The case against Hafiz Saeed

Discussion in 'Pakistan's Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by Screaming Skull, May 5, 2009.

Share This Page

  1. Skeptic
    Offline

    Skeptic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,156
    Ratings:
    +0 / 973 / -0
    Clearly, when the association with LeT was not even questioned and AQ is not a terrorist organization, what else could the court decide? Simple question is why was LeT connection not pursued, when it is widely recognized and accepted that LeT changed its name to JuD with most of the workers.

    How can the court decide on matters which are not even presented before them? This is just twisting of Law.

    The GoP petition I hope is not another eyewash and I hope they do pursue the real charges. How hard can it be to connect JuD to LeT?
  2. ajpirzada
    Offline

    ajpirzada PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,514
    Ratings:
    +6 / 3,761 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    and clearly when the court says that JuD is not involved in any terrorist activity then i guess there is no need to ask if they were linked to LeT (which is a terrorist organisation).
    now wat difference will it make even if they are tried for having contacts with LeT?? will the court say that yes now they are involved in terrorist activities when there is already no evidence to prove that??
    lets say that JuD is linked to LeT. then what verdict will u expect? will it not be contradictory to today's verdict? and if it will be then doesnt that mean today's verdict was wrong meaning court didnt know wat it was on about.
  3. Skeptic
    Offline

    Skeptic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,156
    Ratings:
    +0 / 973 / -0
    Sir, you don't seem to be very familiar with workings of the courts and judiciary. First of all, court can only pass judgments on the charges it is presented with. Second, have you read the official judgement. It does not and can not say that JuD is not involved in ANY terrorist activity. It can only mention that JuD is not involved in any terrorist activity as per the charges pressed against it.

    Simple example I gave you earlier, A person commits murder in Karachi and case is filed against him for committing robbery in Islamabad. Court will say, Suspect is found not guilty on ANY of the charges pressed against him, simply because he was not prosecuted for murder.

    I hope you do get my point or I can further elaborate. Judiciary does not conduct investigation (unless asked to) and only bases it's decision on the evidence and charges presented before it. If the evidence is not given or wrong charges are pressed no court can punish an individual. It is not like Judge will investigate what all activities JuD was involved in. Judge will listen to what prosecution has to say (In this case that JuD was involved in terrorist activity as it was associated with AQ) and what the defence had to say (That AQ qas not a terrorist Organization as per Pakistan so even if it is associated, it is not criminal) and reach its decision that JuD is not involved in any terror activity. I am over simplifying the entire thing but this is approximately what happened.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2009
  4. Zob
    Offline

    Zob SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,411
    Ratings:
    +0 / 342 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    @SKEPTIC

    but this is approximately what happened.


    well like you said this is what you THINK happened.....

    i say well if the indians have proof linking the JUD to the thing then the EVIDENCE should be handed over to pakistan.....firstly the GoI was thinknig the ISI was involved...then the JUD......


    if ever in the HISTORY of pakistan we had even an atom of FREE JUDICARY it is now....and by freeing this man it has showed that it has its OWN freedom and is not given orders from the PRESIDENCY or the PRIME MINISTER house on what to do how to do it.....

    this might be a loss for PAKISTAN in terms of "TERRORISTS" going free but it is a win in terms of an INDEPENDANT judicary!!!

    see my friend there is a "MULZIM" & a "MUJRIM"

    the diffrence is one is accused and one is convicted......the JuD chief is "MULZIM" or in english the accused until he is convicted and until and unless SOLID proof emerges against him i don't think WE should NOT give him the benefit of the doubt!!
  5. Skeptic
    Offline

    Skeptic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,156
    Ratings:
    +0 / 973 / -0
    Sir Zob,

    I am in no way saying judiciary was unfair, all I am saying that GoP engineered a weak case against JuD and it's chief. A judgment can only be given if right chages are pressed by the prosecution and all relevant evidence given.

    India has provided evidence of JuD's link with LeT, but the same was not a part of proceeding of the court. It is a very simple matter which is consciously being ignored. Why press for charges claiming JuD's association with AQ when AQ is not a terrorist organisation in Pakistan? Please read the same point raised by me earlier and again I say, It is not the judiciary, it is the responsibility of prosecution to press right charges and present evidence. Judiciary may be free, but it can not conduct investigation into working of any organization on its own. Atleast in this case it did not.
  6. ajpirzada
    Offline

    ajpirzada PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,514
    Ratings:
    +6 / 3,761 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    lets keep ur examples and analysis aside and wait for the charge sheet to come. then we will see were the charges and wat was the verdict. no point arguin now.

    and btw india has not provided any evidence linkin JuD with LeT. there was only a written statement which u guys came up with in ur dosier.
  7. Skeptic
    Offline

    Skeptic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,156
    Ratings:
    +0 / 973 / -0
    Well for starters, you have the confession of Kasab. If Pakistan is totally dependent on India for the evidence, better send over Mr. Saeed over here, we'll handle it from there.

    Hanif Saeed detached from LeT just one day before it was declared a terrorist organization and formed JuD, still you find the evidence difficult to come by?:woot::crazy:
  8. Zob
    Offline

    Zob SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,411
    Ratings:
    +0 / 342 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    sir we find evidence difficult because if India has SOLID evidence then i guess it should be shown to the world INTERPOL & PAKISTAN.....

    ofcourse the charge sheet was weak there was nothing to put in it....except we presume he was the mastermind of the attacks in MUMBAI....and you don't win cases on GUT FEELINGS & PRESUMPTIONS!!
  9. Skeptic
    Offline

    Skeptic SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    1,156
    Ratings:
    +0 / 973 / -0
    I did not get your statement: We find evidence difficult because....

    Ofcourse the evidence is shown to the world and all major police agencies find it sufficient, but I guess they need to be produced in court to frame the accused. What good will they do lying in drawers.

    If you had nothing to put in charge sheet, why put a man under house arrest??? This is what is called a definition of eyewash. He was released because of technicalities rather than lack of proof. If you will not even associate him with LeT and expect to retain custody - it will be plain hogwash.

    If there is no evidence, then why is the decision being challenged in supreme court? Sir you can refrain from posting if you dont have anything to reply to the questions. Why was his connection with AQ discussed when even upon proving, it does not account to anything. Why was connection with LeT not posted as main charge.
  10. ajpirzada
    Offline

    ajpirzada PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,514
    Ratings:
    +6 / 3,761 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    kasab statement will never prove anyone guilty if there is no solid evidence. even if i stand infront of court and accept my crime that also needs to be backed by evidence.

    and hafiz saeed was part of LeT but left it when it was banned. how will that help in provin that he was one of the many ppl involved in mumbai attack? can this prove him guilty in indian courts?
  11. Stumper
    Offline

    Stumper FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,258
    Ratings:
    +0 / 413 / -0
    Apir/Zob: Just my 2 cents ...I get what Skeptic is trying to say. Skeptic has a valid point. If it was so desired, case could have been built against Mr.Hafiz, with Kasab's statement and inputs from pakistani establishment. Skeptic's contention is that a case was build up on wrong premise (which was sure to get acquittal).
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2009
  12. Zob
    Offline

    Zob SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,411
    Ratings:
    +0 / 342 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    In Lahore High Court, case was presented against Saeed on grounds that he was associated with Al-Qayeda. GoP has till date not recognized AQ as a terrorist Organization. Why put up such a weak case.

    well this one i agree weak case but then again doesn't every organization these days get linked to AL QAEDA & at the point in time when he was put under house arrest there was nothing linking the LeT to the mumbai attacks....it had happened fairly recently....& nothing was confirmed back then!!!

    Mumbai Blast or any terror activity in India was not part of the charges against Hafiz Saeed in Court. Was this not the prime
    reason why he was arrested in first place?


    well ofcourse he was put under house arrest due to the fact that the MUMBAI attacks had happened & the international pressure was mounting...but come on still no proof had been provided back then...!!

    None of the evidence provided by India were used in the case.

    has india even provided the evidence of yet??? i clearly remember PAKISTAN foreign office complaining till 3 days back that INDIA should fast track the DOSSIER and should provide more evidence to PAKISTAN....


    bottom line until and unless solid evidence is given by INDIA evidence that PAKISTAN cannot deny we will for sure let a man go....

    i think the "EVIDENCE" linking HAFEEZ to the MUMBAI attacks need to be made public information for the whole world.....because honestly so far India is ALSO DRAGGING ITS FEET.....

    example of feet dragging is how they mixed up the DNA samples of KASAB!!
  13. Stumper
    Offline

    Stumper FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,258
    Ratings:
    +0 / 413 / -0
    Confessional statement can be accepted if there exist circumstantial evidence as well to support it.

    You are right actually. But wont Kasabs statement , plus circumstantial evidence / or Pakistan's security establishment's reports on hafiz matter ?
  14. notsuperstitious
    Offline

    notsuperstitious BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    10,001
    Ratings:
    +2 / 18,977 / -16
    Excellent point Skeptic, this is what I've been trying to say on other threads too. If Pakistan is serious about stopping terrorism (by orgs created by their own establishment at one time) then there's always a way. ARE THEY SERIOUS? Thats the question.
  15. ajpirzada
    Offline

    ajpirzada PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,514
    Ratings:
    +6 / 3,761 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    statement backed by circumstantial evidence will matter. but wat circumstantial evidence is available to prove his involvement in mumbai attacks?