The Curious Case of Daood Gilani alias David Headley & co

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 09:52

The odd thing is if Daod Gilani was a DEA(drugs enforcement agency) approver who was working for them then how did he get tangled up with LeT( A terrorist organisation)?
And if he was revealed by a chance encounter of a fbi agent working on transfer to DEA and he pursed further afte he went back, did he inform DEA that they have rogue?

And what was he doing in TSP after his first arrest?

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 28 Oct 2010 10:01

I think in this case India played its cards very well, had we preempted Hadley bhai, it would have been dismissed at even attributed to RSS...

We have caught them red handed dipping into the cookie jar now things are coming out, imagine no loss of life, imagine no kasab, the world would never paid attention nor TSP uncle alliance in terror propagation exposed...

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Oct 2010 12:23

drugs to LET should be an easy linkage
afterall, what is funding the global jehad?

Raghavendra · Post by **Raghavendra** » 28 Oct 2010 12:40

Top US intel official reviews handling of info on Headley http://sify.com/news/Top-US-intel-offic ... deich.html

Washington: The US has launched a review of its agencies' handling of inputs provided by two of the three wives of David Headley about his involvement in the 26/11 strikes, a top Obama administration official today said, even as India expressed disappointment for not being provided specific information on the Mumbai attacks plotter.

"The Director of National Intelligence (Admiral (Retd) James Clapper) has ordered a full review of everything that we knew related to the Headley case," Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told a group of Washington-based Indian reporters at a special White House briefing on Obama's maiden India trip from November 6 to 9.

"Some of this is vast amount of information within the US intelligence system and the nature of the kind of information that we received in this instance from Headley's ex-wives, which was of a more general nature.

"But we want to find exactly, given the importance of this case... whenever we have that information, whenever the review is completed, we will certainly share that with Indians as well in the spirit of the co-operation and partnership that we have," Rhodes said in response to a question.

However, Rhodes said that with regard to the inputs that has come to light recently, the clear understanding of the Obama Administration is that it shared information that the government had from Headley before 26/11.

"If we had information that could have helped to prevent the attacks and pinpoint specific aspects of the attack, we would have certainly shared that too," Rhodes said.

"The fact of the matter is that the information that we had before 26/11 was not of that nature. It was more just a far more general and less specific. However, after we picked up Headley, we did know a lot about 26/11," he said.

However, in New Delhi, Home Secretary G K Pillai said that Indian agencies were "disappointed" that specific inputs on Headley were not provided by the US, which could have helped it arrest him on his second visit before the attacks.

Rhodes, however, said, "Not only we shared that information, it is signal of strength of our counter-terrorism co-operation, we actually provided access to Headley for the Indian security services so that they were able to ask him questions directly, which continue to flesh out and understanding what took place on 26/11."

"From our standpoint there has always been sharing of information. We share information with India as a partner. Whenever we have something, we think is directly relevant to their security we certainly did so in the sense. It has been even closer in recent years, which is evidenced by the access being provided to Headley for the Indians," Rhodes said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 18:27

we need more Indina thinking on this subject. Just because US views are easily available the other side need not be discounted.

Domain-B report on

Headley: Fly in the ointment

India-US: The Headley fly-in-the-ointment

Rajiv Singh
28 October 2010

Suspicion has been gaining ground for quite some time now in India that the so-called 'defining relationship of the 21st century' that the United States likes to tom-tom in respect to its relationship with India is in reality nothing more than word-play designed to keep India subservient to over-riding US concerns in the Indian sub-continental region.

Nothing confirms this suspicion more strongly that a small matter related to a certain US double agent called Daood Syed Gilani, aka David Coleman Headley.

Less than a fortnight before US president Barack Obama visits India, Indian home secretary GK Pillai has once again asserted that Washington never shared specific information regarding Headley with India.

Had the US passed on information regarding him, Pillai said, he would have been arrested during any of his nine visits to India between 2006 and 2009, and the 26 / 11 terror attacks could have been averted.

Pillai said India was "disappointed" with the US action.

Headley visited India eight times before 26 November 2008 and even visited again in March 2009. His were reconnaissance missions for the 26 / 11 attack and in the course of these visits he made videos of 50 targets for the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Pakistan's spy agency Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Gilani, aka Headley, was finally picked up by US authorities on 3 October 2009 even as he was readying to leave for Europe on a visit to line up attacks over there. Apparently, attacks against India are alright in US eyes but those against Europe have to be acted upon with alacrity.

Ever since two of Headley's ex-wives let it be known recently that they had - independent of each other - explicitly warned US authorities of Gilani's links with terror outfits and other shady individuals but their concerns had been cold-shouldered, US authorities in Washington and in India have been indulging in considerable amount of verbal acrobatics trying to explain away the embarrassing fact that they deliberately kept information about Gilani away from India so that their own operation of keeping tabs on terror outfits and Pakistan through Gilani was not jeopardised .

According to US media reports, Headley's American wife had tipped the FBI in New York about his LeT links in 2005 while his young Moroccan wife had told authorities in the US embassy in Islamabad, less than a year before the 2008 Mumbai attacks, that he was plotting a terror strike.

With president Barack Obama's state visit to India looming large on the horizon, US authorities, particularly the ambassador to India Timothy J Roemer, are now making energetic efforts to dispel the notion that the 'defining relationship of the 21st century' is nothing more than the proverbial hot air and gas.

As is their wont, US authorities have been on a media offensive trying to build-up the impending presidential visit. The problem is that unlike other times, or unlike the Delhi establishment which is trying desperately hard to prop up its US initiative, the Indian media is increasingly sceptical of American assertions. Invariably, ambassador Roemer gets stuck with questions about Headley and, invariably, he makes assertions that hold the potential to embarrass Delhi.

The problem is that if the US assertion, that it had indeed warned Delhi about Gilani, aka Headley, is correct then Delhi has to explain what it was doing allowing this man to travel around the country – not just prior to the Mumbai 26/11 attack- but also after the attack in March 2009?

On Wednesday Roemer asserted, "The US shared intelligence on a regular and consistent basis with the government of India prior to the Mumbai attacks."

Reacting to Pillai's statement, he also said ''...the US had shared information with the government of India after the Mumbai attacks."

To make his stand more credible Roemer has pointed out that the US had warned India thrice before the 26/11 attacks.

Indian Intelligence sources have responded that these three alerts were about an impending attack by the LeT on the Taj and Oberoi Hotels in Mumbai but that these alerts never mentioned Headley. Indian intelligence issued alerts 19 May 2008 and then again on 7 and 9 August 2008, based on American intelligence tip-offs, but not one word was mentioned about Headley.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao also asserted last week that India received nothing more than very general, non-specific information on such warnings and threats.

"In the last few months, once Headley case surfaced, we have had interactions and exchanges with the American authorities into investigations. Before 26/11, we did not have anything more than very general, non-specific information on these warnings and threats," she said.

Skirting Indian specifics on Headley's trips to India the US ambassador has now taken recourse to pointing out that the US decision to allow India access to Headley in an American federal prison in Chicago was an example of the level of cooperation it was willing to extend.

"When India asked America for access to Headley, we gave it," he said. "India is our strategic partner and our friend and somebody with whom we share intelligence on regular and consistent basis. So, India could sit down with Headley and ask him what happened prior to Mumbai...We are not afraid what he will say. In fact, we provided that opportunity to India to ask anything they want."

Contradicting this assertion Indian intelligence sources point out that Headley was given access to the Indian interrogation team from 3-9 June 2010 only in the presence of Headley's counsels, FBI prosecutors and FBI officials. No audio and video recording was allowed.

If, as Roemer claims, the US was not afraid about what Headley would disclose to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) team from India then why did FBI officials remain present during NIA's 34-hour interrogation session with him spread over six days between 3-9 June?

The net result of this deliberate ploy to ensure that Headley did not speak more than was strictly necessary, NIA's interrogation did not even touch upon his alleged links with US agencies or his previous involvement with crime in the US and its aftermath when he got recruited as a double agent by the US Drug Enforcement Agency.

Government sources now reveal that NIA officials had to laboriously write down the entire interrogation. The question naturally arises why no audio or video recording of the interrogation was allowed? Obviously since the interrogation report has been drawn up from notes taken down in writing by NIA officials it has no legal sanctity in a court of law and can be easily rejected by Pakistan.

The American ploy actually makes the Pakistan establishment safe as a number of Pakistan Army officers were mentioned by Headley. India was also allowed access to Headley only after he entered into a plea bargain with the US Justice Department which rules out any scope for his extradition.

Roemer also likes to point out that as a member of the US 9/11 Commission which investigated the synchronised terror attacks on various American targets by al-Qaeda in September 2001 he too was denied access to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the accused and the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

In the light of the Headley experience we should not have too much problem in addressing this particular conundrum – like Headley, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed too may have been a double agent and it would have been just too much for the Americans to allow this fact to come to light.

The 9/11 Commission was a public body after all, whose report was meant to be made public. Just imagine the impact of the revelation that the mastermind of 9/11 was a CIA agent!

The reports touches on the real suspicions of the Indian investigators about DCH' real role. Was he a active agent for US?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 19:59

Looking at the time line and the key facts what stands out is it was the UK uncovering of DCH's association with the two terrorists in Derby that forced the US hand. Otehrwise they had a good thing going. Their own guy in deep with the TSP terrorists and handlers and passing tidbits to India to keep them from complaining and letting their agent do the planning for terror attacks on India and rest of the world.
One key issue is did DCH have other identities while working for the US? Could he have visited India on other passports? He was revealed on the DCH indentity. Does he have other ones? What about TSP ? Did they issue any other passports for him?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Oct 2010 20:10

what if the headley pressure is being countered by the SuAR pressure?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 20:22

AR can be handled. Its no pressure.

AR leads to pain but DCH leads to numbness or paralysis.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 22:28

Lalmohan wrote:drugs to LET should be an easy linkage
afterall, what is funding the global jehad?

Have you forgotten this one?

Herbs/unobtanium are all red herrings to the reality.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 28 Oct 2010 22:40

Turns out the jihadi(DCH) is wearing stars and stripes turban!

Not only money but expertise. Thats the crux of the DCH case.

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 29 Oct 2010 08:15

FBI stunned by India's slackness on Headley

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Oct 29, 2010, 02.06am IST
NEW DELHI: Home secretary G K Pillai's assertion that US did not share data on Lashkar terrorist David Coleman Headley's links to 26/11 might see some embarrassing questions being posed to Indian authorities over the ease with which the jihadi received visas to travel to India.

While US allowed National Investigation Agency (NIA) representatives lengthy access to Headley, who has pleaded guilty for the 26/11 strike on Mumbai, American authorities harboured a feeling that India was not telling them everything about the terrorist.

For, the FBI and other intelligence agencies of US had wondered as to how Headley could slip in and out of India to Pakistan without the knowledge of its intelligence agencies. US authorities repeatedly asked NIA as to why the sleuths were so slack in tracking Headley.

They were surprised that the Indian mission in Chicago casually gave visa to Headley on a number of occasions without proper verification. And that Headley's travel from Pakistan to India and back on numerous occasions did not trigger an alarm with Indian visa and intelligence authorities.

Headley was actually utilising inputs gathered from India through his reconnaisance visits to brief bosses of Lashkar and ISI during their joint meetings in Pakistan as a part of a pan-Islamic terror agenda.

So, the grievances of Indian officials over US not sharing data might leave their Amereican counterparts dumbstruck. The Indian team was able to piece together an enormous fund of information on 26/11 and Pakistan's role in it through the Headley interviews. Till then, Indians were totally unaware of conspirators other than half a dozen Lashkar figures.

On the basis of shared data, the NIA in its dossier had clearly pointed towards a perception that LeT and ISI were acting independent of the Pakistan government and posing a grave threat to many countries fighting terrorism.

Headley had detailed every meeting he had with his LeT handlers, including Hafeez Saeed and Sajid Mir, and ISI officials at Muzzaffarabad and Lahore prior to the 26/11 attacks.

Headley has pleaded guilty on 12 counts, nine of which relate to the terror attack on Mumbai, to avoid being extradited to India and to escape capital punishment.

So the US pushing back against the Indian buildup in crescendo as Obama visit nears. Wonder in a week or so we will get leaks that show headley's passport as either not having any paki visa stamps so not easy for indian authorites to know about his briefing visits to pakis or it will bring out incompetence if he indeed traveled to pakistan on his US passport. My feeling is he had and has a paki passport too.

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 29 Oct 2010 09:11

Refer to the book "The Fourth Protocol" by frederick forsyth.
The soviets sent a spy to explode a nuke in britain. But the KGB chief who is against this venture chose an agent who would stick out as a sore thumb and would get the british intelligence on his trail the moment he shows up at the emigration counters.

I wonder if we failed to pick obvious clues. Perhaps we are not good at picking such subtleties

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Oct 2010 09:19

The whine threa is there for you. Lets stop self loathing and try to figure out what could explain that.
Also we need to list all the important events since June 2008 till the attacks.
Events wrt India, US, UK, Israel and TSP.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Oct 2010 09:32

I have a very simple question for the US. If they are sharing all the information relevant to the case. Then why is India unable to conduct a sustained interogation of DCH. Why is the access limited to 2 days at a strech. Also it was only one sitting and not more then that.

Does it show that the US is cooperating with us, or they are taking us for a ride.

If the Yanks are truly serious about the relationship. Then they must provide unristricted access to India when it comes to DCh and not just the Dosas.

PS:- I am sure, that, I am not the only one who is thinking FBI complicity in destroying evedence related to Mumbai 93 and DCh are equal.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Oct 2010 10:36

Patni wrote:FBI stunned by India's slackness on Headley

Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN, Oct 29, 2010, 02.06am IST
NEW DELHI: Home secretary G K Pillai's assertion that US did not share data on Lashkar terrorist David Coleman Headley's links to 26/11 might see some embarrassing questions being posed to Indian authorities over the ease with which the jihadi received visas to travel to India.

While US allowed National Investigation Agency (NIA) representatives lengthy access to Headley, who has pleaded guilty for the 26/11 strike on Mumbai, American authorities harboured a feeling that India was not telling them everything about the terrorist.

For, the FBI and other intelligence agencies of US had wondered as to how Headley could slip in and out of India to Pakistan without the knowledge of its intelligence agencies. US authorities repeatedly asked NIA as to why the sleuths were so slack in tracking Headley.

They were surprised that the Indian mission in Chicago casually gave visa to Headley on a number of occasions without proper verification. And that Headley's travel from Pakistan to India and back on numerous occasions did not trigger an alarm with Indian visa and intelligence authorities.

Headley was actually utilising inputs gathered from India through his reconnaisance visits to brief bosses of Lashkar and ISI during their joint meetings in Pakistan as a part of a pan-Islamic terror agenda.

So, the grievances of Indian officials over US not sharing data might leave their Amereican counterparts dumbstruck. The Indian team was able to piece together an enormous fund of information on 26/11 and Pakistan's role in it through the Headley interviews. Till then, Indians were totally unaware of conspirators other than half a dozen Lashkar figures.

On the basis of shared data, the NIA in its dossier had clearly pointed towards a perception that LeT and ISI were acting independent of the Pakistan government and posing a grave threat to many countries fighting terrorism.

Headley had detailed every meeting he had with his LeT handlers, including Hafeez Saeed and Sajid Mir, and ISI officials at Muzzaffarabad and Lahore prior to the 26/11 attacks.

Headley has pleaded guilty on 12 counts, nine of which relate to the terror attack on Mumbai, to avoid being extradited to India and to escape capital punishment.
So the US pushing back against the Indian buildup in crescendo as Obama visit nears. Wonder in a week or so we will get leaks that show headley's passport as either not having any paki visa stamps so not easy for indian authorites to know about his briefing visits to pakis or it will bring out incompetence if he indeed traveled to pakistan on his US passport. My feeling is he had and has a paki passport too.

It would have been cleaner and simply more logical for the pakis not to have stamped DCH's passport with exit and entry stamps.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Oct 2010 12:49

or that he used multiple passports

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 29 Oct 2010 13:17

FBI stunned by India's slackness on Headley

For, the FBI and other intelligence agencies of US had wondered as to how Headley could slip in and out of India to Pakistan without the knowledge of its intelligence agencies. US authorities repeatedly asked NIA as to why the sleuths were so slack in tracking Headley.

We used to think that Americans can't be terrorists and we never checked their records carefully. We were obviously wrong.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Oct 2010 13:47

this is a counter stroke in the media to deflect criticism of unkil's agencies
all hoo and haa onlee

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 29 Oct 2010 17:29

Intelligence sharing with United States has improved in recent times, says G.K. Pillai

A day after his controversial comments on information shared by the U.S. on David Headley, who played a key role in the run-up to the November 26, 2008 attacks in Mumbai, Home Secretary G.K. Pillai said counter-terrorism cooperation between the two countries was now far more broad-based.

“Intelligence sharing has definitely improved in recent months with the signing of the counter-terrorism security initiative. The cooperation between India and the U.S. is now far more broad-based,” he told journalists here on Thursday.

On Wednesday, Mr. Pillai said that Indian agencies were “disappointed” at not being provided specific information by the U.S. on Headley either before or after 26/11, else he could have been nabbed when he visited India in March 2009 — four months after the Mumbai attacks, which he had plotted as a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative.

But the U.S. said it had only “more general and less specific” information on Headley before 26/11.

“If we had information that could have helped to prevent the attacks and pinpoint specific aspects of the attack, we would have certainly shared that too,” Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told journalists in Washington on Thursday.

“The fact of the matter is that the information that we had before 26/11 was not of that nature. It was just far more general and less specific. However, after we picked up Headley, we did know a lot about 26/11.”

At a special White House briefing of Indian journalists on President Barack Obama's maiden India trip, Mr. Rhodes said the U.S. had launched a review of its agencies' handling of the inputs provided by Headley's two wives about his involvement in the 26/11 strikes.

“The Director of National Intelligence Admiral [Retired] James Clapper has ordered a full review of everything that we knew related to the Headley case,” Mr. Rhodes said.

“Some of this is a vast amount of information within the U.S. intelligence system, and the information that we received in this instance from Headley's ex-wives, which was of a more general nature.

“But we want to find exactly, given the importance of this case...whenever we have that information, whenever the review is completed, we will certainly share that with the Indians as well in the spirit of the co-operation and partnership that we have,” Mr. Rhodes said in response to a question.

With regard to the inputs that had come to light recently, the clear understanding of the Obama administration was that it shared the information it had before 26/11, he said.

“Not only did we share that information, a signal of strength of our counter-terrorism co-operation, but actually provided access to Headley for the Indian security services so that they were able to ask him questions directly, which continue to flesh out an understanding of what took place on 26/11.”

Obama's India visit

Pointing out New Delhi was looking forward to Mr. Obama's visit from November 6 to 9, Mr. Pillai said there was no specific terror threat during his trip, but militants might try to create disturbances to get publicity.

The Home Secretary said there had been a few incidents of firing along the international border as well as the Line of Control (with Pakistan) but the security forces handled them properly.

“We have seen a couple of cross-border firing incidents by the Pakistani Rangers and Army,” he said.

According to him, India now had greater cooperation in intelligence-sharing with other nations. However, he stressed the need to strengthen the country's own intelligence gathering mechanism.

“We had it during the Commonwealth Games, when agencies of various countries, including Interpol, proved to be useful. But our analysis is that the national interests should be served by our own intelligence agencies.

“There is cooperation, which is useful, because I think we are not able to cover everything. Therefore, the more the number of ears and eyes you have, the better it is. Because in case you miss something, somebody else may pick it up. And that is why we have this international cooperation.”

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Oct 2010 17:50

Lalmohan wrote:or that he used multiple passports

Multiple passports will leave gaps in entry and exit dates which will be picked up.

The passport guys always check the entry dates on their computers before stamping the exit.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Oct 2010 17:52

so he can use the same passport for entering and exiting india, but a completely different one for entering and exiting pakistan or the US or ...

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 29 Oct 2010 19:45

Lalmohan wrote:so he can use the same passport for entering and exiting india, but a completely different one for entering and exiting pakistan or the US or ...

On his US passport how does he explain the time gap between leaving India and entering the US without any other stamps. Or the paki passport without corresponding stamps, unless of course the govts of both the US and pakiland are in cahoots??

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Oct 2010 19:51

it depends... not all governments check the entry and exit dates of their own nationals

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 29 Oct 2010 22:56

ramana wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:drugs to LET should be an easy linkage
afterall, what is funding the global jehad?

Have you forgotten this one?

Herbs/unobtanium are all red herrings to the reality.

I wish citizens of Delhi will post that cartoon prominently on huge hoardings Ombaba's way to parliament address.

As I post this high alert in NJ NY PA for UPS truck was found with explosives according to CNN IBN news TV channel

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2010 06:27

The info about DCH has many paths and bye lanes. Its complex and complicated.

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 31 Oct 2010 01:28

David Headley was in Lahore jail before 26/11 attacks

David Headley was in Lahore jail before 26/11 attacks
Aloke Tikku
First Published: 00:36 IST(31/10/2010)
Last Updated: 01:32 IST(31/10/2010)
Pakistan-born Lashkar operative David Coleman Headley spent over a week in a Lahore jail on his estranged wife's complaint, three months before the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. In course of his 34-hour questioning this June, Headley told Indian investigators about his detention on his wife Faiza Outalha's complaints. Faiza, he recalled, had been meeting senior police officers in Lahore and "creating problems for me".

"I was taken into the Lahore police custody on her complaint. I was in the Race Course police station for eight days," he told National Investigation Agency sleuths according to his interrogation report accessed by HT.

Headley also had to ask Major Iqbal, the army officer who was serving in the Inter Service Intelligence and playing his handler, to pull a few strings to secure his release.

His other wife Shazia Gilani's father, Javed Ahmed, bailed him out, Headley's interrogation report said. He married Shazia in 1999 and had shifted her and their four children to Chicago a month earlier.

On her part, Faiza had even approached Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed to seek help to resolve the marital problems.

Saeed did ask Headley to get his house in order but did not persist when Headley made it clear that it would be at the cost of "LeT's operational activities", a reference to preparations for 26/11.

This was at least the second time the young Moroccan-born Faiza was creating trouble for Headley. Months after Faiza visited Headley during his third surveillance visit to Mumbai in March-May 2007, she approached US officials in Islamabad in end-December 2007.

According to New York Times, she told them about her husband's friends in LeT and her trips with him to the Taj Mahal Hotel, a prime 26/11 target.

In August 2005, Headley's third wife had tipped off the FBI in New York about his terror links. But there is no indication any action was taken against him.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Oct 2010 04:22

ramana wrote:The info about DCH has many paths and bye lanes. Its complex and complicated.

The problems with complexity is first its non-linear i.e. small apparently inconsequential actions have deep repercussions. And makes it impossible to predict. E.g. The casual acquaintance with Rahul Bhatt and the weights trainer leads to the Leopold Cafe as target. Thats non-linearity for you. On the other hand was it casual or deliberate?

Secondly small activities have large effects. This one is obvious.

Thirdly complexity has an overlay of chaos. DCH movements, meetings and actions, look very chaotic but unless one knows his mission it is difficult to identify his role. In hind sight we can see a common thread.

Fourthly complexity has sensitive variables. His befriending Mahesh Bhatt's son is a very sensitive variable. Because of papa Bhatt's known hard-line stance any identification early on would lead to blow-back on the monitoring agencies.

Fifthly there is multiple controllers on DCH activities:ISI, LeT, DEA, and who else? And then he has Rana of whom we dont know much yet.

Sixthly, its difficult to discern cause and effect. Was DCH valuable due to his earlier role of drug courier or is it because of his connections to TSP society? See how easily he comes and goes into TSP high society, official circles, terrorist circles and has the US running to him atleast twice to do covert missions! And pus him away safely out of reach of India despite his crime in India is actual one versus his crime against Denmark is a potential one. The plea bargain is definitely an action to protect DCH from Indian reach. The not revealing his identity after 26/11 is unfortunate deliberate negligence for the guy surveyed even more high profile targets in India and delivered the data to TSP terrorists and their handlers. So India has to deal with US that assists terrorists and applies soothing balm to India after the attacks. And not that it was only after invoking the extradion treaty that US allowed the limited access to DCH in the jail.

Above all this is underlaying environment in India of the innocent all welcoming nature of the Indian people who don't see any nefarious acts can be lurking in their visitors. This has been a historical defect. "Atitihiti devo bhava"-- "visitors are like god" applies only to proven visitors and not rogues wearing suits. In all national security states its xenophobic but in India such caution is roundly condemned.

My mom used to say in Telugu " Thellanivi anni paalu kavu!"
or in English "All white things are not milk!"

These are not excuses but facts that make it difficult to identify such terrorists.

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 31 Oct 2010 22:51

Investigators may approach David Headley's wives for questioning

Indian investigators may approach for questioning the wives of Pakistani-American LeT terrorist David Headley as they feel that he had stonewalled information about his family, who had knowledge about his activities in India and his links with the outfit.

According to the 106-page dossier of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), prepared after the detailed questioning of Headley in the US, he had told the Indian investigators that they should not ask him any questions pertaining to his immediate family.

"I got married to Shazia Gilani in Pakistani in the year 1999... I do not want to discuss the details of my in-laws as they have nothing to do with my activities...," Headley is quoted as saying in the dossier.

Further stonewalling information about his immediate family, especially his first wife, Headley told the NIA team that "my request would be not to ask questions relating to my immediate family members."

NIA had been briefed to probe the role of 50-year-old Headley's family especially in the context of statements made by his second wife Faiza Outalha, claiming that members of the family were in the know about his activities and relations with Lashker-e-Taiba and his nefarious designs in India.

When the US was delaying providing access to Headley earlier this year, Indian officials had asked their American counterparts to at least provide access to his wife -- Shazia -- with a reasoning that she had claimed in her statement that she knew about his role.

Sources in the government establishment feel that questioning of his US-based wife and another girlfriend may help them in getting more insight into Headley's activities in Pakistan and India.

Also in the light of the American media reporting that several complaints had been registered with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the US mission in Islamabad about Headley's association with LeT had also necessitated the need for questioning the family of the American-born terrorist, the sources said.

The sources also feel that some people in the Pakistani government were helping Headley and the reason behind this belief was that how could his Moroccan wife enter India through Wagah border when this point is exclusively meant for citizens of India and Pakistan.

Outalha is a Moroccan passport holder and could only use the route through special permission from the Pakistani foreign office.

It may be mentioned here that Headley alias Daood Gilani has two half-brothers -- Hamza and Daanyal Gilani --and both of them are officers in the Pakistan government.

In his reply to NIA, Headley had said, "Daanyal was also posted as the information officer in the prime minister's office and my father worked in the Pakistan broadcasting department. He had gone to the US on deputation to Voice of America."

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 16:03

The firewall is preventing access to this link but it seems from the headline that the GOI is totaly clueless about what is going on.

PC does damage control says US shared info on Headly

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Nov 2010 16:10

From link posted above:

Claiming that intelligence sharing between India and US is extremely good, Home Minister P Chidambaram today said The US did share information on Headley with India even after 26/11. Addressing a press conference on Monday in New Delhi Chidambaram said, what US knew and when they knew about David Headley vis-a-vis 26/11 is a matter under full review in US and that they will share it with India once the review is over.

Extradition of David Headley is an option that India will continue to pursue, he added.

India's External Affairs minister SM Krishna had publicly stated that the US had only shared "very general" and "non-specific" information before the Mumbai terror attacks.

This was reinforced by Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai, who expressed "disappointment" that the US had not shared information on Headley.

"Had they done so, at least after the horrific Mumbai attacks, Headley could have been nabbed as he travelled to India in March 2009," Pillai said.

US officials have asserted that there has been regular supply of information and sought to downplay the controversy, stressing that expanding counter-terror cooperations will be among important issues that will be on the table when Obama holds talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 01 Nov 2010 16:12

Actually the Home Minister said on TV that US did share information before 26/11 but Headley's name was not mentioned.

He also said that intel-sharing with US is good. This means we can't survive without their help.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 16:56

Oh.......

So the HM and the HS are in agreement it is the media which is creating the confusion regarding the Headly Issue.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Nov 2010 17:03

In India things are not so bad that HM and HS will speak differently. Only so bad that PM and HM speak in different voices, and RM and FM and ...............

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 17:11

^^^

On and on like an energizer bunny or was it duracell bunny.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 01 Nov 2010 17:15

Oh, dont worry, the truth hurts only for a little while, after some time you will either align with it or go completely in the C-section of debaters.

Till then I am willing to put up with these silly emotional retorts. All for a good cause.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 01 Nov 2010 17:31

What is a C-section debater? Have asked without reply in the past as well.

Kindly enlighten.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 01 Nov 2010 19:33

Cut it out guys.. This matter is serious enough without forum members getting personal.

Let's see what actually comes out. It will gradually. The Americans are not in a pretty position on this and they know it. The only thing we will not know is whether it was malice aforethought or just bumbling. Both are possible. Ultimately, based on what comes out GoI will have to make the call.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 01 Nov 2010 20:29

abhishek_sharma wrote:Actually the Home Minister said on TV that US did share information before 26/11 but Headley's name was not mentioned.

He also said that intel-sharing with US is good. This means we can't survive without their help.

Lets look at it objectively. With India unwilling or unable to mount any meaningful pressure on TSP, its only US that they are relying on. If not for US, Mumbai would not even have been ascribed a TSP role; it would have been RSS or any one of the 100,000 insurgences that plauge India that did it. And this song wouldn't have been from TSP alone, recall, even the Brit rag Financial Times, in the immediate aftermath of Mumbai cited saffron bands in the hands of the terrorists to claim that "Hindu extremists" could be behind the plot. India is so pathetically weak, that even a mere acknowledgment of TSP "non state actor" role, much less state role, is some sort of "victory", forget about bringing TSP to justice. And we talk about competing with China; the delusion is tragically comical

.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Nov 2010 21:04

abhishek_sharma wrote:Actually the Home Minister said on TV that US did share information before 26/11 but Headley's name was not mentioned.

He also said that intel-sharing with US is good. This means we can't survive without their help.

So he is saying same thing as Mr. Pillai. I see no dichotmy. Mr. Pillai has to be factual in his statements and he is. Mr PC being the minister has the perogrative to make things unclear.

CRS the game is not with TSP.

Also guys please dont let your pet peeves in this thread. We are seeing a deadly game of cat and mouse and how the mouse is countering. Relax observe and learn.

There are numeorus outlets for whines,

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 01 Nov 2010 23:45

CRamS wrote:
Lets look at it objectively. With India unwilling or unable to mount any meaningful pressure on TSP, its only US that they are relying on. If not for US, Mumbai would not even have been ascribed a TSP role; it would have been RSS or any one of the 100,000 insurgences that plauge India that did it. And this song wouldn't have been from TSP alone, recall, even the Brit rag Financial Times, in the immediate aftermath of Mumbai cited saffron bands in the hands of the terrorists to claim that "Hindu extremists" could be behind the plot. India is so pathetically weak, that even a mere acknowledgment of TSP "non state actor" role, much less state role, is some sort of "victory", forget about bringing TSP to justice. And we talk about competing with China; the delusion is tragically comical .

If found why the Brit rag Financial Times has this fetish for the claim that "Hindu extremists" for every thing.
Their main correspondent who used to write from Delhi has an Indian wife.
Edward Luce (born 1 June 1968[1]) is the Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, London. Earlier he was their South Asia Bureau Chief based at New Delhi[2]. He is married to Priya Basu[3]. Basu is a Senior Financial Economist at the World Bank, and was formerly the Bank's Lead Economist for South Asia[4].
This lady is strong anti Hindu and all his books and article reflects that.