What's new

A question of evidence

Neo

RETIRED

New Recruit

Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Messages
18
Reaction score
0

By Shaukat Qadir

Let the bench that tries those finally accused be a joint Indo-Pak bench, headed by the judge of the ICC. Let us show the world how a joint investigation and a joint trial can resolve international problems, rather than unprovoked and unauthenticated accusations

The Indian government has, finally, handed over the ‘evidence’ collected regarding the involvement of Pakistani personnel in the Mumbai attacks to Pakistan formally; and contends that it is sufficient for Pakistan to act upon it. It has further demanded that the individuals accused be handed over to India. Another spokesman has added that, like the rest of the world, India is now waiting to see whether Pakistan acts on it or not.

Let it be clear at the very outset that wherever evidence exists regarding the involvement of a Pakistani citizen in acts of terrorism, it is in our interest that we must act against him/her/them. We need not respond to international pressure or worry about empty threats from India; we need to act because this cancer of terrorism is eating through our bowels. If the Mumbai attacks were committed by Pakistanis and India suffers from such an attack (apart from its homegrown violence) once a decade, we suffer from it almost on a daily basis. We need take no action to appease anybody, except our own citizens.

Having said that, let us examine the evidence, which has been conveniently ‘leaked’ to the press. It consists of a ‘confession’ by Ajmal Kasab, in which he has named his nine companions in the attack and a letter to the Pakistani High Commissioner in India, seeking his help as a Pakistani citizen — interestingly, both these documents are in Hindi! While it is possible that the confession, recorded by an Indian might have been written in Hindi, since that would be his natural language; it is highly unlikely that Kasab, a Pakistani, whose natural language would be Urdu, would resort to writing to our high commissioner, in his own hand, in Hindi, even if he had learnt the language!

That is the first thing that makes both these documents suspect.

While we have no evidence that the ‘confession’ was extorted under duress, there is also no concrete evidence that it was not. Under the circumstances, it would be natural for Pakistani authorities to assume that the confession was made under duress; which would make it inadmissible in any court. Had the investigation by India been conducted more transparently, had they asked for a Pakistani investigative officer along with a member of the judiciary to be present during the investigation, instead of summoning our spy chief, who heads an intelligence gathering organisation, not an investigative one, Pakistan would have been more likely to cooperate then and more likely to accept the authenticity of the evidence delivered now. After all, it was Scotland Yard and the FBI that assisted in the investigation, not MI5 or the CIA!

Secondly, Kasab’s confession names only the nine companions killed by Indian security forces. In an earlier article, I have already explained that it would be a physical impossibility for ten individuals to attack nine different locations simultaneously, wreak the havoc they did, hold people hostage, and successfully hold off against the hordes of Indian security forces for sixty-two hours. If the Indians have accepted that there were only ten attackers, then I confess to have credited them with more intelligence than they have demonstrated.

Thirdly, after obtaining Kasab’s ‘confession’, India had initially accused Masood Azhar Masood and others. Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and his cohorts were never on India’s list. Since Pakistani authorities considered him the leading suspect, now Kasab seems to have named Lakhvi, his deputy Zarrar and others.

The remaining ‘supportive’ evidence consists of ‘decoded Skype calls’ made over the internet; Pakistani cell telephone numbers of individuals that the attackers supposedly spoke to; and T-shirts, shaving creams, toothpaste etc. recovered from the hijacked boat they came ashore in, which are of Pakistani origin. Any court of law, other than Kangaroo Courts following the sterling example set by US military courts, would not even accept this as sufficient prima facie evidence to consider the individuals India has named even as ‘accused’.

That being stated, what should the Pakistan government do?

While any investigation is underway, those being investigated are initially suspects. When sufficient prima facie evidence is produced before a court, it declares the individual(s) to have become accused and orders their trial.

Pakistan should initiate a transparent investigation, beginning with the assumption that those named by Indian authorities along with those suspected by our own are mere suspects. Pakistan should insist on assistance from Scotland Yard and request Indian authorities to participate with a member of their judiciary and representation from their investigative agency, we don’t want more of their RAW people here.

I suggest that Interpol be also invited in, even though the Interpol is essentially a policing agency not an investigative one. Its presence would add to the authenticity of our investigation. I would avoid requesting for the FBI for security reasons as well as the fact that they tend to hijack any investigation.

Even a judge of the International Criminal Court would be welcome; the more transparent the better. And if evidence is available against any Pakistani, let him be tried with all those who participated in the investigation being present. I would even be willing to set a new international precedent, let the bench that tries those finally accused be a joint Indo-Pak bench, headed by the judge of the ICC. Let us show the world how a joint investigation and a joint trial can resolve international problems, rather than the unprovoked and unauthenticated accusations and the warmongering that India indulges in. Regretfully, we have a point to prove; let us prove it in a manner that makes the point for all times.

India has again accused these attackers of enjoying the support of the ISI and the army; let us ask the Indian authorities to ‘put up or shut up’. If they can conjure up some ‘evidence’, let this also be part of this investigation. If there are serving officers in the Pakistan army guilty of supporting terrorism, as have been found in India, let them also be unmasked. This barrage of periodical unsupported accusations by Indians and others, who find it convenient to make them at will, has gone on long enough; it is time to put an end to it. We have enough problems to solve without being burdened by false accusations.

The author is a retired brigadier. He is also former vice president and founder of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI)
 
Why on earth would a Pakistani be writing in Hindi, and then speaking in Hindi?

Things are amiss in Bharat.
 
A lot of questions have to be answered yet, including the use of "Hindi" language.

Any details on the holes discovered in the official report?
 

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said on Friday Pakistan had sent India a response to evidence from the Mumbai attacks, as U.S. vice president-elect Joe Biden arrived on a trip aimed at easing tension in South Asia.

Ties between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India deteriorated sharply after coordinated attacks by 10 gunmen on the Indian city of Mumbai in late November that killed 179 people.

India blamed Pakistani militants from the outset. But Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said for the first time this week the assault must have had the support of "some official agencies" in Pakistan.

Pakistan has denied involvement by state agencies and said Singh was ratcheting up tension.

Pakistan confirmed on Wednesday the lone surviving gunman from the attack was Pakistani, and Gilani said on Friday Pakistan's main security agency had sent India a response to a dossier of evidence from the attacks India presented this week.

"Our ISI has given their feedback," Gilani told reporters referring to the military's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

He did not elaborate but said Pakistan would cooperate if more information was required.

India said the evidence linked Pakistani militants to the attacks, and it included data from satellite phones and the surviving attacker's confession.

Gilani said it was regrettable India had frozen a four-year-old peace process that had brought better ties between the rivals who have fought three wars since 1947.

"The situation on our eastern border has once again become very fragile," Gilani told a seminar in Islamabad. "The world must not let tension between India and Pakistan escalate."

Biden, a Democrat and the outgoing chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, arrived in Pakistan with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of the U.S. Armed Services Committee, a U.S. embassy spokesman said.

He was due to meet President Asif Ali Zardari.

"IRRATIONAL, DEADLY ACTORS"

While tension has been high, there has been no sign of a repeat of a 2002 troop build-up which followed an attack in New Delhi that India also blamed on Pakistani-based militants.

Analysts say the chances of India resorting to military action have receded.

Pakistani officials have warned that if there was a risk of conflict with India it would move forces from its border with Afghanistan, where they are fighting Taliban and al Qaeda militants.

That would undermine a U.S. plan to almost double the number of its troops in Afghanistan as part of a surge to quell an intensified insurgency.

The tension with India has also had ramifications on Pakistani domestic politics with Gilani sacking his national security adviser on Wednesday for releasing news of the nationality of the surviving gunman before consulting him.

Gilani said he had sacked the adviser, Mahmud Ali Durrani, in the interests of the country and of governance and denied the affair had created a rift with President Zardari.

Nevertheless, Lisa Curtis, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said in a note the incident had demonstrated just how fragile Pakistan's internal political situation was.

Curtis also said the military's years of support for militants fighting in Afghanistan and India was costing Pakistan dearly, and its foreign and domestic policies had become hostage to the agenda of "irrational, deadly actors."

It would be a grave error for Pakistan to fail to punish those responsible for the Mumbai attack on the excuse that would appear to be succumbing to Indian pressure, she said.

Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram said he was not going to the United States to present evidence gleaned from the Mumbai attacks, partly because of Pakistan's confirmation the surviving gunman was Pakistani.
 
10 Jan 2009

NEW DELHI: The US has contended that the dossier given by India to Pakistan on the Mumbai attacks was "credible" but suggested that New Delhi should allow time to Islamabad to act on it.

US ambassador to India David C Mulford said the dossier contains extensive inputs from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

"From what I have seen it is a very credible material. The FBI is cooperating in Mumbai...It is information which tells and gives a very accurate account of what has happened," he said to a private news channel.

Commenting on the Indo-US cooperation in this area, he said the dossier prepared by India extensively used material provided by the FBI. "As far as I see, it (FBI material) was used extensively because the material was same."

Underlining the credible aspect of the dossier, he said, "As far as the FBI is concerned, they do not deal with non-credible material. It is a truly professional organisation supported by absolutely high-tech techniques."

On the Mumbai attacks, Mulford said "there were handlers who were in touch with these people on the ground. It is a serious problem. This act of terrorism came from Pakistan".

When referred to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's view that "official agencies" of Pakistan could have been involved in the terror strikes, the Ambassador said "I think one needs to be very very careful about making those kinds of allegations unless you have very concrete evidence to that degree of specificity."

The US ambassador said his country cannot get into "that kind of specificity unless there is some justification for it."

Mulford said there are a lot of things that tell that "this is a very serious situation. You don't need to know that degree of specificity that you need to compel to pursue the matter."

Emphasising that Pakistan has a "serious problem on its hand", he said "you don't need some kind of a definitive state to know that you have a definite problem on hand."

When referred to Pakistan's virtual rejection of the credibility of evidence within 24 hours after getting it, he said, "Well, I don't think you can cut some quick reaction on the statement of one particular individual. I think it takes some time. You have, after all, a situation where there is a civilian government, a very strong military, a very strong intelligence agency and a media and other players.

"And I think you have to take a view that it is going to take little time to percolate to see what really is the outcome."

He went on to add that "Somebody in denial (mode) doesn't necessarily remain in denial and isn't always on specific point in denial even if they are projecting a sense of denial."

Mulford said "It is complex and you would be mistaken to seize on a statement that is particularly irritating to you or proves a point of some kind to you that are standing back waiting and seeing the effort it is achieving."

Mulford said "It is complex and you would be mistaken to seize on a statement that is particularly irritating to you or proves a point of some kind to you that are standing back waiting and seeing the effort it is achieving."

He said the US view was that the Pakistani government has "responded cooperatively with us".

Insisting that Pakistan is "very concerned" about the situation, the Ambassador said "they (Pakistan) have made some efforts early on to offer a delegation to come to India to cooperate and exchange information which is not being accepted and they have recently agreed to hand over information and cooperate with the government here.

"The question is what is the level of cooperation going to be. How forthcoming is it? Is it enough to satisfy people here of their credibility of the party to cooperate with."

He said one should not "get lost with some of the detail ... because I think we all understand there has to be a level of cooperation to move from here."

Asked how long India should wait for Pakistan to respond, he said "it is not a question of time, although time is important, because to get into a situation where so much time passes, it makes them look uncooperative.

"But you do have to sort of gauge what is happening, what their own situation is and what sort of problems they are facing. And don't forget, the US is in regular touch with them because of its own losses."
 
Pakistan should initiate a transparent investigation, beginning with the assumption that those named by Indian authorities along with those suspected by our own are mere suspects. Pakistan should insist on assistance from Scotland Yard and request Indian authorities to participate with a member of their judiciary and representation from their investigative agency, we don’t want more of their RAW people here.

I suggest that Interpol be also invited in, even though the Interpol is essentially a policing agency not an investigative one. Its presence would add to the authenticity of our investigation. I would avoid requesting for the FBI for security reasons as well as the fact that they tend to hijack any investigation.

Even a judge of the International Criminal Court would be welcome; the more transparent the better. And if evidence is available against any Pakistani, let him be tried with all those who participated in the investigation being present. I would even be willing to set a new international precedent, let the bench that tries those finally accused be a joint Indo-Pak bench, headed by the judge of the ICC. Let us show the world how a joint investigation and a joint trial can resolve international problems, rather than the unprovoked and unauthenticated accusations and the warmongering that India indulges in. Regretfully, we have a point to prove; let us prove it in a manner that makes the point for all times.

India has again accused these attackers of enjoying the support of the ISI and the army; let us ask the Indian authorities to ‘put up or shut up’. If they can conjure up some ‘evidence’, let this also be part of this investigation. If there are serving officers in the Pakistan army guilty of supporting terrorism, as have been found in India, let them also be unmasked. This barrage of periodical unsupported accusations by Indians and others, who find it convenient to make them at will, has gone on long enough; it is time to put an end to it. We have enough problems to solve without being burdened by false accusations.


Excellent idea
Once we have reached a conclusion to the Mumbai terrorist attack case we should ask for the same from the indian govt for the samjohta bombings......a joint Indo-Pak bench, headed by the judge of the ICC with the full cooperation of the pak-india police, Scotland Yard and interpol.
Lets start with these two cases and any future problem we can go along these line and sort the problem out.
The only problem will be if india refuses to carry out a joint investigation over samjohta after pakistan has had a joint investigation with india over the mumbai attacks or if pak or india start wanting to dig out past cases....Hafeez saeed-Maulana Masood Azar-Advani ect.
Lets start with the two cases mentioned and forget the past.
You gotta start from somewhere.
I expect the indians to disagree...there can be no compromise with indians they always want there own way.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom