If fired, Haqqani threatens to unveil 'reams' of Pakistan's secrets
- Thread starter sonicboom
- Start date
sonicboom
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 704
- Reaction score
- 2
Haqqani spares US publication and sues Pakistani one!
ISLAMABAD - Mr. Husain Haqqani, Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States, has served a legal notice of Rs. 1 billion against the Editor-in-Chief of The Nation for publishing a report titled, “If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Unveil ‘Reams’ of Pakistan’s Secrets”, written by Ahmed Quraishi and published on Oct. 14, 2009. The legal notice was received at the offices of TheNation in Lahore. He also used the platform of the official news agency, APP, to distribute the full text of the notice. Mr. Haqqani is demanding an apology and retraction and is threatening to press charges if his demands are not met.
This is TheNation’s response to his legal notice:
Ambassador Husain Haqqani has chosen the safer course of suing a Pakistani newspaper [TheNation] and spared an American news publication [Foreign Policy magazine] that originally published the information in the report in question. This alone demonstrates that Ambassador Haqqani’s purpose in serving this legal notice is damage-control inside Pakistan more than anything else, and he wants to do this at the cost of TheNation. By sparing the American publication and targeting us, Ambassador Haqqani is making a political statement for the consumption of the domestic audience in Pakistan. Ironically, Mr. Haqqani, who has worked for several US media organizations at different times during his stay in the United States, chose to give a pass to his American colleagues and instead targeted TheNation, a newspaper that gave unprecedented space to his views and positions many years ago when he was not as well known as he is today.
Ambassador Haqqani’s legal notice begins with the claim that, “The services of Mr. Haqqani for Pakistan military are undeniable as because of his sheer hard work, dedication and excellent diplomatic skills Pakistan secured F-16 from USA.”
The truth is that public and official record of the Government of Pakistan will confirm that the contract for the supply of 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 aircraft was signed between Pakistan and US governments on September 30, 2006 after a long series of negotiations and with predetermined delivery schedule. All Mr. Haqqani did is to pursue an existing project, which is a responsibility that came to him as part of his official duties as Ambassador. So this attempt by the Ambassador to use the legal notice against us for self-serving propaganda does not stand.
As for what Ambassador Haqqani describes in his legal notice as his ‘services for the Pakistani military’, it is enough to quote the wording of a question that an American television anchor posed to Ambassador Haqqani in a recent interview he gave to the TV show ‘Frontline’ on PBS [www.OBS.org] where the American anchor asks as follows [transcription available at the website]:
“You [Ambassador Haqqani] have said over the years that one of the reasons that the Pakistanis haven’t been able to get at the Taliban is because the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] has protected them, that Musharraf’s ISI has protected the Taliban.”
This is just one sample of the ‘reams’ of his writings and interviews where he has accused Pakistan’s military and intelligence services of various allegations.
It would also have been part of acceptable journalistic discourse to raise such questions about various existing reports, some recent and some not so recent, that allegedly accuse Mr. Ambassador of misconduct especially in the case of a classified letter to ISI chief written by Ambassador Haqqani in July that ended up being revealed by an Indian news organization in New Delhi, and whose content was exclusively damaging for the ISI and Pakistan’s military.
Raising all of these questions, responsibly and with proper attribution to evidence both hard and circumstantial, is part of journalism and part of the art of political analysis.
TheNation in its report, however, did not raise any of the above. All it did was to quote an interview that Ambassador Haqqani himself gave to a prestigious American publication, Foreign Policy magazine, published on its online edition and available there, and which Mr. Haqqani has not denied to date.
The remainder of the legal notice is as misleading as this deliberately false introductory remark about the Ambassador’s role in securing F-16 jets. The other points are as follows:
1. Mr. Haqqani lists ten different quotes from TheNation’s report to conclude they are ‘devastatingly defamatory.’ Ironically, he accuses TheNation of defamation when the publication was in fact reproducing, with due acknowledgement, an article published in the prestigious American magazine, Foreign Policy, which ran a story on Oct. 12, 2009, titled, ‘ Exclusive: Pakistan ambassador says he hasn’t been fired (yet?) .
[Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...stan_ambassador_says_he_hasnt_been_fired_yet].
2. The American writer authored his piece with the stated understanding that the article is based on a telephone interview that Ambassador Haqqani gave to the American writer. Ambassador Haqqani has not sent a denial or a legal notice to the American writer who has written the following line in his article and which The Nation reproduced in the report verbatim: “These sources also say that Haqqani has reams of documents that could embarrass the forces aligned against him and sacking him could open up a Pandora’s box of controversy that the government would not appreciate, which he might do if forced to defend himself after being fired”.
3. TheNation, while professionally and faithfully adhering to journalistic norms, not only printed the paragraph as it is, but it also ensured that the word ‘Reams’ used in the title of TheNation’s report is kept in parentheses in order to signify that we are quoting, and not conjecturing.
4. Why does Ambassador Haqqani not sue his friends in the US media for a paragraph they have published and which he finds objectionable when a Pakistani newspaper picks it? Was the purpose of the said paragraph [which amounts to blackmail in the analysis of most people who read it] to send a message to the Pakistani government and other players including the military, and the paragraph was not supposed to be published or reproduced in the Pakistani media?
5. The clauses (i) through (vii) in the legal notice [the quotes from TheNation report] are legitimate, carefully-worded and well-reasoned journalistic reporting based on what an American news publication has published, which in turn was based on an interview with Ambassador Haqqani and which he has not denied until now.
6. The clauses (viii) and (ix) are direct quotes from a source in Washington that spoke to TheNation’s reporter by telephone. In utmost professionalism and in the interest of full transparency, TheNation’s report made sure to disclose to its readers the nature of the source being quoted in order to demonstrate why the quotes were relevant. TheNation’s report introduced the authoritative source in Washington as follows: “A retired US military officer, well informed about Pakistan-related diplomacy in Washington. This officer does not want to be named here because his work entails direct contacts with the governments of Pakistan, the United States and the embassy of Pakistan in Washington.”
7. The portions of the report that are not direct quotes were written by TheNation’s reporter. These are carefully-worded and well-reasoned findings and conclusions that seamlessly sync with the information being quoted in the report from different publicly available news sources and are based on a calibrated analysis of the news. These portions of the report passed through a process of fact-checking by seasoned and experienced journalists at TheNation, which is one of the largest media houses in the country.
8. Mr. Haqqani asserts that TheNation’s report gives the impression - and we quote from the legal notice - that “the Honourable Ambassador is involved in and is guilty of wrongdoing, that the Ambassador is conspirator, corrupt, dishonest, unethical, immoral and lacks integrity.” This interpretation by Mr. Haqqani of TheNation’s report is malicious, seeks to raise a false alarm, and is a deliberate distortion of the professional effort that has gone into writing the published report. Nowhere in TheNation’s report has the reporter used or alluded to any of the adjectives claimed by Mr. Haqqani in his legal notice.
9. In discharging his duty of presenting credible and well sourced information and analysis, written in a manner that would help contribute to an ongoing national debate on a matter of immense importance to Pakistanis and to Pakistan’s national security, the reporter has not, as explained above, indulged in any reckless conjecturing or the use of known and recognizable defamatory language. The question that TheNation would publish and apology does not arise.
Ambassador Haqqani’s legal notice is an attempt at diverting attention from the inflammatory report published by an American publication based on an interview that Mr. Haqqani gave to it. Mr. Ambassador is seeking to punish TheNation for highlighting the said information in the best interest of a raging debate on a matter of national importance to all Pakistanis. The Ambassador should press charges against the prestigious American Foreign Policy magazine, if he can, for publishing the remarks that he seeks to dispute.
TheNation stands by its report - The Editor
Haqqani spares US publication and sues Pakistani one! | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
ISLAMABAD - Mr. Husain Haqqani, Ambassador of Pakistan to the United States, has served a legal notice of Rs. 1 billion against the Editor-in-Chief of The Nation for publishing a report titled, “If Fired, Haqqani Threatens To Unveil ‘Reams’ of Pakistan’s Secrets”, written by Ahmed Quraishi and published on Oct. 14, 2009. The legal notice was received at the offices of TheNation in Lahore. He also used the platform of the official news agency, APP, to distribute the full text of the notice. Mr. Haqqani is demanding an apology and retraction and is threatening to press charges if his demands are not met.
This is TheNation’s response to his legal notice:
Ambassador Husain Haqqani has chosen the safer course of suing a Pakistani newspaper [TheNation] and spared an American news publication [Foreign Policy magazine] that originally published the information in the report in question. This alone demonstrates that Ambassador Haqqani’s purpose in serving this legal notice is damage-control inside Pakistan more than anything else, and he wants to do this at the cost of TheNation. By sparing the American publication and targeting us, Ambassador Haqqani is making a political statement for the consumption of the domestic audience in Pakistan. Ironically, Mr. Haqqani, who has worked for several US media organizations at different times during his stay in the United States, chose to give a pass to his American colleagues and instead targeted TheNation, a newspaper that gave unprecedented space to his views and positions many years ago when he was not as well known as he is today.
Ambassador Haqqani’s legal notice begins with the claim that, “The services of Mr. Haqqani for Pakistan military are undeniable as because of his sheer hard work, dedication and excellent diplomatic skills Pakistan secured F-16 from USA.”
The truth is that public and official record of the Government of Pakistan will confirm that the contract for the supply of 18 new F-16C/D Block 52 aircraft was signed between Pakistan and US governments on September 30, 2006 after a long series of negotiations and with predetermined delivery schedule. All Mr. Haqqani did is to pursue an existing project, which is a responsibility that came to him as part of his official duties as Ambassador. So this attempt by the Ambassador to use the legal notice against us for self-serving propaganda does not stand.
As for what Ambassador Haqqani describes in his legal notice as his ‘services for the Pakistani military’, it is enough to quote the wording of a question that an American television anchor posed to Ambassador Haqqani in a recent interview he gave to the TV show ‘Frontline’ on PBS [www.OBS.org] where the American anchor asks as follows [transcription available at the website]:
“You [Ambassador Haqqani] have said over the years that one of the reasons that the Pakistanis haven’t been able to get at the Taliban is because the ISI [Inter-Services Intelligence] has protected them, that Musharraf’s ISI has protected the Taliban.”
This is just one sample of the ‘reams’ of his writings and interviews where he has accused Pakistan’s military and intelligence services of various allegations.
It would also have been part of acceptable journalistic discourse to raise such questions about various existing reports, some recent and some not so recent, that allegedly accuse Mr. Ambassador of misconduct especially in the case of a classified letter to ISI chief written by Ambassador Haqqani in July that ended up being revealed by an Indian news organization in New Delhi, and whose content was exclusively damaging for the ISI and Pakistan’s military.
Raising all of these questions, responsibly and with proper attribution to evidence both hard and circumstantial, is part of journalism and part of the art of political analysis.
TheNation in its report, however, did not raise any of the above. All it did was to quote an interview that Ambassador Haqqani himself gave to a prestigious American publication, Foreign Policy magazine, published on its online edition and available there, and which Mr. Haqqani has not denied to date.
The remainder of the legal notice is as misleading as this deliberately false introductory remark about the Ambassador’s role in securing F-16 jets. The other points are as follows:
1. Mr. Haqqani lists ten different quotes from TheNation’s report to conclude they are ‘devastatingly defamatory.’ Ironically, he accuses TheNation of defamation when the publication was in fact reproducing, with due acknowledgement, an article published in the prestigious American magazine, Foreign Policy, which ran a story on Oct. 12, 2009, titled, ‘ Exclusive: Pakistan ambassador says he hasn’t been fired (yet?) .
[Link: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...stan_ambassador_says_he_hasnt_been_fired_yet].
2. The American writer authored his piece with the stated understanding that the article is based on a telephone interview that Ambassador Haqqani gave to the American writer. Ambassador Haqqani has not sent a denial or a legal notice to the American writer who has written the following line in his article and which The Nation reproduced in the report verbatim: “These sources also say that Haqqani has reams of documents that could embarrass the forces aligned against him and sacking him could open up a Pandora’s box of controversy that the government would not appreciate, which he might do if forced to defend himself after being fired”.
3. TheNation, while professionally and faithfully adhering to journalistic norms, not only printed the paragraph as it is, but it also ensured that the word ‘Reams’ used in the title of TheNation’s report is kept in parentheses in order to signify that we are quoting, and not conjecturing.
4. Why does Ambassador Haqqani not sue his friends in the US media for a paragraph they have published and which he finds objectionable when a Pakistani newspaper picks it? Was the purpose of the said paragraph [which amounts to blackmail in the analysis of most people who read it] to send a message to the Pakistani government and other players including the military, and the paragraph was not supposed to be published or reproduced in the Pakistani media?
5. The clauses (i) through (vii) in the legal notice [the quotes from TheNation report] are legitimate, carefully-worded and well-reasoned journalistic reporting based on what an American news publication has published, which in turn was based on an interview with Ambassador Haqqani and which he has not denied until now.
6. The clauses (viii) and (ix) are direct quotes from a source in Washington that spoke to TheNation’s reporter by telephone. In utmost professionalism and in the interest of full transparency, TheNation’s report made sure to disclose to its readers the nature of the source being quoted in order to demonstrate why the quotes were relevant. TheNation’s report introduced the authoritative source in Washington as follows: “A retired US military officer, well informed about Pakistan-related diplomacy in Washington. This officer does not want to be named here because his work entails direct contacts with the governments of Pakistan, the United States and the embassy of Pakistan in Washington.”
7. The portions of the report that are not direct quotes were written by TheNation’s reporter. These are carefully-worded and well-reasoned findings and conclusions that seamlessly sync with the information being quoted in the report from different publicly available news sources and are based on a calibrated analysis of the news. These portions of the report passed through a process of fact-checking by seasoned and experienced journalists at TheNation, which is one of the largest media houses in the country.
8. Mr. Haqqani asserts that TheNation’s report gives the impression - and we quote from the legal notice - that “the Honourable Ambassador is involved in and is guilty of wrongdoing, that the Ambassador is conspirator, corrupt, dishonest, unethical, immoral and lacks integrity.” This interpretation by Mr. Haqqani of TheNation’s report is malicious, seeks to raise a false alarm, and is a deliberate distortion of the professional effort that has gone into writing the published report. Nowhere in TheNation’s report has the reporter used or alluded to any of the adjectives claimed by Mr. Haqqani in his legal notice.
9. In discharging his duty of presenting credible and well sourced information and analysis, written in a manner that would help contribute to an ongoing national debate on a matter of immense importance to Pakistanis and to Pakistan’s national security, the reporter has not, as explained above, indulged in any reckless conjecturing or the use of known and recognizable defamatory language. The question that TheNation would publish and apology does not arise.
Ambassador Haqqani’s legal notice is an attempt at diverting attention from the inflammatory report published by an American publication based on an interview that Mr. Haqqani gave to it. Mr. Ambassador is seeking to punish TheNation for highlighting the said information in the best interest of a raging debate on a matter of national importance to all Pakistanis. The Ambassador should press charges against the prestigious American Foreign Policy magazine, if he can, for publishing the remarks that he seeks to dispute.
TheNation stands by its report - The Editor
Haqqani spares US publication and sues Pakistani one! | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
Last edited:
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Actually, Chidu Raj of ToI mentioned the same thing in passing, that Haqqani had threatened to go public with embarrassing information in comments to a Foreign Policy publication, in his article on Obama's approval of the K-L Bill.
At the time I dismissed it as more of Chidu Raj ranting, but now AQ is pointing out the same thing and quoting a different source as providing that information.
If nothing else, an Ambassador threatening to blackmail his own government to keep his job cannot be anything but a liability.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
I'd be surprised if any of the documentation he claims to have is not already known to the US.
If exposes on the Zardari government, please, splash them on the front pages please.
Doubt if the military or intelligence agencies would have trusted him with anything damning, given his past record.
I say we invite him to a farewell party in Pakistan first, treason is what he is threatening to do, and treason is the crime he should be punished for as well.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Burn PPP burn.
This government of sell outs needs to go down the drain (constitutionally of course).
Scaling back funding for the Strategic Force Command, halting all missile testing, allowing unrestricted US expansion in Pakistan, and now this traitor of an Ambassador.
Zardari - a crook is always a crook apparently.
This government of sell outs needs to go down the drain (constitutionally of course).
Scaling back funding for the Strategic Force Command, halting all missile testing, allowing unrestricted US expansion in Pakistan, and now this traitor of an Ambassador.
Zardari - a crook is always a crook apparently.
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
We are the ones who brought PPP into the government so if any one that needs to burn its us the Pakistani public and we already are.
Panditji
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 115
- Reaction score
- 0
This is what happens when you get an aristocratic, non-cadre, self-serving mercenary smooth talker as the ambassador to US. He looks good, talks smooth with the right accent, and is for hire for whatever you want him to say. But then the same guy can turn around and piss on you when his own interests are harmed.
The Pakistani MEA should think beyond impressive personalities who can lie and mislead without batting an eyelid for their ambassadors and minister of external affairs posts.
I mean PM should think of the minister part and MEA, the ambassadors.
The Pakistani MEA should think beyond impressive personalities who can lie and mislead without batting an eyelid for their ambassadors and minister of external affairs posts.
I mean PM should think of the minister part and MEA, the ambassadors.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
The selection of Haqqani was Zardari's I believe, not the MEA.
He apparently helped out quite a bit when Z and BB were in exile in the US. His wife was also elected to the National Assembly on a PPP ticket I believe.
I was initially willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - the part about him excellent connections and access to the corridors of power is correct - but after this it is clear that he is a renegade.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Indeed - but my point is that with all the pain inflicted upon us, the PPP (or Zardari and his coterie) needs to feel the peoples wrath and be kicked out of power, constitutionally.
Patriot
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2008
- Messages
- 7,713
- Reaction score
- 0
Also his wife Farahnaz Ispahani is Spokesperson of Asif Ali Zardari.
Cheeta
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 0
If that what Haqqani has said is true then it is sufficient as a proof for his double dealing and being not loyal to his post. He further seems sacrificing his good faith on losing his office. Such a man can be easily won over by any one paying him more than his one earlier employer.
The real thing here is to guess the level of wrong doing by those who have employed such a man in an important office like that.
The real thing here is to guess the level of wrong doing by those who have employed such a man in an important office like that.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
"I'd be surprised if any of the documentation he claims to have is not already known to the US."
You might be correct. I'll refer you to the final comment on my post. Pure speculation on my part, of course, about what (if any) information has been shared and what may yet follow from him.
"I say we invite him to a farewell party in Pakistan first, treason is what he is threatening to do, and treason is the crime he should be punished for as well."
Not my business nor my government's if he chooses to return for a party or because he's been replaced. Our responsibility to ourselves is to confirm or deny the next ambassadorial appointment from Pakistan.
Thanks.
You might be correct. I'll refer you to the final comment on my post. Pure speculation on my part, of course, about what (if any) information has been shared and what may yet follow from him.
"I say we invite him to a farewell party in Pakistan first, treason is what he is threatening to do, and treason is the crime he should be punished for as well."
Not my business nor my government's if he chooses to return for a party or because he's been replaced. Our responsibility to ourselves is to confirm or deny the next ambassadorial appointment from Pakistan.
Thanks.
All-Green
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,824
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
This person is a huge liability...to have him in US is a huge blunder and then we expect US to be more fair in its dealings with Pakistan?
How can US policy be in tune with our sentiments when the ambassador to US is entirely out of Phase with the average Pakistani?
The thing that disgusts me is that before this fiasco, our assembly had no serious problems with this appointment...there should have been hell over his appointment...especially since he has been a very dodgy character...
It is not just the responsibility of our government, the opposition has so far been only active when there is clear political mileage to be gained...
Our nation also needs to grow up, we went after Musharraf over the CJ issue like crazy but why so mute about Zardari and his close companions?
With this guy in Washington, i think the fault lies with our government in not negotiating a better cooperation from US.
How can US policy be in tune with our sentiments when the ambassador to US is entirely out of Phase with the average Pakistani?
The thing that disgusts me is that before this fiasco, our assembly had no serious problems with this appointment...there should have been hell over his appointment...especially since he has been a very dodgy character...
It is not just the responsibility of our government, the opposition has so far been only active when there is clear political mileage to be gained...
Our nation also needs to grow up, we went after Musharraf over the CJ issue like crazy but why so mute about Zardari and his close companions?
With this guy in Washington, i think the fault lies with our government in not negotiating a better cooperation from US.
Gin ka Pakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2009
- Messages
- 2,949
- Reaction score
- 0
gubbi
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2009
- Messages
- 4,536
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
AM, what exactly is the mood of the general public with regards to the KL-Bill, apart from a frenzy whipped up by self serving politicos? How many of them actually do understand the implications of this bill? How does the public see the govt, which they themselves have voted into power after a military govt, and which is accepting dollops of foreign aid for (I assume) public benefit?
No doubt the military establishment enjoys immense goodwill among the public, but honestly, doesn't the KL-Bill ensure that this and subsequent civilian govts get to exercise greater control in the matters of the state? What exactly is wrong to expect a civilian govt to exercise absolute control over a state's military?
Apart from a kneejerk negative reaction to the bill, how does it bode for the long term interests of Pakistan? Do you prefer a civilian govt with absolute authority over all matters of the state or a pseudo-civilian/military establishment always at loggerheads over vested interests?
btw who exactly has his/her fingers on the pulse of the general public in Pakistan? Honestly most of the views expressed here on these forums are not the majority voice (I say that b'coz I meet a lot of Pakistanis and none of their thoughts meet any of the rhetoric being posted here by a majority of the members), so what is a good source for the general Pakistani public mood?
And dont give me Ahmed Qureshi or Zaid Mian!
Similar threads
