Rana Trial

[Anantha]

My point exactly .. in what sense we extracted all the juice from Azar, Seikh and Zargar before JSji escorted them and handed them to Pakis/AIQ so that they can do more terrorist act...

DCH and Rana, at least , are not being escorted back to Paki's..and, at least at present, are in custody.

Just for the perspective .

That comparison is disingenuous. We don't know how the US govt. will react if terrorists hijack a passenger jet full of American citizens and demand the release of David Headley. Their claims of "No negotiation with Terrorists" notwithstanding.

The US may negotiate unofficially get the release of hostages and after that Kidnap the terrorists and send them to the new Bay area.

I vaguely remember in the 1980's there was an incident where after the release of some hostages negotiated by Italy, the US sent F16's and kidnapped the middle Eastern terrorists in a few hours from a ship and sent them to jail. Old timers can help with references to that case, I do not remember the names.

[ramana]

Achilo Lauro case

[ramana]

The Rana Trial is dramabazi for sake of entrancing India. The charges are Rana-Headley- Pak gang. None of the pak gang is in US custody.

Headley is the middleman/conduit who turned approver(using India terms). Not much yet to link Rana directly to Pak gang without Headley. Rana is charged in two of these counts as a co-conspirator. The rest of the stuff is to put ISI on the dock due to falling out between US and TSP.
Most likely Rana will get some term(a few years) to be safely out of Indian hands. India under PC will seek access to the rascal/miscreant with US officials there to ensure no questions get real answers.

lets see.

parkaalam.

I posted this on May 25th.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1097272

ramana

[ramana]

Yes I read both of them before I posted the above conclusion.

---------

Rana's lawyers will say/argue : Yes he (Rana) knew Daoud Gilani now known as Daivd Headley from childhood. Yes he hated India due to his being a Pakistani citizen, member of armed forces, 1971 war etc. DCH was the often going to Paksitan and indulging in activities. He provided travel agency cover as he hated India. What ever DCH did he did on his own volition. All this conspiracy is nonsense. The guy used to come and tell him about his escapades and as a childhood friend he used to listen to him. Any Pakstani would be glad at the Mumbai attacks so whats new? He neither participated nor directly helped in the actual attack. All this is DCH throwing the blame on him to evade his own culpabity in all the attack.

The prosecution will come back with those wiretaps and say what were you thinking? here you are participating in the plan. We can set aside the Mumbai attack due to reasonable doubt but what about palns to attack Denmark. You were definitely caught range haath planning the attack.

Judge will give seven to ten years (no parole) for planning the Denmark attack.

Three years later he will get released for good behaviour in jail -teaching sufi music to prisoners. Some US agency will get him working in a travel agency in Chile to channel jihadis through South America.

He is after all Deobandi!

What did I say on May 25th?

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 2#p1097282

[Gerard]

Tahawwur Rana's conviction sets the clock ticking on ISI

[krisna]

Setback for India

The Indian government has said Tahawwur Rana's acquittal in the 26/11 case in a Chicago court is not a "setback".

The 26/11 facts are as follows. The ISI and Lashkar-e-Toiba were involved in it. There was enough deniability built into the terrorist operation for the ISI to escape blame in case the plan misfired.
Intelligence organizations and especially terrorist intelligence organizations like the ISI compartmentalize operations both laterally and vertically.
All the planning and non-state logistics were provided by the ISI to the LeT for the Bombay carnage. But in terms of actual involvement of ISI personnel, that was kept low-key and to a minimum.
You cannot have an ISI major-general exposed in terrorism, because that would mean ISI and state involvement.
For both the 26/11 commando-style attack and for the preceding hazardous sea expedition and landing, the ISI used junior trainers from the military and navy.

India had two courses open to it to get justice for 26/11. The first was to take punitive action against Pakistan. This option is virtually non-existent today.
By not cutting Pakistan into two when it provoked the 1999 Kargil limited war, India forsook the military option.
It was a victory of Pakistan's deterrent and sanctioned its brinkmanship.
And the failure of Operation Parakram put paid to India's capacity for coercive diplomacy.
Army and air force chiefs may allude to the Abbottabad raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. But there is no political will for replicating it.
India preferred the second course of seeking justice for 26/11. This was to approach a third party, the United States.
Getting a third party involved is always problematic. It would seek to maximize its gains. That is what the US has done.

The US no longer spins war-on-terror. It refuses to mete the same punishment to the LeT as it reserves for the Al-Qaeda or the anti-US Taliban forces.
On the contrary, going to the US has hurt India's capacity for unilateral action, and forced it to engage Pakistan in fruitless peace talks.
The worst US behaviour was advertised in the Headley/ Rana affair. Headley was always a US secret agent. That he had gone rogue and made common cause with Pak terror groups was also known to the US.
Appallingly, the US also knew of the 26/11 plot, and cursorily warned India of it. A more substantive briefing would possibly have prevented 26/11 and exposed Headley.
Headley and Rana, who provided him business cover for his 26/11 reconnaissance, were outed only when the Danish newspaper bombing plot showed on the radar.
Only when the Western world was about to be struck by Headley/ Rana terrorism were they brought to trial in the US.
And frustratingly, the US made Headley an approver, accepting his condition never to be extradited to India, where he was certain to face death.

In sequestering Headley, America also ensured that his double dealings, US's extensive prior knowledge of 26/11, and Pakistan's involvement in the carnage would remain concealed.
Now with Rana's acquittal in 26/11 terrorism, India's case becomes still weaker. Rana's defenders have successfully shown Headley to be a liar and embellisher, so that also destroys Headley's testimony of ISI involvement in 26/11.
Headley in the course of the Rana trial did water down his allegations against the ISI role in 26/11. But now Pakistan has a clear upper hand.
It can claim to the world that a US court has absolved the ISI in 26/11.
India practically has no enforceable case on 26/11. Whatever the Indian courts decree, it won't extradite Headley. And Pakistan will thumb its nose on 26/11 for now.

[jagbani]

http://www.punjabkesari.in/Punjab/fulls ... 908_117643

In a major setback to India's efforts to bring the conspirators of the 26/11 terror assault to justice, a US District Court acquitted the Pakistani-Canadian businessman, Tahawwur Hussain Rana , of the charges of masterminding the Mumbai attack.

He was, however, held guilty on two other counts - that of providing material support to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and plotting to attack the office of the Danish newspaper that published the controversial Prophet Mohammad cartoon

[ramana]

Its not a setback for India. India has Kasab and had tried him on the evidence collected after the 26/11 terrorist attack. Headley and Rana were arrested by US and if there is setback its to US for failing to provide sufficient evidence to convict those they claim to arrest. For all we know they are in protective custody to prevent falling into Indian hands. US arrested those two and charged them with crimes. The US was unable to prove the case in their own court. One can draw ones' own conclusions as seen fit.

[Lalmohan]

no, they proved the case that he was a fixer
i still dont think rana was an active planner for 26/11
but he was clearly a supporter and happy at the outcome

[ramana]

ReDiff reports

US not to appeal the Rana Verdict

[JE Menon]

X post...

>>The US has a lot to hide, both about itself and its frontline ally, Pakistan.

Absolutely right. Their pre-occupation in this issue seems to be to hide their own foreknowledge (or better knowledge) of certain things and the implications that would have on the image of America in general, as well as, secondarily, in India. As such, the current state of play appears to be aimed at bringing out the data that reveals the culpability of Pakisatan while adroitly shuffling the deck, where their own duplicity is concerned. The Rana verdict, despite the pious protestations by the prosecuting agency, is the ideal one from the American perspective. They are aware that we know the underlying mechanics, and to minimise adverse fall-out, the idea has been floated (tangentially) that we might be permitted to interrogate both Headley and Rana. They know that through this approach, GoI will be obliged to keep what it learns to itself; and it will do so - and it will, willy-nilly so to speak, reassure us of their bona fides (which they have been at pains to do since 26/11) going forward. Any way you look at it though, the Pakisatan is facing interesting times ahead - it is only a question of the degree and speed of GUBO, which is clearly no longer a lubricated affair.

None of this would have been considered necessary had there been no full-court press by GoI as far as engagement with the US was concerned, over the past decade. Nor would there have been much traction among US lawmakers on the question of paying attention to Indian sensitivities, had they not become increasingly aware of the growing importance of multiple-interconnected lobbies as well as benefits to their constituencies from a positive engagement with India. All this, no doubt, buttressed by the substantial positive output in the global media about India, and by the substantial and significant economic facts on the ground in India itself.

In short, the fragility of the tightrope on which the US is walking in terms of its bilateral relationships with Pakistan and India is directly related to the growing power of India on all fronts, especially the economic one. We all need to keep this possible big picture in mind, going forward. I suppose there are other possible big pictures as well, but I can't see a clearer one. Maybe someone else can.

[ramana]

Essentially the DCH Rana case is a charade between US and TSP. India had no role in arresting the guys nor developing the evidence nor the acquittal. No need to bleat or whine like the op-ed writers are doing.
Good thing that Ujwal Nikam didnt use the DCh evidence despite a lot of pressure from MUTU journalists for that would taint the trial.

Only this trial has exposed a lot of MUTU connections all over the place. The links of Bollywood to terrorists is another link. Use of US citizens to do terrorist scouting is another feature exposed.

Ultimately the US will do its utmost to protect TSP in its terrorist actions against India. Only fools will think otherwise.

* I dont know if DCH is really in Jail or in minimum security witness protection heaven for services rendered to US govt.

JEM, One of these days that tight rope will break and thy have to bail themselves out.

[krisna]

Chicago Terror Trial Ends - Strains on US-Pakistani Relations Grow

This Chicago terror trial was watched throughout the world for any possible revelations about possible links between the anti-militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba(LET) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI.

Recent Congressional hearings and GAO Reports have focused on the extent to which terrorist safe havens continue to flourish in Pakistan, FATA, Yemin, and Somalia and subsequently create national security threats for American interests and citizens.

The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas). On June 3,2011 he stated, “CNN recently reported that Osama bin Laden sought a deal with Pakistan in which Bin Laden would not attack Pakistan in exchange for protection. At this point we do not know who in the Pakistani government was aware of Osama Bin Laden’s presence, but I am certain that some Pakistan officials knew that he was living in plain sight, not exactly the average house in an ordinary neighborhood.

(lies lies and lies- Osama talks to pakistan but uncle does not know who it is)

The testimony of David Coleman Headley was closely watched for any information it might provide regarding terrorist safe havens , Pakistan’s commitment to catch terrorists, and the ISI’s connections to Pakistan-based terror groups. Pakistan has remained silent and as of yet has not provided requested information on this issue.

(why did uncle not force TSP?)

Currently, the focus of several Congressional hearings is on the extent to which Pakistan is playing a double game of both taking our funding and supporting our enemies.

( will it change uncle behaviour wrt its favorite munna)

[CRamS]

JE Menon,

You have to admire though the US justice system, the US govt, and its brilliant lawyers, beaurecrats etc. Without apperaing to commit fraud, they manipluate every lever of power to secure their interests. The same Rana, the same Headley, the same evidence, if it were in US interests to nail ISI, they would have done so in a heartbeat. And the beauty is that the devil is in all the process details. Its difficult to pinpot with precision how US protected and saved TSP's ass on this one. If one claims US protected ISI, they can easily come out mocking the absurdity of the claim. But they sure did send a message to TSP that we saved you, now behave. Absolutely brilliant. A pre-requisite for such a well-oiled mechanism in action is hard-nosed nationalism which India woefully lacks :-(.

[krisna]

Canadian's terrorism trial points to Pakistani double game

Headley took the witness stand and blew the whistle on Pakistan’s covert support for terrorism. Headley is a U.S. citizen but, more importantly, an ethnic Pakistani super-patriot. He despises India and, like most Pakistanis, he passionately believes the disputed Kashmir region belongs to entirely to his native country.

At Rana’s trial, Headley admitted he was a member of the violent Pakistani extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba.

In dramatic testimony, Headley confirmed what the Indian government has long alleged and the government of Pakistan has long denied: the Lashkar attackers were trained, equipped and bank-rolled by Pakistan’s military intelligence agency — the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI — and, by extension, the Pakistani government.

The Institute for Conflict Management, a New Delhi-based think-tank that keeps a daily record of terrorist incidents in South Asia, alleges that at present there are 43 active terrorist groups. Some, such as Lashkar, receive support from the Pakistani military and members of the country’s wealthy Islamist anti-American elite, and some do not.

5 types of terrorists groups

A study done recently by a U.S. government think-tank exclusively for members of Congress and obtained by CBC News sorts the groups into five categories.

1)Globally oriented groups such as al-Qaeda, 2) Afghanistan-oriented militants such as the Quetta-Shura, led by the Taliban’s Mullah Omar, 3) India- and Kashmir-oriented groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, 4) violent sectarian militants such as the anti-Shia Sipah-e-Shabah, and 5) domestically oriented militants that have turned on the Pakistani government.

(uncle attacks only al keeda ones as they target western contries- but lets go off others lightly.)

It also underlines a concern voiced by Canadian and American intelligence experts that young radicalized Muslim men from the West are trickling into remote militant training camps in Pakistan’s frontier provinces to learn terrorist tradecraft and will someday return to put their terrorist training to use at home. There are already examples.
Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin who, in May 2010, attempted to set off a crudely constructed car bomb in New York’s Times Square.
The Pakistan Taliban claimed responsibility. And when the leaders of the Toronto 18 were looking to get terrorism training, Lashkar-e-Taiba was the group they contacted.

( so the 5 types of terrorists groups classified are a crap as Let and Pakiban though classified under India specific and domestic are into global terror- read western interests)

Congressmen on both sides of the House, according to the congressional study paper, are questioning the wisdom of existing U.S. foreign assistance programs being given to a nation that may not have the intention and/or capacity to be an effective U.S. partner.
Even so, the study also concludes the U.S. cannot afford to throw its apparently double-dealing ally under the bus. If it did, China, or perhaps Iran, might be happy to step in and be Pakistan’s new best friend.

In addition, an important goal of U.S. foreign policy in the post-9/11 period is the creation of a more stable, democratic, and prosperous Pakistan that would combat religious militancy(laughable goal) and help prevent another 9/11 style attack on the U.S( more truthful here). Since Pakistan is the epicentre of Islamist anti-Amerian militancy, the U.S. will have to stay engaged in Pakistan no matter how much it suspects its erstwhile ally is playing a double game.

Uncle will stay enegaged in TSP as long as it has mischief potential towards India. Its original purpose is slowly unravelling to the detriment of the west. Uncle will contiue to support TSP against India for the forseeable future.
However it will continue to cultivate India leveraging both TSP and India maintaining a fine balance. Even if India has decisive edge wrt to TSP, it will never support India fully. Even if TSP goes down the barrell, uncle will make sure its remnant will create some mischief on India.
More or less it is India alone which has to give the death blow to the entity called TSP and absorb it.

[ramana]

CRS, The maya is in the charge that is filed. Assessing the evidence the prosecutor knows what charges will stick and get conviction. Its there in Criminal Law 101. So if they want to let somone off they will file charges more than the evidence warrants. So jury lets them off that charge, no appeal for not guilty finding, double jeopardy kicks in and all interests are protected.

krisna, All this charade will continue till India decides to take care of her problems herself an not bring in interlopers under international consensus. If Mrs Gandhi had listened to Nixon and Kissinger the TSPA would still be in Dacca and killing people there with US protecting them instead of in Afghanistan are.
I think Pakiban will take out Hafiz Saeed.

There is no other choice.

[ramana]

AGENDA | Sunday, June 12, 2011 |


Chicago jury plain stupid or complicit?

June 12, 2011 7:57:31 PM

Kanchan Gupta

Few, if any at all, would remember Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati today. But in his time, the flamboyant Parsi, a Commander of the Indian Navy, was the toast of glittering parties in Bombay (as it was still known) and was warmly welcomed into the fashionable drawing rooms of Lutyens’ Delhi. While serving as Defence Attaché to VK Krishna Menon, who was then India’s High Commissioner to the UK, he met Jawaharlal Nehru and Mrs Indira Gandhi, and later came to be counted among the chosen few who could stroll into Teen Murti Bhawan. But life, as is often the case, is not always about wine and roses. While the dashing officer sailed forth on various missions, leaving behind his charming wife to look after their children, she busied herself with her lover, Prem Ahuja, a Sindhi businessman known for living the high life. When Nanavati came to know of the affair, he was sufficiently distraught to threaten his unfaithful wife that he would kill himself. Sylvia thought that would be a silly thing to do as he had done nothing wrong; so Nanavati went and shot his wife’s lover.

In normal circumstances, this murder too would have been treated as just another crime of passion. But the circumstances were clearly not normal, not the least because of the dramatis personae involved. The media (there were no 24x7 television news channels then, but Russi Karanjia’s Blitz more than made up for their absence) went to town. Karanjia himself penned treacly stories to portray Nanavati as the ‘wronged husband’ and an upright officer, a man of middle-class principles who was ‘betrayed’ by his friend. As for Ahuja, issue after issue of Blitz made him out to be a sleazeball, a cad and a home-wrecker. Such was the outrage generated by this coverage that Town Hall meetings were called to rally support for Nanavati. Meanwhile, Blitz, which was then priced at 25 paise, sold for Rs 2 — in 1958-59, that was a princely sum. Not to be left behind, the Bombay film industry got into the act: RK Nayyar was first off the block with his Yeh Raaste Hain Pyar Ke, followed by Gulzar’s Achanak. Two books published around the time were runaway hits: Indra Sinha’s The Death of Mr Love and Nanavati ka Mukadama, a romanchak Hindi version of the events that led up to the crime and the trial that followed.

These details by themselves are of no relevance today, but for the fact that they led to a profound change in our criminal justice system. Up until Nanavati’s trial, we too followed the Anglo-Saxon system of arriving at a ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ verdict with the help of a jury while sentencing would be done by the presiding judge. In this particular case, the jury was clearly moved by the media coverage and the public show of solidarity for the ‘wronged’ husband avenging his humiliation, and gave a ‘not guilty’ verdict. The Bombay High Court later overturned that finding and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment, a judgement that was later upheld by the Supreme Court. That, in turn, added further proverbial fuel to the raging fire of public opinion; such was the tide of popular support for Nanavati that he was set free after three years. The Government of India was yet to become the cynical, indifferent entity it is today. Aghast at the turn of events, it decided to do away with jury trials to insulate the process of justice from human emotions and, as some would say, plain stupidity of men and women unable to comprehend the finer nuances of the case presented by the prosecution. So it was that Indian courts rid themselves of jurors, who were rarely, if ever, schooled in law and couldn’t distinguish between shades of grey, in 1960. Since then, judges have decided whether an accused is guilty or innocent.

The reason I have recounted the story of Nanavati’s trial and how it led to the scrapping of jury trials in our country is to highlight the vagaries of a system that depends on the untested intelligence of randomly selected jurors. Those vagaries have once again been highlighted by the absurd verdict in the jury trial of the Pakistani Canadian terrorist, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, in a Chicago court. The jury has held him guilty of two of the three charges levelled against him on the basis of the same evidence, strangely absolving him of the most serious crime, that of his being involved in the November 26, 2008, attacks on multiple targets in Mumbai by Pakistani jihadis in an operation plotted by the ISI and executed by its pet terrorist organisation, the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. The evidence in the case, largely based on the testimony of Pakistani American Daood Gilani, now known as David Coleman Headley, an American intelligence asset-turned-ISI/Lashkar operative who has struck a plea bargain to avoid the death sentence, as well as Rana’s own statements during interrogation and on affidavit, amply demonstrate that he was involved neck-deep in facilitating the mass murder.

This is what the jury was told: Rana knew of the ISI-LeT plot to attack Mumbai; he knew of Headley’s links to the ISI and LeT; he was aware of Headley’s connection with Al Qaeda through Ilyas Kashmiri (recently killed in a US drone attack); despite that knowledge, he helped Headley to secure a multiple entry visa to scout for targets in India by giving him the cover of working as the agent of his ‘consultancy firm’, First World Immigration Services; he arranged local logistics for Headley, including his contact person, Bashir, in India; he and Headley discussed the outcome of the latter’s scouting visits to India in April 2008; he knew Sajid Mir, the LeT handler of the 10 jihadis involved in the attack; he was close to ‘Major Iqbal’, the ISI pointperson for this strike. Yet, the jury found it fit to absolve him of the charge of being involved in that ghastly bloodletting which left at least 166 people dead and scores maimed and scarred for life, while holding him guilty in the aborted attack on the offices of the Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posteni that had published cartoons allegedly lampooning Prophet Mohammed, and of being involved with a ‘banned terrorist organisation, the LeT.

There could be three reasons for the jury’s bizarre verdict. First, the finding reflects the average American’s indifference towards events in non-Western countries that do not impinge on their daily lives. Second, the jurors are plain stupid, unable to comprehend the intricacies of a terrorist plot of such proportions. Third, they were told to stand by god and America and do that which shall serve their national interest: Absolve Rana, and hence the ISI, of any involvement in 26/11 so that the US’s frontline ally, Pakistan, is not exposed for what it is: A terror-sponsoring state. This is important for another reason — to weaken the New York suit against the ISI and LeT which is directed against the Pakistani Army’s intelligence agency chief, Maj Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, and the chief terrorist of the LeT, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed. Lastly, it serves to send a not-so-subtle message to India: The US won’t punish Pakistan, no matter how horrendous its crimes against India. Yet we persist with the fiction that America is our friend and our Prime Minister singlemindedly pursues his single-point agenda of doing Washington’s bidding.

Meanwhile, thankfully we didn’t have a jury sitting in on the trial of Kasab, the ‘Butcher of Mumbai’. Given the preponderance of libtards among the English-speaking classes and the proclivity of today’s media, especially, news channels, to glorify terrorists, it is more than likely that a jury would have given a ‘not guilty’ verdict, holding Kasab at best guilty of entering India without valid papers. That would have fetched him punishment meant for illegal immigration under the anodyne Foreigners Act.

-- Follow the writer on: http://twitter.com/KanchanGupta. Blog on this and other issues at http://kanchangupta.blogspot.com. Write to him at [email protected]

[Brad Goodman]

Scene in the right context

There was always far more attention given to the trial of Chicago businessman Tahawwur Rana than the evidence behind it merited. Rana was at best a small subsidiary cog in a terrorist machine whose main location lay in the corridors of the headquarters of the Pakistan military. He argued he was a dupe of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba scout David Headley. The evidence that he was anything more than that was scanty and uncorroborated. The jury’s decision to acquit him of materially supporting the 26/11 Mumbai attacks wasn’t that much of a surprise. In any case, he will spend most, if not all of the remainder of his life in jail for the other verdicts handed down by the jury.

[CRamS]

Scene in the right context

Some wishful thinking from the HT crack pots

It is a success if seen in the larger backdrop of the isolation and discrediting of the Pakistani military. And, eventually, forcing Pakistan to confront what it has become as a country and a nation.

What these truds don't realize is that TSP has largely achieved its objectives visa vi India even as its relationship with US took a nose-dive post OBL. What TSP has achieved is getting US to lay off ISI/TSPA/LeT nexus targeting India. Thus, it is the Indian state that needs to get off its slumber and confront the demons that the US-led west have arrayed against it, namely, no matter how suspiscous they are of TSP, they have accorded TSP moral equivalence with India which is crucial to TSP's survival, and respectability and practical support to TSP in its use of terror as an instrument of state policy against India. These points need to be driven home and the Indian public needs to be educated on these counts. Only then would a future Indian govt be able to make the hard-nosed decisions that are required to deal with this TSP abomination.

[g.sarkar]

Chicago jury plain stupid or complicit?[/b]

Ramanaji,
For an outsider, it is very difficult to determine why the Chicago jury found Rana not guilty. Not all the information that is available to us in BRF is made available to the Jury. Also, they are not allowed to read newspapers or watch television that contain information regarding the case, sometimes they are sequestered with no contact to the outside world. Above all they have to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the benefit of doubt has to be given. The jury must unanimously find the defendant guilty and often that is a difficult task, as there could be just one member that will not go along with a guilty verdict. Lastly, jury members are private persons and want to return to their lives, and do not want to spend a long time in deliberations. In case to Rana, what is important is to remember that he was found guilty of other charges, and he is not going home a free man. I am sure in the final jury discussion this must have played a role. I have a feeling that he will get considerable amount of time to do in prison and for him this will not be pleasant.
Like the case of Nanavati, there is one case that is much more recent in the US, that shows the failings of the jury system. That is the case of O.J. Simpson. But here the jury system (in the US) is going to stay.
Gautam
PS I do not know much about the federal system under which he will be sentenced, but in the California penal system, if he is given 10 years (out of a possible 30 years), with a good time off he will do 5 years. But as a terrorist, and a first timer, his stay will not be pleasant. He has to be careful and watch his back.

[Brad Goodman]

Gautam, Even if I ignore all the details that DCH provided (coz to some he is an un reliable witness with criminal past) The only thing I need to look at is

1. Did DCH visit India? Answer is Yes
2. Who made is possible for DCH to visit India? Answer is Rana
3. What was the purpose of DCH a highschool dropout with criminal past doing in India? His graphical details of Taj & SS Bhavan Oberoi are enough to convince that he is talking substance here
4. Did Rana Launder money for DCH? Answer can be found in his bank records of money from poakis to DCH
5. Did any terror activity happen in Mumbai?

Now just with these 5 simple statements Rana is guilty since he was part of conspiracy big or small is a different question but guilty he is. How come they found him guilty of denmark when that was just on paper

[g.sarkar]

Brad Goodmanji,
While I understand your frustration, there is no answer to your questions, unless you have been a fly in the wall during the trial and the jury deliberations. We do not know what evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury, and to what narrow area they were allowed to confine their deliberations. Jury trial is a chancy business here and that is the reason the lawyers make their money. This is the system and you have to work within it. I gave the example of OJ Simpson. I am sure, if you were put up in the jury pool, the defense lawyers would have rejected you, just as I am, in every time I am in a jury pool. Do not shoot me, I am only the messenger!
Gautam

[Brad Goodman]

Brad Goodmanji,
Do not shoot me, I am only the messenger!
Gautam

Gautam ji apologies if it came out like I was putting you on spot. The question was directed at you coz you are closest to US Law Enforcement unless we have lawyers in the forum. Hopefully Discovery will make a documentry and in that invite some jury members to come and discuss the deliberations. I have seen them in quite a few crime shows. May be it will be a good learnng experience for us for future. Apologies once more we all are equally frustrated at the verdict and share the pain. I hope these mistakes will not be repeated in NYC trial

[Anantha]

Brad Goodmanji,
While I understand your frustration, there is no answer to your questions, unless you have been a fly in the wall during the trial and the jury deliberations. We do not know what evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury, and to what narrow area they were allowed to confine their deliberations. Jury trial is a chancy business here and that is the reason the lawyers make their money. This is the system and you have to work within it. I gave the example of OJ Simpson. I am sure, if you were put up in the jury pool, the defense lawyers would have rejected you, just as I am, in every time I am in a jury pool. Do not shoot me, I am only the messenger!
Gautam

Gautam... Absolutely right.
I have been a part of a jury twice and it is a very difficult thing. You have to put aside your personal intelligence and go with the evidence presented. Often times for strategic reasons some evidence is not presented (even if that matter is in public domain, as in high profile cases). Dissenting jurors are brought to the pov of the majority jurors using lot of BS and the jury foreman (the leader) usually sets the tone.
In DCH trial it looks more and more like adequate evidence was not presented or several deliberate? mistakes committed by the prosecution.

[g.sarkar]

Brad Goodmanji,
Do not shoot me, I am only the messenger!
Gautam

Gautam ji apologies if it came out like I was putting you on spot. The question was directed at you coz you are closest to US Law Enforcement unless we have lawyers in the forum.

I was just joking, no need to apologize. I have been called to be in a jury pool many times, but as soon as I say I am a peace officer, the defense counsel just thanks me and asks to let me go home! Each side has a certain amount of prospective jury that they can remove, and no defense wants any one with a law enforcement background to become a jury.
Gautam

[krisna]

26/11 probe: Don't blow up import of Rana's acquittal

India's case against Pakistan for the Mumbai carnage does not therefore hinge on the word of a felon like Headley, or any decision taken by an American jury on his testimony. The case against Rana was not prepared by Indian prosecutors; India was not party to the case in the US court although it had interest in it; Headley is not in Indian custody; the terms of the plea- bargaining between him and the US prosecutors were not decided in consultation with India. Are we satisfied with the quality of the case that the US prosecutors prepared against Rana for his involvement in 26/ 11? On the face of it, it would seem unfair to the Americans to question this. On the other hand, one can ask whether it serves the interest of the US government to implicate the ISI in 26/ 11.

Very important statements.

So far the US has made political level statements accusing Pakistan of playing a double game, of both fighting and supporting terrorists selectively. Even when the US has done some finger- pointing at the Pakistanis for their duplicitious conduct, the thrust is to avoid blaming the Pakistan government or its state agencies officially, and assign responsibility to either rogue or low level elements in the ISI, but not its top echelons. The objective is to exhort the government to do more to contain these elements rather than stare the problem in the eye and call a spade a spade by recognising the reality of the Pakistani establishment's long tryst with terrorism. In this context, if a US court holds the ISI complicit in a terrorist attack in which US nationals have been killed, does it oblige the US government to take steps under its laws against Pakistan as a country sponsoring terrorism? What effect would that have on USPakistan relations, and especially on Pakistani cooperation in resolving the Afghan tangle that assumes enhanced importance as the end- game in Afghanistan approaches?

Our case against Pakistan is based on our experience of terrorism at Pakistan's hands for almost 25 years, in Panjab, Kashmir and India at large, evidence gathered from intercepts by our intelligence agencies, the calls for jihad against India by groups that have political protection in Pakistan, the infrastructure of terrorism that continues to exist there, the rearing of jihadi groups by the Pakistan military as admitted at various times by the country's civilian leadership, General Musharraf's warning that terrorism is a reality that will not disappear unless the Kashmir issue is resolved, and, of course, Ajmal Kasab and Pakistan's bleeding of Mumbai.

Headley and Rana are merely pawns in a bigger Pakistani political game. Rana's acquittal does not materially change the larger picture. Would a guilty verdict against him have led to Pakistan abjuring terrorism against India, suppressing jihadi groups, curbing Hafiz Saeed or handing over wanted terrorists to India? Would that have radically changed US policies towards Pakistan? Would that have made the US a genuine partner of India in eliminating terrorism from Pakistani soil? Rana's acquittal is a mere episode in a complex game being played in which the US and Pakistan have interests that simultaneously diverge and converge, and India has no clear choices. It can neither rely on the Americans to take its chestnuts out of the fire nor do so by relying on its own strength. When India has been set back by Pakistani terrorism for long years, it is too simplistic to blow up the Rana verdict as a major set- back for India.

excellent article. every word is a gem.

[ramana]

krisna, I made many similar points a few posts ago.

[CRamS]

He does point out some truths, but he also seems to be throwing in a towel of sorts

Rana's acquittal is a mere episode in a complex game being played in which the US and Pakistan have interests that simultaneously diverge and converge, and India has no clear choices. It can neither rely on the Americans to take its chestnuts out of the fire nor do so by relying on its own strength . When India has been set back by Pakistani terrorism for long years, it is too simplistic to blow up the Rana verdict as a major set- back for India.

So where does India go from here?

[ArmenT]

Gautam ji apologies if it came out like I was putting you on spot. The question was directed at you coz you are closest to US Law Enforcement unless we have lawyers in the forum.

I was just joking, no need to apologize. I have been called to be in a jury pool many times, but as soon as I say I am a peace officer, the defense counsel just thanks me and asks to let me go home! Each side has a certain amount of prospective jury that they can remove, and no defense wants any one with a law enforcement background to become a jury.
Gautam

Lucky you. One of my relatives is in the LAPD and that didn't excuse me from jury duty on an attempted murder trial. Needless to say, everything you said about jury trials were also corroborated by my experiences and we had to do a lot of negotiating to get everyone to agree on the various charges.

As anantha said, jurors make decisions based on what was presented as evidence in court, not what they read elsewhere. Judge even warned us not to do own research or it could be called a mistrial. It is a very hard place to be, but it was a memorable experience

[Hiten]

a set of court documents from the Rana trial [PDF]

http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2011-07-20 ... ed-297.pdf

[Jaik]

Would be interesting to see if Headley/Rana/Faisal Shahzad were in contact with Fai & co. It may well be that Fai was not just working on Cashmere laabying, but also running isolated terror cells/individuals. Fai may also be involved in fund raising for LeT piglets too.Looks like several WKKs may be caaught with their chaddis down!

Timelining Fai's movements with Faisal Shazad (father is paki jernail)/DCH/Rana with Fai's known movements, check any telephonic conversations with any piglets in toiletistan and any contacts with Toiletstan embassy/high commission with these people would yield interesting results. If only, the results of such investigations could be made public! We can only dream!

[abhishek_sharma]

Dilemma over sending NIA team to quiz Tahawwur Rana

[ramana]

Up
Rana has exhausted all his options to prevent extradition to India.

[Tanaji]

This is the oldest thread necro performed ever!

BRF has a thread for everything!

[SBajwa]

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-i ... ea-7660731


India In Touch With US To Work On Tahawwur Rana's Extradition: Foreign Ministry


In a special briefing by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's overseas visit, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said this in response to a query on Rana's extradition from the US.

New Delhi:
India has said that it is in touch with US authorities to work on the logistics of the surrender of 2008 Mumbai terror attack accused Tahawwur Rana as he has "exhausted all legal avenues" in the United States.

In a special briefing by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's overseas visit, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said this in response to a query on Rana's extradition from the US.

During the briefing, Foreign Secretary Misri said, "On the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, from recent developments, you would be aware that Rana has exhausted all legal avenues in the United States with the US Supreme Court also dismissing his appeal, and therefore we are now in touch with US authorities to work on the logistics of his surrender to Indian authorities."

He added, "We will update you as soon as we hear further on this particular matter."

The developments come ahead of the Prime Minister's visit to the United States.

"The visit will be a valuable opportunity to engage the new administration in all areas of mutual interest", Mr Misri said.

Foreign Secretary Misri also mentioned that PM Modi and US President Donald Trump would hold bilateral meetings in both restricted and delegation-level formats, with senior US administration figures expected to meet the Prime Minister during the visit.

"The fact that the Prime Minister has been invited to visit the US within barely three weeks of the new administration taking office shows the importance of the India-US partnership and is also reflective of the bipartisan support, that this partnership enjoys in the US," he added.

Earlier, during a press briefing, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal had said that the Indian side was working with the US on procedural issues for the early extradition of Tahawwur Rana to India.

"On January 21, the US Supreme Court declined a petition from the accused. With that looks like his appeal in the matter has been dismissed. We are now working with the US side on procedural issues for early extradition to India of the accused in the Mumbai terror attack," Mr Jaiswal said.

On January 28, the US State Department said that it is currently evaluating the next steps regarding Tahawwur Rana's extradition to India.

"In view of the recent Supreme Court decision, and consistent with applicable US law, the Department of State is currently evaluating next steps in this case," the statement said.

"We have long supported India's efforts to ensure the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attacks face justice," the statement added.

Pakistani-origin businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana, who was convicted for his role in the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai, which resulted in the deaths of 164 people, may now be extradited to India.

Rana's co-conspirators included David Headley, who pleaded guilty and cooperated against Rana.

On January 21, the US Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Rana, seeking to prevent his extradition to India.

The petition, filed in November 2024, was against an earlier order of a lower court that had ruled in favor of his extradition.

A writ of certiorari is a legal document that allows a higher court to review a case from a lower court.

The 26/11 attacks resulted in the deaths of 174 people, including 20 security personnel and 26 foreigners, and more than 300 others were injured in the horrific attacks that took place at Mumbai's Taj Hotel on November 26, 2008.

[SBajwa]

BTW.. His brother Abbas Rana works for "The Hill Times" which is published from Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


Abbas Rana
Abbas Rana is the assistant deputy editor at The Hill Times. He reports on parliamentary caucuses, nomination contests, party leadership campaigns, Prime Minister’s Office, and cabinet. Rana loves to chat with sources on the record or on a not-for-attribution basis, especially when they have verifiable story tips that could be followed as news stories. Born and raised in Pakistan, Rana speaks Punjabi, Urdu, and Hindi. You can reach him with news tips or comments at [email protected].

[SBajwa]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 192782.ece

[SSridhar]

US Supreme Court rejects 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana's extradition stay request - ToI

The United States Supreme Court on Friday rejected the extradition stay request of Tahawwur Rana, a key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks that killed more than 170 people.

Rana had approached the US Supreme Court, seeking an emergency stay on his previously allowed extradition.

In the appeal application, Rana contended that his survival chances would be insufficient for facing trial in India, citing multiple factors.
His petition specifically mentioned that "if a stay is not entered, there will be no review at all, and the US courts will lose jurisdiction, and the petitioner will soon be dead."

The 26/11 terror attacks suspect alleged that his extradition to India would likely lead to his torture, given his status as a Pakistani-origin Muslim individual.

Rana's extradition was greenlit by US President Donald Trump last month.

[SSridhar]

The US jail authorities must keep him under 24 hour watch in a high security area until he is extradited because there is a possibility that he may be eliminated by either the Establishment or the Deep State or both.

[Ashokk]

Tahawwur Rana submits renewed application seeking stay of extradition to India after U.S. Supreme Court rejects his emergency bid

He had submitted an "Emergency Application For Stay Pending Litigation of Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus” on February 27 with Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit.

A note dated March 6 on the Supreme Court website said that “Application …denied by Justice Kagan."

Rana has now renewed his "Emergency Application for Stay Pending Litigation of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" previously addressed to Justice Kagan, and requests that the renewed application be directed to Chief Justice Roberts,” according to the submission by Rana's lawyers on Thursday posted on the court’s website.