Accused in India massacre claims ties to Pakistani secret service

[Bang Galore]

The Globe And Mail
Accused in India massacre claims ties to Pakistani secret service - The Globe and Mail

Accused in India massacre claims ties to Pakistani secret service

COLIN FREEZE

India-Pakistan tensions will likely be inflamed by a trial that’s slated to begin in the United States next month: New court documents reveal that two terrorist operatives accused in the 2008 Mumbai massacre conspiracy are preparing to say they believed themselves to be working for Pakistani spies.

On May 16 in Chicago, Pakistani-Canadian Tahawwur Hussain Rana is to go on trial for allegedly providing terrorist scouts with the false credentials they used to pick targets in India’s largest city. Months after the surveillance operation was executed, Pakistani gunmen stormed luxury hotels, train stations and a Jewish centre, killing more than 160 civilians.

The rampage threatened to set two nuclear-armed neighbours on the path to war, until Pakistan – backed by U.S. intelligence officials – rushed to assure India that the attacks were not state-sponsored. A year later, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in Illinois arrested Mr. Rana and his long-time friend David Coleman Headley – and accused the two Pakistani expatriates in their 50s of doing surveillance on behalf of a terrorist group.

Lashkar-e-Taiba, or LeT, is blamed for the Mumbai massacre, though Indian officials suspect the jihadists did not operate alone. Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI, is notorious for rogue elements and double games – and it has long cultivated ties with militant Islamist groups such as LeT to create buffers.

Mr. Rana’s trial threatens to lend an aura of credence to the suspicions of ISI complicity. According to court documents, the jury will hear the two Chicago conspirators say they believed themselves to be working for both LeT and the ISI.

Previously secret testimony heard only by a grand jury is referred to in a decision published earlier this month.

“I also told him [Mr. Rana] … how I had been asked to perform espionage work for ISI,” Mr. Headley, a Pakistani-American, testified to the grand jury.

Though cryptic, the statement is highly significant.

Having turned FBI informer in a bid to escape the death penalty, Mr. Headley will reveal the blow-by-blow of the Mumbai massacre surveillance scheme when he gives evidence against Mr. Rana.

That testimony should include the specifics on how Mr. Headley anglicized his Pakistani name, cultivated ties with LeT, videotaped sites in Mumbai, and briefed his handlers in Pakistan in the run-up to the carnage.

Speaking about how he entered India under a “false flag” to scout out targets, Mr. Headley told the grand jury that “I told [Mr. Rana] about my assignment to conduct surveillance in Mumbai. … I explained to him that the immigration office would provide a cover story for why I was in Mumbai.”

Though Mr. Rana is a Canadian citizen, for years he has been the proprietor of First World Immigration Services, a consultancy based in a South Asian enclave of Chicago.

Mr. Rana has been struggling to explain away allegations that he gave Mr. Headley the papers that allowed him to pose as an immigration consultant. According to recent filings, Mr. Rana argues he is a Pakistani patriot who was led to believe the ISI wanted his help – and therefore he should get the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

On April 1, Judge Harry Leinenweber ruled that that defence to be “objectively unreasonable.”

“Defendant's proposed defence is that his alleged illegal acts of providing material support to terrorists – at least those related to the Mumbai attacks – were done at the behest of the Pakistani government and the ISI, not the Lashkar terrorist organization,” reads the decision. “He argues that he is entitled to a public-authority defence because he acted under the authority – whether actual or apparent – of the Pakistani government and the ISI.”

Prosecutors also say they caught Mr. Rana and Mr. Headley on tape after the Mumbai attacks, discussing a plot to kill a Danish cartoonist who had lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.

 

[Bang Galore]

Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:890

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09 CR 830-4

v.
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
ILYAS KASHMIRI, et al.
(TAHAWWUR HUSSAIN RANA),

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are two Motions from the Government: (1) a

Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant Tahawwur Hussain Rana’s

(hereinafter, the “Defendant”) Public Authority Defense; and (2) a

Motion to Quash Trial Subpoenas that Defendant served on the Federal

Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI”) and Department of State (the

“State Department”). For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants

both of these motions.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant has been charged in three counts of a 12-count

superseding indictment for providing material support to terrorists

and foreign terrorist organizations, brought under 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2339A, 2339B, in connection with the November 2008 attacks in

Mumbai, India, by the Pakistan-based group Lashkar e Tayyiba

(“Lashkar”), and a plot to attack a newspaper building in Denmark.

His trial is scheduled to begin in this Court on May 16, 2011.

Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:891

In compliance with FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 12.3(a)(1),

Defendant provided notice on January 2, 2011, that he intends to

assert a defense that he acted pursuant to his actual or believed

exercise of public authority on behalf of the government of Pakistan

and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (the “ISI”). A

week after providing notice of this intended defense, Defendant

issued subpoenas under FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 17(c) to the FBI

and Department of State, both of which request: “Any and

all . . . cables originating from or transmitted to India, Pakistan

or the United States, regarding Tahawwur Hussain Rana; Daood Gilani

a/k/a David Coleman Headley; Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence

Officers Major Iqbal, Lieutenant Colonel Shah and Major Samir Ali;

and any connections between the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence

(the “ISI”) and Lashkar e Tayyiba.” The Government subsequently

filed two motions: (1) a Motion in Limine to exclude the intended

public authority defense; and (2) a Motion to Quash the FBI and

Department of State subpoenas.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

When a motion in limine involves the propriety of an affirmative

defense, the trial court accepts as true evidence proffered by the

defendant. See United States v. Tokash, 282 F.3d 962, 967 (7th Cir.

2002). The defendant, however, “must present more than a scintilla

of evidence that demonstrates that he can satisfy the legal

requirements for asserting the proposed defense.” Id. (internal

quotation omitted). If, however, as a matter of law the defendant’s

- 2 -
Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:892

evidence does not support an affirmative defense, the court should

preclude this defense from being presented at trial. See United

States v. Baker, 438 F.3d 749, 753 (7th Cir. 2006). Further, a

district court possesses discretion in deciding whether to grant or

deny a motion to quash a subpoena. See Griffin v. Foley, 542 F.3d

209, 223 (7th Cir. 2008).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Exclude Public Authority Defense

Defendant’s proposed defense is that his alleged illegal acts of

providing material support to terrorists — at least those related to

the Mumbai attacks — were done at the behest of the Pakistani

government and the ISI, not the Lashkar terrorist organization. He

argues that he is entitled to a public authority defense because he

acted under the authority — whether actual or apparent — of the

Pakistani government and the ISI. He finds support for this defense

from grand jury testimony of Co-Defendant David Headley, who has pled

guilty to the counts against him in the superseding indictment and

whom the Government will most likely call as a witness in its case

against Defendant. For example, Headley provided the following

testimony before the grand jury:

During my trip to Chicago, I told [Defendant] about my
meetings with Sajid and others in Lashkar. I also told him
about my meetings with Major Iqbal, and told him how I had
been asked to perform espionage work for ISI. I even told
him some of the espionage stories that Major Iqbal had told
me. I told [Defendant] about my assignment to conduct
surveillance in Mumbai. I asked [Defendant]if it was okay
with him that I set up a First World immigration office in
Mumbai. I explained to him that the immigration office

- 3 -
Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:893

would provide a cover story for why I was in Mumbai. I
told him that Major Iqbal would be providing money to pay
for the expenses associated with setting up and operating
the office. [Defendant] agreed.

Def.’s Resp. 3. Defendant argues that the ISI has authority to act

in India to protect Pakistan’s national interests. Therefore, he

contends, he relied on a public authority, one that he argues is

immune from criminal prosecution in United States courts under the

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602, et

seq., when he engaged in activities such as allowing Headley to open

a First World immigration office in Mumbai. This reliance, Defendant

argues, negates the scienter required for him to be found guilty of

the three charges.

Defendant centers his argument on the interplay between FSIA and

the public authority defense. The Court, however, need not analyze

whether FSIA encompasses immunity from criminal prosecution, or if

the public authority defense is limited to actual authority or

extends to apparent authority. Defendant’s arguments on these issues

contain a fatal flaw. Simply put, Defendant cannot rely on the

authority of a foreign government agency or official to authorize his

violations of United States federal law. See United States v.

Rector, 111 F.3d 503, 506–07 (7th Cir. 1997); overruled on other

grounds, United States v. Wilson, 169 F.3d 418, 427 n.9 (7th Cir.

1999).

The Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions

set forth the factors of the public authority defense:

- 4 -

 

[Bang Galore]

Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:894

A defendant who acts in reliance on public authority
does not act knowingly . . . and should be found not
guilty.

A defendant acts under public authority if:

(1) that defendant is affirmatively told that
his/her conduct would be lawful;
(2) the defendant is told this by an official of the
[United States] government; [and]
(3) the defendant actually relies on what the
official tells him/her in taking the action;
[and,
(4) the defendant’s reliance on what he/she was told
by the official is reasonable in light of the
circumstances.]

In considering whether a defendant actually relied on
representations by an official that his/her conduct would
lawful, you should consider all of the circumstances of
their discussion, including the identity of the official,
the point of law discussed, the nature of what the
defendant told, and was told by, the official, and whether
that reliance was reasonable.

Seventh Circuit Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions § 6.07

(Nov.30, 1998), available at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/pjury.pdf.

The Committee Comment that follows this instruction indicates that

the bracketed words “United States” in Section (2) apply only if a

dispute exists whether the official who allegedly made

representations to the defendant was a federal official. See id.

Further, the Comment cites Rector as supporting the proposition that

a court should not give this instruction if the defendant relied on

a party other than a federal official to engage in activities that

violate federal law. See id.

In Rector, the defendant was convicted on seven federal offenses

for being a convicted felon in possession of firearms. Rector, 111

- 5 -
Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:895

F.3d at 504–05. At trial, he admitted to possessing firearms, but

testified that the Wolcott, Indiana, town marshal informed him that

he could legally possess firearms for hunting and target practice.

Id. at 505. The defendant alleged that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to raise a public

authority defense. Id. at 505–06. The Seventh Circuit rejected this

argument, holding that he was not entitled to this defense because,

as a matter of law, the town marshal did not have the authority to

render advice on federal law. Id. at 506–07. The court emphasized

that “entrapment by estoppel requires reliance that is objectively

reasonable,” and found that the defendant’s reliance did not meet

this standard. Id. Therefore, he was precluded from presenting a

public authority defense.

Likewise, in this case, Defendant’s proposed defense that

Pakistani government and ISI officials sanctioned his violations of

U.S. federal law is objectively unreasonable. The parties agree that

no evidence exists that Defendant relied on representations from a

U.S. federal official — or a party with apparent authority as a

federal official — to engage in his alleged illegal activities.

Defendant acted not in Pakistan or India, but rather in the United

States. He cites no authority holding that a foreign government

official can sanction an individual living and acting in the United

States to violate U.S. federal law. Regardless of whether Defendant

believed Headley conducted surveillance on behalf of the ISI or

Lashkar in Mumbai, his argument that a nonfederal official can have

- 6 -
Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:896

actual or apparent authority to exempt him from violating a federal

law fails. See Baker, 438 F.3d at 754–56.

Defendant would be entitled to a public authority defense if the

evidence supported it. See Baker, 438 F.3d at 758. Likewise, this

defense can be excluded if the evidence fails to support it. See id.

Accordingly, the Court grants the government’s motion in limine to

exclude Defendant from presenting a public authority defense.

B. Motion to Quash Subpoenas

One week after filing his notice of the public authority

defense, Defendant served the aforementioned subpoenas on the FBI and

Department of State. The Government assumes that the subpoenas seek

information relating solely to this defense due to their close

proximity in time and scope to the notice. Therefore, it argues, if

the Court excludes this defense (which it has), it should also quash

the subpoenas for seeking irrelevant information. Defendant,

however, states that the subpoenas do not necessarily seek evidence

related to this defense, and he raises two arguments why the Court

should deny the Government’s motion.

First, Defendant contends that the Government lacks standing to

quash the subpoenas. This argument lacks merit. The Department of

Justice, which is prosecuting the case, is an agency of the United

States Executive Branch, just like the FBI and the Department of

State. The Court finds that the Department of Justice has standing

to move to quash a subpoena issued on another agency in the Executive

Branch. Further, even though the subpoenas were not addressed to the

- 7 -
Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:897

Department of Justice specifically, “[a] party has standing to move

to quash a subpoena addressed to another if the subpoena infringes

upon the movant’s legitimate interests.” United States v. Raineri,

670 F.2d 702, 712 (7th Cir. 1982). The Government has enunciated

three interests it has in quashing the subpoenas: (1)protection of

classified information; (2) preserving the confidentiality of

diplomatic communications; and (3) the burden of compliance with the

requests. The Court finds that all three of these interests are

well-founded, legitimate, and valid, giving the Department of Justice

standing for its motion.

Next, Defendant argues that the subpoenas are legally valid

because (1) the requested cables are evidentiary and relevant; (2)

they are not available to him through the exercise of due diligence;

(3) he needs them for trial preparations; and (4) he issued the

subpoenas in good faith and not as part of a “fishing expedition” for

information. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,

699–00 (1974). In short, he contends that they are relevant, seek

admissible evidence, and are specific. See id. at 700.

Because the Court has excluded the public authority defense, an

attempt by Defendant to subpoena information relating to this defense

does not clear the relevancy hurdle. The information may be

relevant, though, to either impeach or corroborate Headley’s trial

testimony. In regard to impeachment material, the Court has

previously ordered the Government to provide Defendant impeachment

material relating to Headley pursuant to its requirements to disclose

- 8 -
Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:898

favorable evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).

ECF No. 136. If the Government possesses or has knowledge of Brady

material in the cables subject to the subpoenas, it already has an

obligation to tender it to Defendant. The subpoenas, therefore, are

redundant and are unnecessary to obtain impeachment material, as they

merely seek cumulative information. See United States v. Carter, 65

Fed. Appx. 559, 561 (7th Cir. 2003).

This leaves information that corroborates Headley’s testimony as

the only other possible line of relevant information that Defendant

provides as a basis for the subpoenas. Here, as with the other

information the subpoenas demand, Defendant’s request fails to

satisfy the specificity requirement of a Rule 17(c) trial subpoena.

See Tokash, 282 F.3d at 971 (“Rule 17(c) is not a discovery device to

allow criminal defendants to blindly comb through government records

in a futile effort to find a defense to a criminal charge. Instead,

it allows only for the gathering of specifically identified documents

which a defendant knows to contain relevant evidence to an admissible

issue at trial.&#8221 (emphasis added). A Rule 17(c) subpoena cannot be

supported by a mere conjectural assertion as to what the requested

material will show. See United States v. Segal, 276 F.Supp.2d 896,

901 (N.D. Ill. 2003).

Defendant states that his counsel’s consultations with an

intelligence expert suggest that cables relating to Defendant,

Headley, the ISI, and Lashkar “undoubtedly exist,” and that he

“believes in good faith that such cables contain evidence regarding

- 9 -

Case: 1:09-cr-00830 Document #: 197 Filed: 04/01/11 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:899

any connections between ISI and its officers and [Lashkar].” Def.’s

Resp. 5. Even read liberally, this argument merely speculates that

these cables exist. Defendant impermissibly uses the subpoenas as

discovery tools, and his requests are more akin to fishing

expeditions than requests for specific documents. See United States

v. Walters, No. 88-CR-709, 1989 WL 20849, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13,

1989). Therefore, because the subpoenas do not meet the test set

forth by the Supreme Court in Nixon, the Court grants the

Government’s Motion to Quash.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Court rules as follows:

(1) The Government’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Defendant’s

Public Authority Defense is granted; and

(2) The Government’s Motion to Quash the Rule 17(c) Trial

Subpoenas served on the FBI and the Department of State is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court

DATE: April 1, 2011

- 10 -

 

[TaimiKhan]

Mr. Rana has been struggling to explain away allegations that he gave Mr. Headley the papers that allowed him to pose as an immigration consultant. According to recent filings, Mr. Rana argues he is a Pakistani patriot who was led to believe the ISI wanted his help – and therefore he should get the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

This is more then enough to tell what the real intention is to blame the ISI, just like Davis Raymond, this one would like to get free by blaming it on the ISI.

Nice try.

 

[true_indian]

Mr. Rana has been struggling to explain away allegations that he gave Mr. Headley the papers that allowed him to pose as an immigration consultant. According to recent filings, Mr. Rana argues he is a Pakistani patriot who was led to believe the ISI wanted his help – and therefore he should get the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

This is more then enough to tell what the real intention is to blame the ISI, just like Davis Raymond, this one would like to get free by blaming it on the ISI.

Nice try.

---------- Post added at 09:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

Mr. Rana has been struggling to explain away allegations that he gave Mr. Headley the papers that allowed him to pose as an immigration consultant. According to recent filings, Mr. Rana argues he is a Pakistani patriot who was led to believe the ISI wanted his help – and therefore he should get the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

This is more then enough to tell what the real intention is to blame the ISI, just like Davis Raymond, this one would like to get free by blaming it on the ISI.

Nice try.

I am sorry but isn't that exactly all your politicians do. They blame RAW for all the unrest in your country. If this is suspicious to you, why not that? You see two can play the game.

 

[TaimiKhan]

I am sorry but isn't that exactly all your politicians do. They blame RAW for all the unrest in your country. If this is suspicious to you, why not that? You see two can play the game.

Kindly read my post again and again and again.

Why the hell are you dragging in RAW, Politicians or even Indians ??

Did i said anything with respect to India ?? Or Indians ??

I don't think so.

Kindly keep the discussion on the track and don't try to derail the topic.

 

[Bang Galore]

This is more then enough to tell what the real intention is to blame the ISI, just like Davis Raymond, this one would like to get free by blaming it on the ISI.

Nice try.

Just like Raymond Davis? Isn't it everyone's argument that he was CIA? Bad Analogy!

Look, no one here expects any Pakistani (member here or otherwise) to admit that the ISI might be complicit, so Ill just leave that line of argument aside. Moving to a different point, it does not matter what Pakistanis think, the general perception of Pakistan & the ISI are not going to be helped with the defence this guy is taking. It is almost surely going to be used in the civil case that has been launched against Pasha & others by the family of the Jewish victims. The burden of proof is considerably lesser in a civil case and there are certainly going to be interesting days ahead on that front.

 

[bandit]

Mr. Rana has been struggling to explain away allegations that he gave Mr. Headley the papers that allowed him to pose as an immigration consultant. According to recent filings, Mr. Rana argues he is a Pakistani patriot who was led to believe the ISI wanted his help – and therefore he should get the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

This is more then enough to tell what the real intention is to blame the ISI, just like Davis Raymond, this one would like to get free by blaming it on the ISI.

Nice try.
.

Nice try indeed, now for the full paragraph-

First Headley:

“I also told him [Mr. Rana] … how I had been asked to perform espionage work for ISI,” Mr. Headley, a Pakistani-American, testified to the grand jury.

Though cryptic, the statement is highly significant.

Having turned FBI informer in a bid to escape the death penalty, Mr. Headley will reveal the blow-by-blow of the Mumbai massacre surveillance scheme when he gives evidence against Mr. Rana.

Headley accepts he was with ISI, we shall know the truth as the case proceeds.

And Rana:

Mr. Rana has been struggling to explain away allegations that he gave Mr. Headley the papers that allowed him to pose as an immigration consultant. According to recent filings, Mr. Rana argues he is a Pakistani patriot who was led to believe the ISI wanted his help – and therefore he should get the equivalent of diplomatic immunity.

He is using the immunity story to cover his no doubt, but is there any truth in it, shall be revealed on his trial. I don't find any reason to disbelieve him outright on this story.
You may like to wish it away but the truth will be revealed once he deposes in front of the jury. All the Ajmal Kasab's, Ajmal Shehzad's, Headley's and Rana's testimonies cannot be dismissed right away as lies because they reveal the ugly truth, probably accepting the truth would be a start to correcting the malaise Pakistani Institutions have come to be associated with in their effort to undermine India.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Just like Raymond Davis? Isn't it everyone's argument that he was CIA? Bad Analogy!

Look, no one here expects any Pakistani (member here or otherwise) to admit that the ISI might be complicit, so Ill just leave that line of argument aside. Moving to a different point, it does not matter what Pakistanis think, the general perception of Pakistan & the ISI are not going to be helped with the defence this guy is taking. It is almost surely going to be used in the civil case that has been launched against Pasha & others by the family of the Jewish victims. The burden of proof is considerably lesser in a civil case and there are certainly going to be interesting days ahead on that front.

RD was may be from CIA, but in the initial days the Americans tried to used the diplomatic immunity card for him, to get him released.

Similarly, this guy, is now blaming on the ISI/Govt so that he can get free through the diplomatic immunity thingy.

Rest am not interested as its all BS, till something concrete proof is provided.

 

[toxic_pus]

Rana was actually looking for Public Authority defense and not Diplomatic immunity. Public Authority defense entails that the defendant has committed a crime, knowingly or unkowingly, at the behest of a Government agency. The 'Government agency' has to be a US agency or an official representing such agency and not any foreign agency. The author of the article couldn't make a distinction between 'Diplomatic Immunity' and 'Public Authoriy defense' and thought these were same. I will quote a relevant part. (From here)

A defendant acts under public authority if:

(1) that defendant is affirmatively told that his/her conduct would be lawful;
(2) the defendant is told this by an official of the [United States] government; [and]
(3) the defendant actually relies on what the official tells him/her in taking the action;
[and,
(4) the defendant’s reliance on what he/she was told by the official is reasonable in light of the circumstances.]

<snip>

...in this case, Defendant’s proposed defense that Pakistani government and ISI officials sanctioned his violations of U.S. federal law is objectively unreasonable. The parties agree that no evidence exists that Defendant relied on representations from a U.S. federal official — or a party with apparent authority as a federal official — to engage in his alleged illegal activities. Defendant acted not in Pakistan or India, but rather in the United States. He cites no authority holding that a foreign government official can sanction an individual living and acting in the United States to violate U.S. federal law. Regardless of whether Defendant believed Headley conducted surveillance on behalf of the ISI or Lashkar in Mumbai, his argument that a nonfederal official can have actual or apparent authority to exempt him from violating a federal law fails.

Hope that clarifies. Now, did he just try to shift the blame to GoP and ISI? Perhaps not. Here is another interesting part of the same document.

Defendant’s proposed defense is that his alleged illegal acts of providing material support to terrorists — at least those related to the Mumbai attacks — were done at the behest of the Pakistani government and the ISI, not the Lashkar terrorist organization. He argues that he is entitled to a public authority defense because he acted under the authority — whether actual or apparent — of the Pakistani government and the ISI. He finds support for this defense from grand jury testimony of Co-Defendant David Headley, who has pled guilty to the counts against him in the superseding indictment and whom the Government will most likely call as a witness in its case against Defendant. <comment: means Rana's claim finds independent corroboration from Headly, the US Government witness> For example, Headley provided the following testimony before the grand jury:

During my trip to Chicago, I told [Defendant] about my meetings with Sajid and others in Lashkar. I also told him about my meetings with Major Iqbal, and told him how I had been asked to perform espionage work for ISI. I even told him some of the espionage stories that Major Iqbal had told me. I told [Defendant] about my assignment to conduct surveillance in Mumbai. I asked [Defendant]if it was okay with him that I set up a First World immigration office in Mumbai. I explained to him that the immigration office would provide a cover story for why I was in Mumbai. I told him that Major Iqbal would be providing money to pay for the expenses associated with setting up and operating the office. [Defendant] agreed.​

Interesting times ahead.

 

[Soumitra]

Will an ISI agent get Diplomatic Immunity or Public Authority Defence in USA?

 

[Wonderer]

And what the hell US is trying to do by suppressing these facts. If public opinion about US becomes same as in Pakistan then they are only to be blamed.

And Mr Manhohan singh and Gang time to wake up and smell the cofee.

 

[Pak_Sher]

More lies.

 

[Wonderer]

More lies.

Close your eyes and think you never read this.

 

[guest11]

Another Hindu-Zionist-Crusader propaganda.