What's new

FBI arrests two for being allegedly on ISI payroll

Your interpretation is incorrect - the 'charge' is 'failure to register ...', - the 'justification for the charge', based on what is known currently, are alleged 'witness statements and email/phone records', whose veracity will have to be proved in court.

Utter poppycock - the media in the US has gone overboard in calling these men 'spies, ISI agents' and calling Pakistan 'duplictious and guilty of running an espionage ring', when anyone with half a brain could see that none of the charges involve 'espionage'.

Davis was involved in gunning down two Pakistanis in cold blood in broad daylight on a busy street - for you to even compare the two incidents and try and correlate the reaction in Pakistan to the reaction in the US exposes your bias and lack of objectivity in covering Pakistan-US affairs.

I read a wide variety of US media being here and all. There is no hysteria over this incident, while there was mass hysteria actively flamed by certain quarters over the RD affair.

That is no personal bias, but a fair opinion which has been honestly and consistently expressed, which you are free to disagree with. After all, objectivity is not defined as whatever one agrees with, is it?

Back to the topic, a friend is providing a portion of the legal counsel to Mr. Fai, and my local community, including me, are working to provide support where needed. Without going into details, not keeping paperwork in order has been the downfall of many a person, but things can be sorted out with some complications. The political fallout is another matter entirely.
 
.
For Fai and Pakistan, Kashmir was a cash cow - The Times of India

WASHINGTON: It was during the Presidency of Ulysses Grant, the first prominent US politician to visit India (in 1878, after he demitted office), that the term lobbying entered the American lexicon. The story goes that Grant used to repair to Willard Hotel, next door to the White House, to relax with a cigar and brandy after a hard day's work. Political wheelers and dealers, fixers and nixers, hung around the hotel foyer, hoping to get a word across to him. Lobbying arrived in US, although the term existed across the pond. The word 'lobby' itself is thought to have originated in England from an old Germanic word meaning "leaf," to convey a shelter made of leaves and branches.

Today, Washington DC is the world capital of lobbying; a lobbyist's haven. Most lobbying enterprises are located just four blocks north of Willard on the city's "K Street," now seen as a derogatory metonym for influence peddling, much like Dalal Street in Mumbai and Wall Street in New York City are euphemisms for the financial world. Lobbying, a multi-billion dollar business, has attained a near industry status because it employs some 40,000 people directly (including nearly 20,000 registered lobbyists) and many more indirectly. So pervasive is lobbying in America that the two-mile long K Street has engendered an eponymous HBO TV series. Just to lobby the point one more time: There is even an American League of Lobbyists (ALL) which lobbies on behalf of the lobbying industry.

Into this world arrived Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai sometime in the early 1990s. In a city full of campaigns and causes, issues and interests, from advocacy groups for Armenia (once represented by Bob Dole) to lobbyists for Zambian and Zimbabwean mining interests, he became, over a period of two decades, the face of the ''Kashmir issue" in the US, shilling for the Pakistani viewpoint.

This was rather ironical because the Indian lobbyist for many years when he arrived in DC was a larger-than-life Kashmiri Pandit named Janki Ganju, a Nehru-Gandhi family friend. Ganju had represented New Delhi's interests in Washington DC through half-dozen US Presidents and some ten Indian ambassadors at that time. But he was a one-man act, operating largely from home. Ganju was on a modest retainer, something in the region of $ 100,000 I was told, but he made a decent fist of it. He passed away in May 1995 a few months after I arrived in DC, but in the couple of dinners he hosted at his unpretentious home in Van Ness (he was an ace Balti cook) lawmakers and administration officials (including the controversial Robin Raphel, seen then as anti-India and pro-Pakistan) turned up to nibble and natter.

Fai, by contrast, was quiet, conservative, but well-heeled, which was bit of a mystery because he was not technically employed by the Pakistani government or its embassy (we know only now from the FBI that he was bankrolled by ISI through phony Pakistani-American donations). He operated out of downtown office with American interns and hosted events in hotels and on Capitol Hill, and on occasions even ventured out of the U.S, once hosting a "Kashmir conference" in Montevideo, Uruguay of all places. He was a pleasant man, but he had shady written all over him.

This was at a time India was pretty marginal in the American scheme of things. Pakistan was looked upon as a great ally who had helped US win the Cold War, although things had begun to sour between them over nuclear sanctions and the F-16 episode. But the swishy Benazir Bhutto had come to power a second time, Clinton was mid way through his first term, and Raphel called the shots on South Asia. There was still a pro-Pakistan tilt in the corridors of power. Raphel had stirred a hornet's nest by questioning Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India. At one point, Fai even claimed to have received a letter from Bill Clinton expressing concern over the situation in Kashmir.

Ganju was soon pensioned off by then Ambassador Siddharth Shankar Ray in favor of Springer, Rafaelli, Spees and Smith, the first professional lobbying firm hired by India. The contract was for $ 600,000 annually (to represent the entire range of Indian interests), which was about the same amount Pakistan allegedly funneled to Fai to further its single-point Kashmir agenda. You do the math.

I had a just one encounter with Fai early on, and it did not go well. He lectured me on Kashmiri history and hectored me on the atrocities by Indian forces. With collegiate insouciance, I told him I've much to learn about the history of Kashmir, but he could start by telling me origin of the name Kashmir and Srinagar. He got the point, turned red in the face, changed the subject, and collared me on the plebiscite issue. I asked if he thought Pakistan would abide by the terms of the UN Resolution (which required withdrawal of its forces from *** and allowed India to keep minimum number of troops to maintain order). And would Pakistan be able to get back the areas of Kashmir it had ceded to China? And how about restoring the demographics of that time (ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri pundits was already underway), not to speak of the relative harmony that existed at that time? I was never invited to another Fai event.

I don't particularly share the current lynch mob perspective in India over the dozen or so eminence grise from India who attended Fai's gigs, and perhaps enjoyed his hospitality. You had to be daft not to realize that he peddled the Pakistani line on the Kashmir issue, but it would have required extraordinary acuity to discern he was an ISI stooge. He didn't have it written on him. Of course, he would never talk about the atrocities and miseries in ***, but hey, most Pakistanis and Kashmiri separatists those days believed Pakistan was paradise. For their ruling elites, and for Fai himself Kashmir was just a cash cow, to be used for extracting money from the world, their own people, and distract them from other pressing issues.

While Fai had a run of the pro-Pakistan Kashmir narrative with Ganju's departure (US lobbying firms weren't exactly wired into the issue), Kashmiri Pandits, few in number in the US, had no voice, much less the lolly required to drum up support. Most Pandits were salaried professionals. The little advocacy they did was voluntary, after-hours work. Except for an occasional lawmaker (like Frank Pallone) no one had the time of the day for them mainly because there was very little moolah they could put into a campaign kitty.

Just how important money and patronage is in the US lobbying industry is evident from an incident some few years back. When Vikram Pandit became CEO of CitiBank, there was a brief flurry of excitement among Kashmiri Pandits, who thought they'd finally have a mascot and money-spinner who could help their case. But the buzz subsided quickly when they found he was a Maharashtrian from Nagpur. Fai, meantime, was flying high even though he was already on the FBI radar.
 
.
This is nothing but the latest friendship hamper of USA to India :sick: , getting money from a known source (ISI) and spending it for the benefit of Humanity is a blunder in US eyes :undecided:
well i just heard that ISI chief is on good terms with US military personals, why not keep Rymond devis in Mind and Let the so-called employ of friendly Chief go home :P , as he has not even injured a single American ,when his Counter-part Rymond killed more then one Pakistani :agree:
 
.
I always thought UNO stands for United NATIONS organization. But whatever.. Any other signatories that were not countries in themselves?? Or may be you are privy to the internal reasoning of British on the subject and why the rest of the countries went along.

btw, in 1945 India was accorded full membership as well of the UN. Was that also a vote game by the British?? However I do remember some references of commitments made by British to the then nation of India towards self rule in exchange for support during World War II. May be the membership and being a signatory to 1942 declaration had something to do with that..
I don't know about other signatories to the UN in 1945, but you would have to be delusional to call the entity known as 'India' a 'sovereign, Independent nation' in 1945 - if you disagree, please explain how India could be considered a 'sovereign, independent nation' in 1945. Just because the entity known as 'India' was made a 'signatory to the UN', or given 'membership' to XYZ organization, does not make it a 'nation' - nationhood for India came about in 1947, as it did for Pakistan, after the political parties representing the various communities and provinces, the Muslim League and Congress, and the actual 'Rulers' (the British) acted to implement the desire for 'nationhood' on behalf of their constituencies.
My link should take you to the post in which has the quote from Mr Zolfiquar's post that says "Pakistan never was part of india; india itself wasnt even a country until 1947" . The original post of AZ though has been deleted and a member has been banned probably for replying to it.. :)
There is nothing wrong with AZ's post - India does not mark 1945 as the year of its independence or 'nationhood'.
 
.
I read a wide variety of US media being here and all. There is no hysteria over this incident, while there was mass hysteria actively flamed by certain quarters over the RD affair.
The plethora of US reports calling the incident 'espionage, ISI spies, Pakistani duplicity' refute and expose your biased defence of your adopted homeland.
That is no personal bias, but a fair opinion which has been honestly and consistently expressed, which you are free to disagree with. After all, objectivity is not defined as whatever one agrees with, is it?
Objectivity requires one to apply the same standards to similar events, you certainly do not display that, especially when refusing to even acknowledge the smear campaign in the US media meant to rile up sentiment against Pakistan and its military and intelligence by resorting to media coverage using the terms 'espionage, spies and duplicity', especially when it comes on the back of another massive smear campaign that dragged in a whole bunch of 'anonymous sources, unsubstantiated allegations and even dredging up the old 'AQ Khan network' propaganda.

I can't consider you anything but 'biased and nonobjective' when you refuse to acknowledge the above, and merely swallow and propagate US propaganda hook line and sinker.
Back to the topic, a friend is providing a portion of the legal counsel to Mr. Fai, and my local community, including me, are working to provide support where needed. Without going into details, not keeping paperwork in order has been the downfall of many a person, but things can be sorted out with some complications. The political fallout is another matter entirely.
The political fallout, in terms of 'lobbying for Pakistan's position on Kashmir' will be minimal, given that the amount of money being distributed, legally or not, was insignificant given the amount of money in the American political system. Nor was there any hint of a shift in the US position, executive or legislative, in favor of Pakistan's position on Kashmir.

As far as the 'image of the ISI' in the US, it reflects the image of the CIA/US in Pakistan, and has for a long time. This won't make a significant dent over the existing poor image.

Kudos to you and others for supporting Mr. Fai however.

Rather sad that the US can persecute its own innocent citizens and use them as pawns in trying to pressure other nations.
 
.
The plethora of US reports calling the incident 'espionage, ISI spies, Pakistani duplicity' refute and expose your biased defence of your adopted homeland.

Objectivity requires one to apply the same standards to similar events, you certainly do not display that, especially when refusing to even acknowledge the smear campaign in the US media meant to rile up sentiment against Pakistan and its military and intelligence by resorting to media coverage using the terms 'espionage, spies and duplicity', especially when it comes on the back of another massive smear campaign that dragged in a whole bunch of 'anonymous sources, unsubstantiated allegations and even dredging up the old 'AQ Khan network' propaganda.

I can't consider you anything but 'biased and nonobjective' when you refuse to acknowledge the above, and merely swallow and propagate US propaganda hook line and sinker.

The political fallout, in terms of 'lobbying for Pakistan's position on Kashmir' will be minimal, given that the amount of money being distributed, legally or not, was insignificant given the amount of money in the American political system. Nor was there any hint of a shift in the US position, executive or legislative, in favor of Pakistan's position on Kashmir.

As far as the 'image of the ISI' in the US, it reflects the image of the CIA/US in Pakistan, and has for a long time. This won't make a significant dent over the existing poor image.

Kudos to you and others for supporting Mr. Fai however.

Rather sad that the US can persecute its own innocent citizens and use them as pawns in trying to pressure other nations.

Just as the JF-17 is the world's greatest fighter jet and Pakistani F-16s are totally controlled by PAF, you are absolutely correct too! :D

(I would not be surprised if this post is be deleted, based on YOUR "objective" tolerance of different opinions.)

I stand by my statements as CORRECT and OBJECTIVE.

BTW, Mr. Fai will have a fair trial, he is innocent until and unless proven guilty, and the US has FAR more effective pawns and tools for pressuring other nations than one simple lightweight lobbyist.
 
.
Just as the JF-17 is the world's greatest fighter jet and Pakistani F-16s are totally controlled by PAF, you are absolutely correct too! :D

(I would not be surprised if this post is be deleted, based on YOUR "objective" tolerance of different opinions.)
Unless you can attribute the above statements to me, this post will be deleted as trolling.
I stand by my statements as CORRECT and OBJECTIVE.
You can stand by your statements as much as you want, but your trolling stunt above, along with your inability to apply the same standards when analyzing US/Pak policies and events, debunk your claims.
 
.
Unless you can attribute the above statements to me, this post will be deleted as trolling.

You can stand by your statements as much as you want, but your trolling stunt above, along with your inability to apply the same standards when analyzing US/Pak policies and events, debunk your claims.

Those statements were made by ME! (Oh wait, you may not have read my posts elsewhere, so you may not know the context here. I did not imply that you said those. How in heaven's name did you get the idea that I am saying that YOU said them?!)

It seems my understanding of the English language is not quite as masterful as yours Sir. Delete away as much as you want, please.
 
.
I doubt he was an ISI agent, ISI agents are pretty 'unknown', not Executive Directors of Kashmiri American Council. Anyways, good for the US.

One philosophy on espionage is that people generally don't focus on things that are right in front of their eyes. World over, military intelligence units manipulate this logic. And by far, it is the truth in lot of cases.
 
.
I don't know about other signatories to the UN in 1945, but you would have to be delusional to call the entity known as 'India' a 'sovereign, Independent nation' in 1945 - if you disagree, please explain how India could be considered a 'sovereign, independent nation' in 1945. Just because the entity known as 'India' was made a 'signatory to the UN', or given 'membership' to XYZ organization, does not make it a 'nation' - nationhood for India came about in 1947, as it did for Pakistan, after the political parties representing the various communities and provinces, the Muslim League and Congress, and the actual 'Rulers' (the British) acted to implement the desire for 'nationhood' on behalf of their constituencies.
Err.. Where did I call India a sovereign and Independent nation before 1947? However not being independent does not mean that the entity does not exist. UN since 1940's is probably the single largest collective of the countries on earth and recognition by UN is considered the basic criteria for a nation to be recognized as such. So simply saying that no India existed before 1947 in my view is what you would called nationalism driven delusion which I find quite prevalent here... If UN recognizes India as a member since 1945, then thats what it is. If India was not recognized as an country (though under foreign rule) in 1945 then India would be shown as a member since 1947 and not 1945.

Now one can bury his head in the sand and keep negating the truth, but that wont change a thing.. would it?

There is nothing wrong with AZ's post - India does not mark 1945 as the year of its independence or 'nationhood'.

There may or may not be anything wrong with AZ's post, but my comment was in reference to who started the discussion about Pakistan getting carved out of India in this thread..
 
.
The political fallout, in terms of 'lobbying for Pakistan's position on Kashmir' will be minimal, given that the amount of money being distributed, legally or not, was insignificant given the amount of money in the American political system. Nor was there any hint of a shift in the US position, executive or legislative, in favor of Pakistan's position on Kashmir.
.
You are being overly optimistic in my view here. The fact is that the so called Kashmiri voices are now under suspicion of being Pakistani voices in guise of Kashmiri voices. As I said before, this IF PROVEN TRUE, will be Pakistan's biggest blunder in the Kashmir situation since Kargil.
 
.
it can't be considered a blunder when Pakistan's official stance on Kashmir is strikingly similar to the sentiments radiated by Kashmiris themselves.

if Kashmiris were lashing out at Pakistan, or labelling Pakistan an "occupier" (which more often than not, has been a title bestowed upon the occupying indian armed forces only) -- THAT would be a blunder. However, such is not the case.


india gets what it wants --- one (of SEVERAL) thorns in its back was removed. Many more, however exist. The indians are the ones here who seem overly cocky and confident now, as if the arrest of a single lobbyist is analogous to the "burial" of the ongoing dispute. Such is not the case though.

Dreaming doesnt change the reality.

The truth is that Kashmir was and still is more connected and geographically and culturally linked with areas constituting Pakistan. indian would not have had direct road links to Kashmir had the Radcliffe commission deliberately awarded the Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur to India. There is no point arguing, why not conduct the plebiscite promised by Nehru under UN supervision the world's largest democracy can afford a democratic referendum or plebiscite can't it?

i think the indians will remain in denial; but let's see for how long they think that recent badmashi by our "allies" will take place to suit (soothe?) their nerves. You cant wish away or white-wash the realities.

Kashmiris will never accept indian hegemony over their lands. That is why they declare August 15th a "black day" every single year. And by every year, I really mean EVERY year.





for example:


http://www.worldbulletin.net/index.php?aType=haber&ArticleID=62613
 
.
it can't be considered a blunder when Pakistan's official stance on Kashmir is strikingly similar to the sentiments radiated by Kashmiris themselves.

if Kashmiris were lashing out at Pakistan, or labelling Pakistan an "occupier" (which more often than not, has been a title bestowed upon the occupying indian armed forces only) -- THAT would be a blunder. However, such is not the case.



india gets what it wants --- one (of SEVERAL) thorns in its back was removed. Many more, however exist. The indians are the ones here who seem overly cocky and confident now, as if the arrest of a single lobbyist is analogous to the "burial" of the ongoing dispute. Such is not the case though.

Dreaming doesnt change the reality.

The truth is that Kashmir was and still is more connected and geographically and culturally linked with areas constituting Pakistan. indian would not have had direct road links to Kashmir had the Radcliffe commission deliberately awarded the Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur to India. There is no point arguing, why not conduct the plebiscite promised by Nehru under UN supervision the world's largest democracy can afford a democratic referendum or plebiscite can't it?

i think the indians will remain in denial; but let's see for how long they think that recent badmashi by our "allies" will take place to suit (soothe?) their nerves. You cant wish away or white-wash the realities.

Kashmiris will never accept indian hegemony over their lands. That is why they declare August 15th a "black day" every single year. And by every year, I really mean EVERY year.

Sir, I guess I was not able to communicate it well.. Why I call this a blunder is that IF PROVEN RIGHT, it will actually make every single Kashmiri group in the western world a suspect of being a Pakistani mouthpiece. Many of these groups might be really what they project themselves as. But 1 bad apple makes the whole bunch a suspect. Its a blunder because by association, Pakistan corrupted the sanctity of the organization which would have had much stronger credibility as a champion of Kashmiris, had it been not financed by Pakistan.
 
.
You are being overly optimistic in my view here. The fact is that the so called Kashmiri voices are now under suspicion of being Pakistani voices in guise of Kashmiri voices. As I said before, this IF PROVEN TRUE, will be Pakistan's biggest blunder in the Kashmir situation since Kargil.
What exactly were these 'Kashmiri voices' accomplishing?

What movement towards a 'pro-Pakistan position on Kashmir' can you point to?

This is neither a 'blunder', nor any significant 'setback', in terms of influencing US legislative, public and executive opinion on J&K. If you think it is, I'd like to see you point out this event will tangibly change the current mindset in the US legislature and executive branches.
 
.
Inquiry Commission: US opposes disclosure of Abbottabad findings

By Kamran Yousaf
Published: July 23, 2011


ISLAMABAD:
The United States is pushing Pakistan not to make public the findings of a high-powered commission investigating the circumstances surrounding the presence and death of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in his Abbottabad compound on May 2.

The US opposition stems from its fears that the conclusions of the Abbottabad Commission may compromise the future operations of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Pakistan and its ‘local assets,’ said government officials familiar with the development.

“The US was in fact strongly against the very idea of any commission to investigate the Abbottabad incident,” said a security official, who chose to stay anonymous.

The high-level judicial commission headed by the senior most judge of the Supreme Court after the chief justice was formed following a national outcry over the failure of the country’s powerful security establishment to detect both the al Qaeda leader and the US midnight raid.

Officials acknowledged that making the outcome of the Abbottabad Commission’s probe public will be embarrassing for the security establishment but might provide classified details about how the CIA penetrated deep into Pakistan.

“It was an intelligence failure … let me put it this way, it was the mother of all intelligence failures,” said an intelligence official.

He said the security apparatus might not object to the Abbottabad Commission’s findings as ‘a lot has already been said about our failures, so we have nothing to fear.’

“What people don’t know at this moment is how the CIA operates in this country … what tools they use, what tactics they employ,” he added.

He said the findings of the commission might provide answers to all these ‘chilling questions.’

‘CIA informants’ held

Intelligence agencies have been collecting evidence and all the relevant details that could provide leads on how the world’s most recognised face managed to live undetected in a garrison town for so long, said another official.
“The arrest of several local people who were working for the CIA is also helpful in finding the unanswered questions,” the official revealed.

The ‘CIA informants’ were held in a nationwide crackdown in the wake of the Bin Laden debacle.

Amongst these ‘informants’ were Dr Shakeel Afridi, who launched a fake polio vaccination drive in Abbottabad on behalf of the CIA to get the DNA samples of the Bin Laden family.


His arrest has become a thorn in the already tense relations between Pakistan and the United States.
“The security agencies will certainly share all this information being gleaned from the CIA informants,” the official said.
This is one of the main reasons that the US is objecting to making public the findings of the commission, he said.

Meanwhile, the Abbottabad Commission is also planning to ask the US officials to explain their position on the controversy.

Lt General (retd) Nadeem Ahmed, a member of the commission, recently said in an interview that the commission is planning on trying to get testimonies from US officials, and added that if no one testified, the panel would note their refusals in its record.

A US diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity ruled out the possibility of American officials testifying before the Abbottabad commission.

When approached, US Embassy spokesperson Courtney Beale denied that the US had communicated any sort of opposition to the commission and/or making its report public. She, however, refused to comment on whether the US was opposed to making the findings public.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2011.

Inquiry Commission: US opposes disclosure of Abbottabad findings – The Express Tribune
 
.
Back
Top Bottom