My real ‘crime’: Standing up for U.S.-Pakistan relations

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Dual nationals are governed by the laws of the nation they are present in as a matter of precedence.

So we can safely assume tht Mr Haqqani would work for american interests as he resides in usa?

 

[VCheng]

So we can safely assume tht Mr Haqqani would work for american interests as he resides in usa?

No, his appointment by the competent authority in Pakistan, and his acceptance as an ambassador of Pakistan by USA indicates the validity of his official duties.

 

[Hyde]

Can't understand Urdu, sorry.

The memo commission basically said that Hussain Haqqani and his wife were dual nationals and were living in America before being assigned ambassador to United States from Pakistan and they had no assets, property or affiliation with Pakistan. He only owned one bank account in Pakistan having the balance of about 150,000 rupees ($1590 dollars) and everything else is based in the United States. Hussain Haqqani did not co-operate with memo commission as he lied about the blackberry devices being lost or stolen. He refused to give details of 8 million dollars worth of secret funds given to him by the Government of Pakistan and no other Pakistani ambassador had been given such funds in past. He was allowed to conditionally travel abroad that he will return to Pakistan on 4 days notice but he ignored all the summons to appear before the commission.

They had a forensic tests of Mansoor Ijaz's computer conducted by London based independent organisation and the expert "Mr Mark Willshaw" confirmed that the emails sent by this computer were not tempered and sent to both General Jones email account as well as Hussain Haqqani's email ID... and General James Jones had confirmed about this. They also had a forensic tests on Mansoor Ijaz's blackberry device and another London based organisation headed by "Mr Simong Lang" confirmed that the blackberry messages sent/received by this device were not tempered and exchanged with Hussain Haqqani's blackberry device since the personal identification number could not be changed for BB service and the mobile device was registered under Hussain Haqqani's name and email address and he had been paying the mobile bills by himself.

They also confirmed that Hussain Haqqani and Mansoor Ijaz were good friends and used to regularly meet each other and write the articles together and share secret information with each other. Their had a conversation in code words and they used to mention "Isfahani" to refer America as Hussain Haqqani's wife's name is Farah Naz Isfahani and she is an American citizen.

The video I shared earlier was explaining the full report and if I start mentioning everything it will take pages to write it down. If I find the full report in English language I will forward you the link.

 

[Hyde]

Well, who appointed him as ambassador in the first place? The executive authority of Pakistan obviously trusted him to do the job, right?

Accusations are nothing unless proven in a court of law.

Actually the memo commission left some questions unanswered and they will be resolved in the supreme court. There were hints about the involvement of the President of Pakistan but the commission acquitted him due to lack of evidences. They were not able to connect the dots similar to Hussain Haqqani's case and could not find out the details of secret funds given to him due to limited powers. They were not able to find out the reason of Hussain Haqqani's appointment as ambassador to Pakistan as he had no affiliation or role to play in Pakistan's politics. Such matters will be taken up by the Supreme Court

BTW, there were rumours about Zardari's sudden visit to Dubai when he immediately became ill and left the country on emergency bases. It was confirmed by two eye witnesses that he quarrelled with the staff and wanted Hussain Haqqani to accompany him to Dubai but since Haqqani's name was put on ECL he could not travel to Dubai. So that could be the possibility

 

[VCheng]

Actually the memo commission left some questions unanswered and they will be resolved in the supreme court. There were hints about the involvement of the President of Pakistan but the commission acquitted him due to lack of evidences. They were not able to connect the dots similar to Hussain Haqqani's case and could not find out the details of secret funds given to him due to limited powers. They were not able to find out the reason of Hussain Haqqani's appointment as ambassador to Pakistan as he had no affiliation or role to play in Pakistan's politics. Such matters will be taken up by the Supreme Court

Yes, that is why I said this before:

Please note that the SC merely appointed the commission to determine the authenticity of the controversial memo, nothing else. The rest of the process is yet to be completed................

I would suggest holding off on final proclamations until all is said and done, and a formal judgment rendered by the Supreme Court after completion of due process.

BTW, there were rumours about Zardari's sudden visit to Dubai when he immediately became ill and left the country on emergency bases. It was confirmed by two eye witnesses that he quarrelled with the staff and wanted Hussain Haqqani to accompany him to Dubai but since Haqqani's name was put on ECL he could not travel to Dubai. So that could be the possibility

Rumors are just that: rumors. Unless proven in a court of law, they have no bearing on a case.

 

[Awesome]

No replies, no comments, no Pakistani is interested - they made up their minds without listening to the accused, without even considering the evidence, all on the basis of established authority promoting and focusing their collective frustrations and hatreds.

Wasn't HH given a chance to be heard but he ran away?

Americans these days shouldn't accuse others of 'frustrations'

Husain Haqqani, a professor of international relations at Boston University and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011.

I am saddened but not surprised that a Pakistani judicial inquiry commission has accused me of being disloyal while serving as my country’s ambassador to the United States. The tide of anti-Americanism has been rising in Pakistan for almost a decade. An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis consider the United States an enemy, notwithstanding the nominal alliance that has existed between our countries for six decades. Americans, frustrated by what they see as Pakistani intransigence in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, are becoming less willing to accept Pakistani demands even though Pakistan has suffered heavily at the hands of terrorists.

This is a difficult time to openly advocate friendly relations between the United States and Pakistan. I am proud that I did so as ambassador. During my tenure, the United States agreed to initiate a strategic dialogue with Pakistani civil and military leaders. The idea was to overcome the episodic nature of bilateral relations: Our countries had a pattern of working together for a few years and then falling out amid complaints about each other. The strategic dialogue sought to reconcile Pakistan’s regional concerns about Afghanistan and India with U.S. global concerns about nuclear proliferation and terrorism. But the dialogue stalled last year, and a series of unfortunate incidents, culminating in Osama bin Laden being found in Pakistan last year, has brought our countries to the brink of an adversarial relationship.

My sincere efforts to transcend the parallel narratives that have shaped U.S.-Pakistani relations were not always appreciated in Pakistan, where conspiracy theories and hatred for the United States have become a daily staple of the national discourse. My detractors in Pakistan’s security services and among pro-Jihadi groups have long accused me of being pro-American; they condescendingly described me as the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan based in Washington. Falsehoods were circulated in Pakistani media about my issuing thousands of visas to “CIA spies” who would allegedly act with impunity against my country. Few considered that Pakistan was pledged record amounts of U.S. aid and that Pakistani views were being heard on a range of issues. The expectation that Washington should simply do whatever the Pakistani hyper-nationalists desire remains unrealistic.

I resigned last November after a U.S. businessman of Pakistani origin — now residing in Monaco — claimed that I had asked him to deliver a secret memo to Adm. Michael Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seeking U.S. help in thwarting a military coup right after the U.S. operation that killed bin Laden. The affair was dubbed “Memogate” by the Pakistani media. Our Supreme Court, pursuing a populist ideological agenda without regard to legal or constitutional niceties, intervened directly. Without any trial, it created a Commission of Inquiry and barred me from leaving Pakistan, though it later relented.

This week the commission presented its findings. It alleged that I had acted against Pakistan’s interests and had authorized the controversial memo. The report’s release has been timed to distract attention from serious allegations by a Pakistani businessman that he paid millions to the son of Pakistan’s chief justice as part of efforts to buy favors.

How ironic that Pakistani hard-liners claim I was an American agent of influence with access in Washington’s power corridors. Were that true, there would have been no reason for me to seek help, certainly not from a businessman of dubious credentials, to deliver a message to the U.S. government. The one-sided “evidence” has failed to prove my connection to the memo. I have not been charged or tried — though the report could lead to charges, and a treason conviction carries the death penalty. No, I was simply labeled guilty by a “fact-finding” commission that bent over backward to accommodate my discredited accuser.

The commission’s bias was clear in its refusal to hear from me via videoconference — a request I made in light of security threats — and its lack of interest in seeking the testimony of U.S. officials who received the controversial memo, Mullen and Gen. Jim Jones. Notably, Jones said in a sworn affidavit that I had nothing to do with the document that had been transmitted to him and that the memo reflected the ideas of its author, the American businessman Mansoor Ijaz.

The commission’s findings are motivated by politics, not law. I served Pakistan sincerely. Most people in Washington saw and know that. Branding me a traitor will not solve any of Pakistan’s myriad problems, not least of which is the prospect of international isolation. The 2012 BBC Globescan poll found that the international perception of Pakistan is as bad as that of Iran and North Korea.

It is tragic that anti-Americanism is being exploited to push ideological agendas, but I stand by my view that positive U.S.-Pakistan relations under a civilian-led Pakistani government are necessary for international peace and Pakistan’s stability. My real “crime” is standing up for U.S.-Pakistan relations for Pakistan’s sake. I had nothing to do with writing and sending that memo. But many people around the world would recognize that its contents suggesting changes in Pakistan’s counterterrorism and nuclear policies reflect reasonable views that are not treasonous and are, in fact, in line with global thinking.

Post link please.

 

[Hyde]

Yes, that is why I said this before:

I would suggest holding off on final proclamations until all is said and done, and a formal judgment rendered by the Supreme Court after completion of due process.

Rumors are just that: rumors. Unless proven in a court of law, they have no bearing on a case.

Indeed the rumours are just rumours but the case for Hussain Haqqani is crystal clear and the Honourable Chief Justices of Sindh High Court, Islamabad High Court and Balochistan High Court has had extensive inquiries about it and I feel there are enough evidences to prove Haqqani guilty in future... Of course you can wait for the final judgement by the supreme court for your satisfaction. The onus of not co-operating with the memo commission and failing to appear before the commission and not abiding by the conditional permission to travel abroad is also going to trap Haqqani furthermore.

PS: I am not happy about it --- Just sad to see another black sheep of our society.

 

[Jango]

BTW, there were rumours about Zardari's sudden visit to Dubai when he immediately became ill and left the country on emergency bases. It was confirmed by two eye witnesses that he quarrelled with the staff and wanted Hussain Haqqani to accompany him to Dubai but since Haqqani's name was put on ECL he could not travel to Dubai. So that could be the possibility

This rumor is 70% confirmed from people I have heard it through, and those people are credible ones.

Similarly, this has been said in the media by respected personalities as well.

 

[Solomon2]

...I feel there are enough evidences to prove Haqqani guilty in future... Of course you can wait for the final judgement by the supreme court -

This investigative report doesn't just verify evidence but is highly prejudicial in its subjectivity. The SC is playing a game with your feelings, Zakii.

 

[lem34]

Well that was not his job was it. His job was supposed to be him standing up for Pakistan in America. Not relations at detriment to Pakistani interests

 

[Solomon2]

Wasn't HH given a chance to be heard but he ran away?

Come on. After what happened to Salman Taseer and Dr. Afridi what would have happened if HH had stayed? As Aristotle said (referring to Socrates, who was forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock) it's better not to give Athens a second chance to sin against philosophy.

Americans these days shouldn't accuse others of 'frustrations'

The purpose of this comment is what, exactly?

This rumor is 70% confirmed from people I have heard it through -

Do you know how ridiculous this statement sounds?

 

[Jango]

Do you know how ridiculous this statement sounds?

Point is, that I and other people are pretty sure that this happened.

When Zardari was en route to Dubai, he and Haqqani both were in the car. But then, somebody persuaded Haqqani to not go out of the country, or else it could further put his case in jeopardy.

 

[Awesome]

Come on. After what happened to Salman Taseer and Dr. Afridi what would have happened if HH had stayed? As Aristotle said (referring to Socrates, who was forced to commit suicide by drinking hemlock) it's better not to give Athens a second chance to sin against philosophy.

Salman Taseer? He was killed for Blasphemy. Dr. Afridi's sentencing happened much later - moreover Afridi admits to his acts considered as Treason - HH never admitted to his acts. He was clean until proven guilty.

So if he was guilty he would be punished if not he won't be. You made a whole hue n cry about not hearing him out, and thats what I was commenting on - so what is your clear position and what are you stomping your foot about?

The purpose of this comment is what, exactly?

You accused Pakistanis of taking out their frustrations - you do know Americans are the ones going about killing people in a rampage out of their frustrations over the failures in Afghanistan.

 

[Solomon2]

Salman Taseer? He was killed for Blasphemy.

Exactly. Not only was there no proof Taseer committed blasphemy, he was killed extra-judicially.

Dr. Afridi's sentencing happened much later - moreover Afridi admits to his acts considered as Treason -

If I was reported to have "confessed" to killing Benazir Bhutto, does that constitute evidence that I'm guilty of the crime?

HH never admitted to his acts. He was clean until proven guilty.

The commission was supposed to be fact-finding, not passing judgments of guilt or innocent.

what is your clear position and what are you stomping your foot about?

Pakistan is dying because men like you aren't fighting to keep your nation alive; you accept the growing corruption in your souls.

 

[Awesome]

Exactly. Not only was there no proof Taseer committed blasphemy, he was killed extra-judicially.

What? Please don't embarrass the American education system by re-writing the dictionary.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing

An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process

If I was reported to have "confessed" to killing Benazir Bhutto, does that constitute evidence that I'm guilty of the crime?

Yeah once your confession helps determine your killing. Afridi's guilt was determined when he and the CIA both confirmed his involvement with treasonous acts.

The commission was supposed to be fact-finding, not passing judgments of guilt or innocent.

They didn't a court did.

Pakistan is dying because men like you aren't fighting to keep your nation alive; you accept the growing corruption in your souls.

Or Perhaps Pakistanis would stop dying if your President stops killing them for no reason at all.