, The New York Times is reporting that Mr. Saeed, who is David Coleman Headley’s key contact, is a member of the Pakistani military. And the question is: Does the U.S. have a response on evidence that a member of the Pakistani military class played such a key role in plotting Mumbai and the Danish newspaper plot?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not familiar with that information.

US State Department

New Delhi's interest in interrogating Headley is causing a diplomatic rift with the United States. American diplomats have offered conflicting signals on whether Indian investigators will be able to question Headley

"In India, there is still residual suspicion that Americans are not cooperating with us wholeheartedly on terrorism," said Lalit Mansingh, a retired ambassador to the United States. "Washington should clarify this issue as quickly as possible so we don't slide further into a full political tizzy."

Dear Emily,
Thank you first of all for writing this piece and bringing into focus this very important issue. The fact that inspite of David C Headley being in US custody for several months now, yours is the first piece to deal with the diplomatic storm that is building up back in India is telling indeed.

Let us look at the facts once again, in an attempt to disabuse ourselves of any notion that every thing is on the level as far as the entire DCH saga is concerned.

Fact 1:
DCH reconnietered not just Mumbai, but travelled the entire length and breadth of India scouting for potential targets. On two occasions, witnesses in India have come forward to state that DCH pretended to be a Jew, got close to the jewish community in India and visited synagogues and chabad houses and photographed the area.
Not only this, he is known to have travelled to most of the tourist hotspots in India where foreigners regularly visit. Again retracing his steps in these areas seems to suggest motives that go beyond mere tourism. For instance in the southern city of Cochin, he stayed at another Taj hotel on the seafront, hired a boat and went around the adjacent Naval facility, photographing the place.

Fact 2:
Of the places he is known to have visited one place in Pune witnessed a bombing (again frequented by foreigners) a few months back taking the lives of 12 people, injuring several. (Your article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... =emailpage) I am repeatedly bringing foreigners into this argument so that even the most hardened hearts will have some sympathy for loss of lives, since apparently the loss of indian citizens does not carry the same emotional impact in the western world. The interesting question that arises is that :
1. Did the FBI, which now has exclusive access to DCH question him about other attacks that were planned? Attacks other than the Danish Newspaper attack that he's apparently pleaded guilty to.
2. 2. If the FBI had prior knowledge of other possible attacks, did they share this information with the India authorities?
India's home minister has been saying that they were fighting an uphill battle with the US authorities over access to DCH, and he is also on record as saying that given that the US has not reciprocated the access that India gave to Ajmal Kasab, future access given to the US investigators will be restricted as well.
Fact 3:
There is bad blood in the history sheets in intelligence cooperation between India and the United states. In the aftermath of the 1993 serial bomb blasts in the city of Mumbai carried out by the members of the Dawood Ibrahim gang and the ISI of Pakistan, India sent the recovered detonators and explosives bearing the stamps and seals of the Pakistan Ordinance Factories to the US for analysis and intel sharing. The US reported back to India that the high value evidence had been 'destroyed' accidentally before they could be analyzed. Those were the days when US-India relations were still colored by the cold war, and there was a clear tilt in favor of Pakistan in US's dealings. The fact that Dawood Ibrahim a drug lord, and proscribed by the UN as a terrorist for his involvement with Al Qaida continues to live comfortably in Karachi, Pakistan under the protection of the ISI to this day.

Ultimately the issue is not merely of Intel sharing, or providing supervised access to DCH to Indian authorities. The issue is of unfettered access to DCH by India, ultimately extradition to India to face the legal system in the country where his crimes were committed. There is a real danger from the court proceedings and the plea bargain in the court in Chicago that DCH will enter a witness protection program and will go scot-free one fine day. There are indications that all that the US has planned in terms of access is a very restrictive, supervised access to Indian police officers, no interrogation.

In light of the past history and the current events with respect to DCH, there is a valid case of suspicion that DCH is somehow being protected by US intel agencies it seems to protect their relations to him. I fear that this shadow boxing going on between US and India will result in the other perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks including serving ISI army officers and members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, sitting comfortably in Pakistan, will go scot free.

The terrorists must not escape the dragnet because two nations, both victims of the crimes by the terrorists, decided to not fully and openly cooperate.

I am sure none of this is news to you, I hope to see these issues brought forward in the open in the media by authors such as yourself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do visit the Bharat-Rakshak forum page that keenly follows this story here: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 33#p846033

There are several other threads that might be of interest to people who watch and report on this part of the world:
The Pakistan forum page (Called the 'Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan') and the Af-Pak forum page.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards
Gagan

Having demonstrated their innocent trust in FBI in letting them question Kasab, Indians felt it their legitimate right to have access to one of the Masterminds of 26/11.It would have provided crucial evidence to the truthfulness or otherwise of Pakistan's assertion of only non-state actors being involved and that Paki establishment had no knowledge of the plans.

Now , Americans denying access to Headly and also cutting a deal not to extradite to India for trial they have aroused suspicion of a lot of Indians that perhaps americans had something to do with it.

This is going to haunt them and rebound on them in the long run as releasing few terrorists from Indian jails after hijacking of Indian plane has haunted India ever since.

Only time will tell if Indians continue to cooperates with Americans on these issues.

If pak state complicity is proved then that will have serious repercussions on India-Pakistan relations and Americans would have less leverage to deal with India. It would amount to war on India and India would have an internationally recognised right to fight back. God save Pakistan then. Remember Bangladesh

Primary among his targets was the National Defence College (NDC), located on 6 Tees January Marg in Lutyens New Delhi, opposite Gandhi Smriti - the house were Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated.

According to his interrogators and as mentioned in his plea agreement, Headley said he was pushed by the LeT handlers to target the so-called ideological spots - the Jewish Chabad Houses, hotels where foreigners and Indians mingled and the Chhatrapati Shivaji train terminal. But the Pakistan Army's Inter- Services Intelligence personnel were reportedly keen that he scout targets related to the military.

Headley told the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI) that he had surveyed the NDC and its sister facility, Raksha Bhavan where the students flats are, several times during his visit to New Delhi in 2009.

Pradeep Thakur, TNN, Mar 29, 2010, 12.53am IST
NEW DELHI: Who paid Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley's international credit card bills is at the heart of a widening probe which has revealed that at least Rs 20-25 crore was spent by terror suspects in the recent past across the country through such credit cards. Bills for such cards were paid in US, Canada and Nepal, and establishing a link could unearth the identity of their masters.

Intelligence agencies, tracking economic footprints and wide network of jihadis and their sleeper cells in different cities, have found that of late, terror suspects have been using international credit cards issued in US, Canada, UK, Dubai, Nepal and Bangladesh and bills are picked up by their handlers based in these countries. Agencies are identifying all such payment gateways and their beneficiaries.

It's no more hawala channel or traders operating across the LoC that are sources of funding for the scores of terror outfits active within the country. Terrorists are now individually given international credit cards which they use to withdraw money for their operations in India and pay for their bills during their stay here.

Top sources said at least Rs 20-25 crore expenditure made by terror suspects in the recent past through such credit cards was traced by security and intelligence agencies. Investigation revealed that money was withdrawn in all parts of the country, including Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Hyderabad and Kashmir — indicating the wide spread of terror networks and the ease with which they manage to hoodwink the surveillance system.

In what could lead to the exposing of a wider base of terror masterminds operating from as far away as US, Canada and some other destinations in Europe, the government is in touch with these countries to verify who picked up the credit card bills on behalf of these terror suspects.

The attempt of terror outfits to use destinations like the US and Europe to fund their operatives here through credit cards is also a new modus operandi, according to a senior intelligence official. This is to hoodwink the financial system that was keeping a close watch on all possible channels of funding for terror outfits coming from countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and UAE, he added.

The government had imposed strict know-your-customer guidelines for banks and financial institutions in the country to choke terror funding using the legal system. This was in addition to a major crackdown on hawala channels after a series of terror attacks in the past were linked to such financing methods.

OPED | Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Road ahead on Headley

Shashi Shekhar

David Headley has pleaded guilty on 12 counts, including the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and the Danish plot. However, not much is known of his role in the wave of attacks in India between September 2006 and July 2008. This should be an area of focus for India if and when it gets to interrogate him

The Chicago conspiracy case has taken a curious turn with the plea agreement between the US Attorney’s Office and David Coleman Headley. The 35-page plea bargain document filed with the US Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, makes for interesting reading. While the earlier chargesheets had covered several details on the transcripts of conversations and e-mails exchanged between David Headley and his Pakistan-based controllers from both the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Brigade 313, the plea bargain reveals some new facts.

While it was known previously that Headley had attended training in Lashkar camps in Pakistan in 2002-2003, the plea bargain details specifically what training was received and when. In February 2002 Headley is said to have attended a three-week course on indoctrination on the merits of jihad. Following this he further attended another three-week course in August 2002 on handling weapons and grenades. In April 2003 we are told he attended a three-month course on close combat tactics and survival skills. In August 2003 we are told of another three-week course on surveillance.

It is interesting to note that Headley’s focus on India begins around the same time as the wave of terror starting late-2005 with the Delhi blasts. It is also interesting to note that planning for Headley to be based in India started as early as February 2006 with several trips to Pakistan and Chicago in the months leading up to the 7/11 Mumbai blasts. While it is not until September 2006 that Headley arrived in India, it is interesting to note that surveillance of potential targets in Mumbai and other cities had started in 2006 itself.

While 12 counts on which Headley has pleaded guilty cover the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and the planned attack in Denmark, not much is known of his role in the wave of attacks in India between September 2006 and July 2008. This should be an area of focus for India if and when it gets to interrogate him. The identities of the four Lashkar operatives that Headley interacted with also remain unknown at this time. It is important to note that while Lashkar members A, B and D and more specifically A &D find mention meeting with Headley on several occasions, not much is revealed on the specific role played by Lashkar member C and the circumstances of Headley’s interactions with Lashkar member C.

It is interesting to note that according to the plea bargain the Danish attacks were initially proposed by Lashkar member A. Headley’s overt collaboration with Ilyas Kashmiri’s Brigade 313 on the Danish attack did not start until November 2008. It is also claimed that Headley was initially unaware of the fact that Abdur Rehman’s controller or sponsor for the planned Danish attacks was Ilyas Kashmiri, even though he previously knew that Abdur Rehman was working for Ilyas Kashmiri.

An insight into the dynamics between the Lashkar and the Brigade 313 become apparent from a reported conversation from February 2009 when Ilyas Kashmiri is said to have advised Headley that Lashkar’s support was not required to conduct the Danish attack. It is also interesting to note that Lashkar too advises Headley of putting the Danish plans on hold on account of increased heat on Lashkar following 26/11.

Kashmiri’s suggestion that Lashkar’s services were not required at around the same time that Lashkar itself had decided to put its plans on hold, could perhaps be suggestive of something more than a mere coincidence. While this narrative leads to believe that Brigade 313 and Lashkar had distinct priorities, it must also be asked if the Brigade 313 was working in tandem with Lashkar to take the heat off Lashkar.

The plea bargain filings don’t throw much light on the circumstances that first brought Headley in contact with the Brigade 313’s Abdur Rehman. A significant omission considering that specific dates on Headley’s indoctrination into Lashkar spread over two years had been revealed. This ought to be an area for the Indian team to probe further to uncover the true nature of the Lashkar’s relationship with the so called Brigade 313 lead by Ilyas Kashmiri.

It must be recalled that there was practically no reportage on Ilyas Kashmiri for nearly three years after he was arrested and let off by Pakistan in 2004. It was not until 2007 that Ilyas Kashmiri’s Brigade 313 made news for its operations in Waziristan with retired Pakistan military officers and former Lashkar members in its fold. It must also be recalled that the blame for assassination of Pakistani Major-General Amir Faisal Alvi a week before of 26/11 was initially ascribed to the Lashkar before it was claimed that the accused Major Haroon was an ex-Lashkar working for 313 Brigade at Ilyas Kashmiri’s behest.

Interestingly all through 2009, Ilyas Kashmiri’s graph has been on the rise with his alleged escape from the jaws of death and the claims of his becoming the chief of Al Qaeda’s Shadow Army of Lashkar al-Zil. The apparent Takfiri faultline between the Lashkar and the Brigade 313 notwithstanding, there has been cross pollination between the two outfits in the form of ex-members of Lashkar and retired Pakistan Army officers. This cross-pollination should be reason for Indian investigators to be far more circumspect on the true nature of the Lashkar-operated syndicate within and outside the Pakistan military jihadi establishment than we have been lead to believe.

-- The writer, an expert on security affairs, tracks terrorism in South Asia.

Indian agencies are planning to contact US banks to find out the identities of those who picked up the international credit card bills of American terrorist David Coleman Headley during his terror mission.

Though the FBI has shared some details with National Investigation Agency (NIA) while referring to Headley's co-accused Tahawwur Hussain Rana's company — World Immigration Service — as one of the funding sources which also provided him a cover for his jihadi mission, it is not yet clear who picked up his international credit card bills in the US.

"Headley will also be asked for details during interrogation once we get access to him," said an official, adding India would send "a letter to the US by the end of this week" seeking direct access. The letter, to be sent by the home ministry to the US department of justice seeking dates for direct access to Headley, has been finalized.

Through the letter, the ministry will tell American authorities that a team of Indian investigators was ready and it could visit the US once a confirmation was given, said the official.

According to American law, the US department of justice will have to take permission from the Chicago court, which is hearing Headley's case, about India's request to have direct access to him. The court will also take the view of the American terrorist's lawyer before giving its consent for his interrogation by Indian investigators. Under the plea bargain struck by Headley with the US government, India can have access to the Pakistani-American by deposition, videoconferencing or through letters rogatory.

Sources said India would like to explore all three, particularly deposition or face-to-face access. India has also decided to send a magistrate to the US to record Headley's statement, which would be admissible as evidence in a court here.

The magistrate will be sent when the US grants permission for direct access to Headley to record his statement under CrPC 164, which is admissible in an Indian court of law, the sources said. The statement would be crucial when a chargesheet is filed against Headley in Mumbai.

Speaking to reporters after the 20 minute hearing, Rana’s attorney Patrick Blegen said his client is not changing his plea like co—accused David Coleman Headley did.

“We are heading for a trial... we are hoping for a trial sooner rather than later,” Mr. Blegen said.

Mr. Blegen said Headley’s guilty plea did not come as a surprise since he had been “cooperating with the investigation“.

“We knew and I think everybody in the press already knew as well that he was planning on pleading guilty.

“He allowed the Department of Justice to indicate that he was cooperating so it is not surprising at all.

“As to how it will affect the (Rana) case, I have to see the evidence first,” he said adding that he feels he still has a strong case.

Rana’s trial process is expected to start only after September, till when federal prosecutors would work on what evidence, gathered against him, can be used at trial.

Blegen said the trial would “obviously not start till after September” but hoped that it would not take 1—2 years for the trial to begin.

On whether Indian authorities, who have been pressing to interrogate Headley, would be given access to Rana, Blegen said, “I will wait to hear who exactly wanted to talk to whom and what the conditions are. If they ask, I’ll think about it“.

Chicago’s top federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who was present at the hearing, told the court he hopes to declassify evidence gathered in the terror investigation in the next few months.

Mr. Fitzgerald said declassifying the material would help the government avoid extensive use of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) — which is essentially a procedural tool for a court to address the relevance of classified evidence before it may be introduced for trial.

“A substantial amount of discovery is classified material we’re seeking to declassify,” said Fitzgerald, whose presence during the hearings demonstrates the high importance the government is attaching to the case.

Mr. Blegen and prosecutors agreed on a six—month schedule — April 5, June 1, July 1, August 2, September 13 — for carrying out provisions of the CIPA, which allows prosecutors to take extraordinary measures to prevent classified information from leaking to the public.

This is done mainly to protect the source of the information and safeguard information that may be important for national security.

Leinenweber set a date of September 13 for a hearing to determine what classified information can be admitted as evidence at trial. A status hearing for motions not related to classified materials was set for May 11.

Mr. Blegen added that this case “does not work like a usual case because there are a lot of different things you have to go through when there is classified information“.

He said he would be able to view the classified documents in a special room that has been chosen in the courthouse for the purpose once he is given his security clearance.

“If there is something in the documents that we think is necessary for part of the defence we can attempt to get it declassified. If the government does not agree to this, then the court would decide whether the information should be declassified,” he said.

Mr. Blegen said he would be able to comment on whether the CIPA process could cause problem for the defence “only until I see the classified information“.

“The charges that are brought out against Rana are the ones that are in the indictment. The classified information may relate to completely different people or may be transiently related to the case,” he said.

ramana wrote:Not so fast. We still dont know Daoud Gilani's pergrinations circa 1996.

shukla wrote:Why the US must not alienate India

...
However, what really bothers the Indians is the failure of the United States to insist that Pakistan wipe out the radical Islamic terrorists attacking such targets as the Indian Parliament, Mumbai [ Images ] and Pune in the same way the US insists on the use of Pakistan military might against terrorist organisations fighting US troops in Afghanistan.

With information from Chicago-based terrorist David Headley , it now seems that involvement of Pakistani forces in running the attacks on Mumbai are irrefutable -- and yet to date Indian officials have not even been allowed to question Headley much less extradite him for his admitted involvement in the Mumbai attacks. One Indian commentator speculates that the US is simply 'sleeping with the enemy' to disarm him. Many just do not understand what is going on.

....

Raymond E Vickery, Jr is a Senior Director, Albright Stonebridge Group, LLC. He is also a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars 2009. He is a former US Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Trade Development. The opinions expressed are personal.

EDITS | Thursday, April 1, 2010 | Email | Print |

We can’t be so naïve

G Parthasarathy

Nothing exposes the gullibility of sections of the Indian elite more than their illusion that our American ‘strategic partners’ will rein in the sponsors of terrorism in Pakistan. They seem to have forgotten that our American friends did little to rein in Pakistan-sponsored terrorism after the Kargil intrusion, the December 13, 2001 attack on Parliament House, or the 26/11 outrage in Mumbai. While the Western world and our own ‘liberals’ shower praises on our leaders for their ‘statesmanship’ and ‘restraint’ in the face of provocation, each such capitulation only invites ridicule at India being a country incapable of responding swiftly and decisively to terrorist provocations. The latest example of Indian gullibility is the moaning one hears at Daood Sayed Gilani (half brother of a Press adviser to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani) aka David Coleman Headley being let off the hook with a plea bargain by a Chicago court, combined with the US’s refusal to extradite this conspirator in the killing of 166 Indians while stalling on giving Indian interrogators unhindered access to him.

American behaviour in dealing with ISI activities directed against India has been consistent. The Clinton Administration knew that the 1993 Mumbai bombings were masterminded by then Director-General of the ISI, Lt General Javed Nasir, with the approval of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, but refused to share intelligence implicating the ISI. Realistically, the US is only interested in getting at terrorist groups that harm its interests, while showing little regard for terrorist threats countries like India face. Moreover, issues become murkier when individuals and groups turn out to be double or even triple agents. A recent instance of such American behaviour is the case of British national of Pakistani origin Omar Saeed Sheikh. Sheikh was arrested near Delhi in 1994 while attempting to kidnap British and American nationals. He was released and handed over to Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil in Kandahar during the IC 814 hijacking. Mutawakil assisted the hijackers of IC 814 and even helped them to unload their baggage into his own car — for which he has been charged in an Indian court.

But the Obama Administration believes that Mutawakil cannot be handed over to India to face trial because he is a ‘moderate’ Taliban, vital for American efforts at reconciliation with the jihadis! India should, therefore, be prepared to pay a price for the Obama Administration’s determination to beat a hasty retreat from Afghanistan. Omar Sheikh is known to have been in touch with an ISI official, Brigadier Ejaz Shah (later Gen Pervez Musharraf’s Director of Intelligence Bureau). It has been established that aided by Lieutenant General Mehmood Ahmed, then Director-General of the ISI, Sheikh wire transferred $ 100,000 through Dubai to the leader of the 9/11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta. He, thereafter, confessed to the brutal beheading of American journalist Daniel Pearl and was sentenced to death in 2002. Interestingly, this sentence has not been carried out and Sheikh leads a relaxed life behind bars in Hyderabad (Sind) and even has access to mobile telephones with British SIM cards.

There is credible evidence indicating that Omar Sheikh commenced his intelligence links as an agent of the British MI 6 to wage war, together with international jihadis, against the Serbs in the Balkans. He was, thereafter, co-opted by the ISI to wage jihad against India and for securing the release of Maulana Masood Azhar. Responding to the million dollar question as to why the CIA has not demanded Sheikh’s execution for the beheading of an American national, the Pittsburgh Tribune noted: “There are many in the Musharraf Government that believe that Saeed Sheikh’s power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA.”

It is likewise known that David Headley was recruited by the US Drug Enforcement Agency in 2001 — after his early release from imprisonment for drug smuggling — in order to act as an informant on drug smuggling from Pakistan. Yet, by 2003, he was undergoing intense training in camps of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba on close combat, weapons and explosives. This was around the same time that the Bush Administration had declared the LeT a terrorist organisation. The natural inference is that apart from working as an agent of the DEA, Headley was used by the CIA to penetrate the LeT. But given the widespread support for jihad within Pakistan, Headley became an active supporter of the Lashkar, even when on the payroll of American agencies.

Another instance of the Obama Administration’s propensity to clutch at straws as it prepares for a hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan has been its illusion that there has been a ‘turnaround’ in Pakistani policies of supporting the Taliban because of the arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second-ranked Taliban leader, by a joint team of the CIA and ISI in Karachi. The reality appears to be that the CIA stumbled upon a Taliban hideout in Karachi and the arrest of Baradar was purely coincidental. More important, his arrest was an embarrassment, as Baradar was secretly —and unknown to the Pakistanis — in touch with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a UN Envoy.

Both Mr Karzai and Baradar are Durrani Pashtuns, sharing common tribal loyalties. An infuriated Karzai now finds his reconciliation efforts with the Taliban undermined, with the Pakistanis procrastinating on his demand for the extradition of Baradar to Afghanistan. Pakistan, which for years has denied the presence of the Mullah Omar-led ‘Quetta shura’ on its soil, now brazenly demands that it should be the prime intermediary in any process of reconciliation with the Taliban — a demand the Obama Administration appears to be meekly succumbing to.

It is obvious that the Obama Administration has no intention of bringing the real perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai carnage to justice. Lobbying with the Indian community and the US Congress is necessary to get the Administration to act against those responsible for the carnage. New Delhi should also approach civil society organisations in the US, apart from the relatives of the American nationals brutally murdered in Mumbai and the pro-Israel Jewish organisations outraged by the targeted killing of Jews in Chabad House. Moreover, approaches to formally interrogate Headley should be supplemented with legal action seeking his extradition.

CRamS wrote:ramana,

boss, he still doesn't say why US must not alienate India. It is now obvious that US does not want to rock the Paki boat by unncessarily dwelling on TSPA role in Mumbai and terror against India, especially, when they are hunting down "bad terrorists" of interest to USA. And of course, there will be some PR gimmicks when MMS comes to US, some dog bones on the nuke deal, and of course loads of musical notes confering "great power" status on India etc to soothe and stoke Indian elites' ego. Recall that clown MKB's euphoria in his AT article.

If you are betting man, how much are you willing to wager that India will get access to headley and TSPA is implicated and made to a price? Not some bogus revelation through "recently released documents" 20 years hence. Remember, justice delayed is justice denied. Its like UK pompously admitting today with a self-righteous tone that General Dyer was involved in the Jalianwallah Bagh massace of our Sikh brothers several decades ago. Thank you very much.

The relentless force of demographics convinces analysts at Goldman Sachs and elsewhere that India will be the second largest economy by mid-century. By then, India will be the only major world economy continuing to grow rapidly.

ramana wrote:

First of all there is a great transformation/power shift underway as we speak. The world is changing and in more ways then we can imagine. He is a Trade and Commerce guy. Its clear where he is coming from. What he is implying is that the US shouldnt look thru the narrow military geopolitical prism alone for ties with India are more important for the US in the long run. So he is saying dont alienate India and Indian opinion makers. The Indian commentator he is talking about is KS.

ramana wrote:Op_Ed in Pioneer

We cant be so naive


I think the most effective action is seeking formal extradiation of Daoud Gilani to India. It will test many US-India ties and show them in their true light.

Also can a class action suit be filed on behalf of the 26/11 victims against the US as DCH was working for the US govt? How many of the victims were US citizens? Were there any NRIS? Among the wounded if not the dead?

ramana wrote:Pranay, If you have ideas do add. Anyone can post what you have done. My thinking is thus:

The plea bargain is a criminal matter between US and David Headley.
There is the precedent of civil damages in many US cases. The issue is DCH was working for US govt and provided the intelligence for the attack. So can a civil case be made with both as parties? The point being the US should have prevented its guy from doing that work.

Its worth exploring.

A rare recent glimpse into conditions in North Waziristan came from an e-mail sent by David Headley, the Chicago-based Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, to several associates in May 2009, shortly after he traveled to the area. Headley described how, despite the intensification of drone strikes, the local tribes in North Waziristan were still offering sanctuary to foreign fighters and their families, who he said made up a little less than a third of the population in the area. "Just walk around the bazaar in Miranshah [Miram Shah, the capital of North Waziristan]. This bazaar is bustling with Chechens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Russians, Bosnians, some from EU countries and of course our Arab brothers," he wrote. "Any Waziri or Mehsud I spoke to seemed grateful to God for the privilege of being able to host the ‘Foreign Mujahedeen.'"

Pranay wrote:

ramana wrote:Pranay, If you have ideas do add. Anyone can post what you have done. My thinking is thus:

The plea bargain is a criminal matter between US and David Headley.
There is the precedent of civil damages in many US cases. The issue is DCH was working for US govt and provided the intelligence for the attack. So can a civil case be made with both as parties? The point being the US should have prevented its guy from doing that work.

Its worth exploring.

Ramana,
The issue at hand is the singular lack of Political will in India in raising this issue to the level that it deserves.

Another, in my view is the subordination of the Indian judiciary. Has DH been charged in any Indian court with an offence? Has India proclaimed him as a Terrorist? Has a warrant been issued by any court in India for his arrest for what he has done? Does India have the laws necessary to tackle such international crimes effectively?

India should be looking at setting precedents here for it's own good, not look at what precedents have been set in the US.

Now, just imagine, what would have happened if the roles were reversed? What if the US was the victim of a 26/11 and DH was an Indian?

What would the US have done in that case? How would India have behaved in that scenario?

Do you think that the US would have done what India is doing now? The US, rightly, would have publicly and loudly DEMANDED - not pleaded!

If India cannot even gain immediate access to DH from a "strategic ally and friend" like the US, it just goes to show the pathetic contempt that the US admin. holds for India.

India's self-respect and security has been mortgaged away, that too, a sub-prime mortgage...

Delhi is extremely sure that Kabul attacks was planned by the ISI and is seriously pissed with TSP. Strategic planners in New Delhi are certain more terrorist attacks against Indian targets are on the way and accuse Washington of deliberately turning a blind eye to this volatile situation.

Home minister P Chidambaram has indicated that India may seek extradition of David Coleman Headley, the Lashkar-e-Taiba operative wanted for his role in the Mumbai terror attack.

But experts say it will be a formidable task to get Headley here to face trial. Chidambaram, being a lawyer himself, probably realises this, but insisted that since India and the US had an extradition treaty, a request would not be out of place.a show will be put up.

His staff is examining the plea bargain between Headley and the federal authorities to find out how it will affect application of the extradition and mutual legal assistance treaty.It takes something to admit the reality

Experts believe extradition of Headley is near impossible as he is already facing trial in the US and that has to be concluded before any request could be entertained. A noted criminal lawyer said the government had shown its “inadequate knowledge” of the constitutional provisions in the US and India. A confession made by an accused during questioning can’t be used against him in trial.Speaking through proxies?

...

"We are satisfied with the progress that these negotiations have made," Rao said at a press briefing.

She also pointed out that there had been good cooperation between India and United States in counter-terrorism, adding that Indian agencies and the home ministry were in talks with their US counterparts over access to Headley.

Rangudu wrote: To do that, there needs to be political will from India.