Again, Kasab was hung before Pakistan could interrogate him, so there goes the "incredible source of information". the location is not being disputed, it's the evidence of guilt of a specific person that's being questioned.
But look how they did it. I believe in 2009, a suspect was tried in a civilian court and a lot of their evidence ended up being thrown out, precisely because their methods were illegitimate. Water boarding was condemned and evidence gained from it was considered completely worthless, while drone strikes are still controversial to this day. Think about it.
Because simple accusations are not evidence enough. Besides, Pakistan has asked for a testimony from headley, and it's up to the US to provide him before Pakistani courts. Also, both were not directly doing in the attack themselves, so their testimony doesn't carry as much weight.
I told everyone that he wouldn't stay out for long, and every Indian member laughed at me. IHC has already ordered that the ATC speed up the trial process and finish it within the two months, simply because the courts know the consequences of slowing the trial down. India wants a speedy conclusion, then it will get one, but it may not like the result, simply because of it's own expectations are far too unrealistic.
I don't know much about Abu Jundal, which is why I mainly focused on Headley.
But they've also killed a lot of innocent people, including children. That is why they remain controversial, as there is a distinct lack of accountability when it comes to the program.
That's called circumstantial evidence, in most cases, this sort of evidence needs something else to supplement it's credibility. I don't know about the wife's confession, this is the first time I'm hearing it, but if true, than she would have been summoned to give a testimony. Even then, you'd need hard evidence, such as equipment that the suspect was using. There is a reason why eye witness accounts aren't enough to prosecute criminals in most cases.
Like I said, I don't know much about Abu Jundal other than what I've read. If geo-location can prove his whereabouts, then fine, but you'd need phone records and recorded conversations to supplement the case against him.
That is circumstantial evidence. He could simply say that he was a tourist, and that he didn't know the identity of the militants, simple as that. Unless there is evidence to prove he's lying (which there apparently was), his words are the only thing you would have to go by.
I should point out, an investigation was conducted and no evidence turned up about the ISI's involvement. There were even allegations from Indian media that the US was only doing it to get on India's good side and use this tragedy to gain political brownie points with India.
Never head about that allegation before. All I know is that he changed his name when he came to the US and somewhere down the line, became radicalized.
