Terrorism Convictions

[sparklingway]

I will be sharing successful convictions in Terrorism related incidents in this thread to keep an eye on the whole scenario. Please add reports as you see fit and post old reports as well.

Although the thread isn't about the reasons for our failure to convict a large number of terrorists, I have mulled over the reasons for our failure to prosecute terrorists successfully and get convictions.

The reasons are numerous and can be summarized as :-

Lack of inter agency cooperation:
In this article by Vidya Rana, a police official makes a very interesting observation about the lack of information sharing by the intelligence agencies:

To a question on this particular issue, a police officer expressed his sheer frustration, which, according to him, emanates from a host of factors.

“We are being used as a ‘pick-n-drop’ service to terrorist-suspects. Police usually arrest a terrorist on tip-off of intelligence agencies. The little information we gather during preliminary investigation, it goes to media to justify the arrest. After taking physical remand, the arrested is handed over to those who provided tip-off for further investigation. But after submitting the challan, police find it difficult to substantiate the charges with evidence deemed concrete by the court,” the police officer said adding that it all happens because investigating agencies do not provide complete evidence to police which can land the terrorist in serious legal trouble during the court proceedings and the subsequent judgment.

Another police officer said they do not have any mechanism to gather relevant evidence due to legal and procedural complications.

“Even if police have arrested someone red-handedly, their witness is not acceptable in a court of law. Not only this, we do not have data base on terrorists, neither recording tracking system is available. We are dependent on other security agencies and they provide us with some record at will,” he explained.

This account calls into question the role of the intelligence agencies. why do they only selectively provide information to the police and the prosecution? Shouldn’t their primary job be to assist in the arrest and conviction of terror suspects? Instead the police is left, as this official describes it, as simply being a ‘pick and drop service’ to terrorism suspects.

It’s no secret that many of these terrorists have at one time been cultivated as “assets” for these agencies. A good example is Maulana Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid. It’s possible that intelligence agencies are not willing to share enough information with the police and the prosecution in order to ensure a successful conviction in case that information will implicates elements within the intelligence agencies themselves. Two examples will suffice to show the dubious dedication of the military leadership to successful terrorist trial and prosecution.

It was further frightening when a report from the Secretary Prosecution, Government of Punjab confirmed the lack of cooperation from the intelligence agencies. The report stated:-

the accused remained under probe with the agencies prior to the arrest (by police), but no positive information was passed onto the local police and thus the role played by the agencies couldn’t be availed to probe the guilt of the accused

According to police officials, no technical evidence was handed over to the police like forensics, NADRA record, mobile record, findings of polygraphic machines, etc. They say acquiring such things is not possible without excellent personal relations with the intelligence officials as it is done only through the sweet will of the keepers of such record and there is no legal force for pressuring them. The police even don’t have free access to NADRA record as they pay Rs 25 for verification of a computerised record, they say.

The report complains that:

“No one from any agency facilitated nor any liaison was made from any person to pursue the prosecution in the court of law

The will of the intelligence agencies to ensure access to government data is limited to them is highly deplorable. It has been revealed earlier that the direct taps on cellular connections is limited to the ISI and it is vehemently guarding its exclusive access. Such pity fist fights to maintain dominant position within the intelligence community is objectionable since it limits the effectiveness of counter terrorism operations. Not only do the local law enforcement agencies have to "apply" to the ISI for a tap, they have complained that such requests take sometimes even days to be completed rendering them useless. If these highly expensive technical facilities provided to the intelligence agencies cannot be used effectively in prosecuting the apprehended terrorists, then the usefulness of these gadgets and equipment becomes diminished.


Weak / poorly prepared prosecution and intimidated witnesses not appearing in court.
As an example, consider the Marriott bombing case.

The [counsel for the accused] said that the prosecution had named 128 witnesses and only 83 recorded their statements, nine witnesses had expired, five foreigners had left the country and the rest did not appear in the court.

Giving details of allegations against the acquitted men and three men who were absconding, the lawyer said that police had accused the four arrested men of facilitating Zakarullah, the main suicide attacker who had driven an explosives-laden dumper truck into the hotel.

Similarly In the case of Malik Ishaq a terrorist leader of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, no fewer than eight witnesses were killed by Malik Ishaq’s network of terrorists during the course of his trial.

Similarly, in many cases regarding the Swat Taliban, people have refused to testify fearing the return of the Taliban and their wrath in such a case. This is a question of the legitimacy of the state and lawlessness that surrounds our society. Also note that traveling allowances are meager and working class people have other priories than to travel to a city, wait in the lobby for hours and then record their testimonies.

“Hosing away” of evidence and counter-productive interference by intelligence agencies:
The UN Commission report on the Benazir Bhutto murder describes in detail the deliberate tampering of crime-scene evidence that took place shortly after the attack on BB. Hosing down of the crime scene, hosing down of her car, etc. In the Marriott bombing case, also, the counsel for the defense pointed out that contrary to the account of the Secretariat police, the suspects had not been arrested by the police but had been picked up by the intelligence agencies “a few days after the attack” and had apparently spent some days in their custody before being turned over to the police. In the Daniel Pearl kidnapping case, Omar Saeed Sheikh surrendered himself to Brigadier Ejaz Shah who had reportedly been his “handler” in the ISI and spent a week in his custody before his “arrest”. Such unexplained irregularities make it almost impossible to successfully build a case for the prosecution.

The the intelligence agencies operate under SOPs from executive branches which have no legal value. They have no legal provisions available for apprehending suspects and this can be done only through the police, legally. Most of they times they apprehend suspects on their own and later the Police has to furnish backdated FIRs and alter their roznamcha to show that the suspect was apprehended by them. This becomes a problem because if the defender's lawyer catches this discrepancy, then it can become a technicality that will result in acquittal. As noted in multiple cases, blank FIRs were filed and filled in four months later. Many times FIRs are registered months later, posing a serious risk of creation of benefit of doubt in the court since these procedural requirements lack the necessary authenticity.

Moreover, in one case the intelligence agencies handed over the suspects one year after apprehending them. How is the prosecution supposed to present this detention as legal when the only allowed provision is holding a suspect for 24 hours before it becomes compulsory to present him before a magistrate and get a judicial remand?

In the case of the prosecution of the attack on the Surgeon General and the attack on the AFPMGI bus, it is horrifying to note that the affected department (Pakistan Army) not only failed to file an FIR, nobody from the concerned department testified in court nor did it show any interest in the prosecution. The concerned department conducted its own investigation, did not share its findings with the either the JIT or the Police and according to the report, "neither assisted nor showed any interest in the trial of the accused". Such actions are deplorable and are extremely conducive to acquittals of guilty terrorists.

As the noted constitutional lawyer Babar Sattar noted:-

This gap between the requirements of the law and our evolving practice of military agencies taking a lead role in investigating terror attacks then gets bridged by fabricating a bogus story about backdated arrest of the accused by the police and consequent recovery of weapons. The aim of such exercise is to satisfy the procedural requirements of the law. But it doesn't work. A trial, simply put, is the story of a crime being told by the prosecution. The arrest or the accused and recovery of evidence linking the accused to the crime are the two foundational pillars of the prosecution's case.

But when the story weaved by the police and the prosecution is simply not true, as it has to camouflage actual facts and the role played by military agencies, even a half decent defense attorney is able to poke holes in it and create doubt. The benefit of this doubt caused by the procedural impropriety practiced by state agencies then goes to the accused who walks away scott-free. And the rest of us keep scratching our heads and wondering why our judges and our criminal justice system fail to put the bad guys behind bars.

Intimidation of the prosecution and judges:
Consider this contemporary account of the famous Daniel Pearl kidnapping case which describes in detail the intimidation of the lead prosecutor, Raja Qureshi. The defence lawyer of the accused had accused the prosecutor of being guilty of blasphemy and informed the judge that he would be going to hell. Bomb threats were made to the city jail in Karachi which led to the removal of the trial to the city jail in Hyderabad. The Washington Post journalist was a witness to Raja Qureshi receiving threatening phone calls in his home.

Recently, the judge presiding over a case involving Sufi Mohammad in the ATC Malakand, was not only threatened but the Taliban paid a visit to his house and threatened his family as well who were living in Peshawar.

State prosecutors are expected to perform under the worst circumstances: the extended networks of terror suspects threaten their security, and complainants and witnesses refuse to testify in ATC proceedings for fear of reprisals. On a more prosaic level, prosecutors have no access to offices, legal resources or clerical staff, and few funds are available from the government to revamp the ATC infrastructure.

Intimidation of the investigative agencies:
An example is the attack on March 9 on an office of the interrogation centre of the Special Investigation Agency (SIA) of the Punjab government while Dr. Usman, the prime suspect in the Marriott case was allegedly being interrogated there.

Similarly, the attacks on the buses of ISI personnel, the attacks on he Lahore FIA offices and the attacks on the ISI offices in Peshawar serve the same purpose.

Lack of interest of the media and lack of public monitoring of terror cases:
In countries like India and the United States, high profile terror cases are constantly monitored by journalists and civil society. In Pakistan, due to a) the media’s right wing bias and b) the secretive nature of anti-terrorism court trials there is little interest or knowledge among the public and the press of a terrorism trial while it is in progress. The media and the public are simply left in the dark and seem to show little interest in cases that should be at the forefront of public attention. They are then left mystified when there is a small news report that a high profile terrorist who in some cases (such as Maulana Abdul Aziz) was even caught on camera committing the crime he has been accused of, is released with little explanation by the courts. Neither does the state carry out public trials of alleged and accused militants nor does it release much details about prosecutions.

States worldwide make examples out of terrorists. Timothy McVeigh’s trial was a media spectacle and so was Richard Reid’s. India makes headlines every fortnight or so when Ajmal Kasab or his lawyer appears before courts. In our case, these terrorists lay in some interrogation rooms in extrajudicial remands.

Muslim Khan, and all known terrorists must be produced before courts of law as soon as possible and their trials be covered widely so as to let the people know about the height of brutality and inhumanity that these terrorists preached. Any sympathizers will definitely be horrified when they know the reality of the crimes committed by these terrorists. Judicial expediency does not demand denying anybody the right to a fair trial. It is time the our society learns the virtues of the respect of law and starts dealing with everything under legalized procedures.

Failure to produce before courts:-
Pakistan has claimed to have arrested more than 10,000 people in terrorism related incidents. Sadly, not all of them reach the courts. This has multiple reasons, including the fact that our intelligence agencies have never really learned to respect the law, to use it to their advantage or help establish the rule of law.

For example, on September 10, 2009 the spokesman for the Swat Taliban, Muslim Khan, was nabbed by security forces along with a number of other Taliban commanders. Today it has been 270 days since his arrest, longer than seven months since he was captured and he has not been produced before any court of law. On January 31, 2010 a special Anti Terrorism Court in Malakand Division declared Muslim Khan among others to be a Proclaimed Offender (PO) and issued arrest warrants for all accused. It has been 128 days since that happened. None of the main accused has ever been produced before a court of law. Where is justice, where is the rule of law? All of these accused are being kept in the custody of security forces and intelligence agencies. Interrogating and torturing them will further bear no fruit. It’s time the legal system makes an example out of them. Our culture where might is indeed the right has proliferated too wide and for too long. If we cannot even conduct a fair trial of these terrorists, how can we claim to provide justice to ordinary people? By dealing with everything outside the law, we have nourished a culture of lawlessness.

Judicial expediency does not demand denying anybody the right to a fair trial. It is time the our society learns the virtues of the respect of law and starts dealing with everything under legalized procedures. None of the main accused has ever been produced before a court of law. Where is justice, where is the rule of law? All of these accused are being kept in the custody of security forces and intelligence agencies. Interrogating and torturing them will further bear no fruit. If we cannot even conduct a fair trial of these terrorists, how can we claim to provide justice to ordinary people? By dealing with everything outside the law, we have nourished a culture of lawlessness.

Belief that there will not be a successful conviction:-
As Huma Yusuf wrote in Dawn some time ago:-

Late last year, a high-ranking police official told me that the best way to deal with terror suspects was to eliminate them in extrajudicial ‘encounters’. He reasoned it was the fastest way to put them out of action. Some may say there is twisted logic to such thinking, but the approach is untenable for various reasons.

She goes on to write:-

Primarily, due process reiterates the legitimacy of a democratic state, since the notion that all citizens are equal before the law is a key principle of democracy. Due process differentiates between democracies and authoritarian governments (or, for that matter, terror cells). A state that arbitrarily kills its citizens — no matter how heinous the crimes they may have committed — cannot aspire to legitimacy. And a legitimate state is the best antidote to terrorism, which thrives on power vacuums.

Moreover, for democracy to work, different organs of the state have to be accountable to the public. Trials, unlike ‘encounters’, are guided by the rule of law — transparent and open to public scrutiny. In its very set-up, the judicial system offers the public recourse to question the state’s actions.

It is ironic that Pakistanis who consistently speak out against US drone attacks are not vociferously demanding fair trials for all detained terror suspects. After all, the complaint against drone attacks is that they are a form of extrajudicial killing — capital punishment that is not preceded by a trial. We should demand that our own government gives up all extrajudicial activity — the detention, interrogation and punishment of terror suspects beyond the ambit of the law — before applying high standards to foreign powers.

This has lead to the fact that in many cases the prosecution deliberately does not fight a winning case, leading to an acquittal and then frisking away the alleged culprits from the jail instead of them being handed over to their next of kins. The purpose can be to make them disappear and hold them for further interrogation or to eliminate them. If the purpose is to hold them, then it is beyond for me any intelligence value should have died by the time trial would take place. The purpose clearly is to eliminate them or keep them in indefinite attention. Eliminating them outside the law or holding without judicial approval is not unknown in the land of the pure and yet another hallmark of our lawless society.

Here are a two among a number of cases where the alleged culprit's next of kins have filed complaints and habeas corpus petitions. Case 1, Case 2.

Lack of extension to FATA:-
The efficacy of Pakistan’s ATC system in stemming terrorism is further compromised by the fact that the ATA does not apply to residents of Fata, the area from where many detainees hail and where many crimes of this nature are committed as well. These suspects have to be repatriated to their tribal agency to face justice under the Frontier Crimes Regulation; in other words, they get no trial. The FCR is a flawed system besides being undemocratic and opposed to our social standards, is also allows for collective punishments which can only be described as barbaric and archaic.

Measures taken by the GoP to help convictions:-
Under the Anti-Terrorism Amendment Ordinance 2009, the following major changes were brought about in the legal system for Anti Terrorism Courts:-

• The burden of proof has been shifted to the accused
• Extra judicial testimonies have become admissible in court
• Preventive detention upto 90 days (up from 30 days) that cannot be challenged (but detainee has to be produced before a presiding officer of the ATC or a District and Sessions Judge within 24 hrs)

Also, the investigating officer is bound to forward an interim report no later than 3 days after expiration of the 90 days remand. Sadly, this is a rosy legislative requirement hardly ever followed.

Although, Human rights group have complained that the new law will, and is, most definitely allowing gross human rights violations; the Federal Govt has deemed it necessary and it is in effect.

With such major changes, it should be impossible not to get a conviction if the alleged terrorist was infact arrested on credible grounds. The admissibility of evidence becomes a problem when it is collected illegally (and thus cannot be presented in court, thus making the case weaker), the intelligence agencies do not provide the police with all the evidence, when witnesses fail to testify and finally when the prosecution in unwilling to get a conviction (perhaps to kill extrajudicially and settle the matter once and for all).

Even with all this, if the LEAs can’t get a conviction, then they should bury their heads in shame.

What the Government ought to do?:-

1. The ATO has to be amended and earlier introduced provisions should be discussed in Parliament and become Acts of the Parliament as soon as possible. The government has expressed its desire to tighten existing laws, but actions need to be taken fast and the new law should not be allowed to laspse lack the previous ordinance. The lack of enthusiasm from the legislature is disgraceful and should be condemned.
   
   
2. It is high time that the role of the intelligence agencies be provided a legal cover. The lack of enthusiasm for this emanates from the fact that the agencies fear that a legal documentation surrounding the limitations of their role would be unhelpful as their illegal and out of the norm activities would become questionable under the law. It would set provisions for accountability before the public and the discussion over their role in the legislature would become vocal. Such apprehensions are highly misguided and ill founded in a society that would like to establish the rule of the law. Accountability before the legislature would be welcome as the bad mouthing of their supposedly "political role" could be handled appropriately. Moreover, they could be provided with arresting capabilities under the law (with the 24 hour limit to be produced by a magistrate to ensure respect of the citizen's right to unfounded extended arrest). Evidence collected by them should become directly admissible in court (provided its admissibility be established under the Evidence Act) and the testimonies of the intelligence officers become admissible as well. Not only will this help in convicting terrorists far more easily, it will go further towards establishing a society where no institution of the state operates outside legal provisions.
   
   
3. Collaboration amongst law enforcement agencies is important. In order to improved the inter agency cooperation, an operational framework needs to established. The National Counter Terrorism Authority (NACTA) is supposed to become operational very soon and it should be given the foremost task of handling inter agency cooperation. Lack of enthusiasm from the IB and especially the ISI has been cited as a major problem in setting up the NACTA as the agencies are unwilling to leave their "dominant" position as the top most CT bodies. Such childish behaviour aimed at protecting "institutional pride" is highly deplorable and should have no place in a country that needs to tackle terrorism quickly.
   
   
4. The Criminal Procedural Code be amended so as it allows the investigative role of the intelligence agencies precisely, and not in vague terms. The Evidence Act (Qanun e Shahadat Order 1984) needs to be amended and recommendations that have surfaced over the past numerous years (including ones from state bodies like the LJCP) should be incorporated. Technicalities, inadequacy of the law and the wide gaps in the admissibility of evidence before courts should not result in guilty terrorists getting acquitted.
   
   
5. Anti-Terrorism Prosecutors should be provided with increased assistance, both from the law enforcement side and administrative help so they can prepare a tighter and effective case against the alleged terrorists.
   
6. Witnessed should be provided state protection and should preferably be shifted from their homes during the prosecution and their identities otherwise be protected vehemently. Many cases involving associates not involved in committing the acts of terrorism but providing institutional support to terrorists are unsuccessful largely due to the absence of witness testimonies. Enhanced protection for witnesses would most definitely result in higher conviction rates.
   

In the end as Babbar Sattar eloquently wrote:-

In our desperation to clasp convictions we must not succumb to the temptation of diluting our standards of justice and removing safety valves. For justice doesn't demand conviction of the accused, but that of the guilty.


Please refer to Huma Yusuf's column for CTC Sentinel for further insight into the nature of the new anti terrorism legislation and current prosecutions.

(Thanks to LUBP and the original author for various points)

 

[sparklingway]

Life term for six militants​

By Our Staff Reporter
Sunday, 06 Jun, 2010

LAHORE, June 5: An anti-terrorism court on Saturday awarded life imprisonment to six militans on charges of plotting suicide attacks and having explosive material.

Shahdara police had arrested these militants on Feb 8 and recovered a suicide jacket, 26 hand-grenades and explosive material from their possession.

The convicted militants are 14-year-old Mohiuddin, Tehsil Khan, Abdul Basir alias Qari Waqas, Dilawar Saeed, Abdul Rehman and Sakhi Shah.

The police believed that Mohiuddin was prepared to carry out a suicide attack in the city.

The court also awarded them 10-year imprisonment each under different sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

 

[sparklingway]

Militants sentenced to death in Mianwali​

By Our Correspondent

MIANWALI, May 4: Three militants were sentenced to death by an anti-terrorism court in Sargodha on Tuesday for killing eight police officials and blowing up a check-post at Qudratabad last year.

On Feb 7, 2009, militants killed all the eight policemen deployed at the checkpost and then blew up the double-storey building by placing explosives in it. The bodies were buried under the rubble of the post located on Mianwali-Lahore Road.

Later, police found two bags full of explosives near a graveyard in the adjacent Chiddroo area.

Police and intelligence agencies investigated the case and arrested Abdullah alias Ghazali, the alleged ringleader of militants, and his accomplices Abdul Hai of Sultanwala Sharqi (Chidhroo) and Saleem Zaman of Wan Bhachran.

Two other suspects, Sher Abbas and Nadir Abdullah, are still at large.

ATC judge Mian Muhammad Anwar Nazir handed down death sentence on nine counts to Abdullah, Hai and Zaman. The court also fined them Rs600,000 each.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

The convicted militants are 14-year-old Mohiuddin

Sad but still No Mercy :-|


Keep 'em coming gives me a good feeling, the more the merrier

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I have mulled over the reasons for our failure to prosecute terrorists successfully and get convictions. ...

I respect the time and effort in this thread you have put through

Re judiciary not convicting the terrorists, the cases are half baked & half hearted by the prosecution hence almost no conviction of the clear and blatant murderers.

Another thing which I personally felt very strongly during the Musharaf’ standoff with the judiciary. That Ch Ifitkhar group made a point of freeing every known terrorist just to tease or mock the General
And for that the honourable chief Justice had full backing of Nawaz Sherif (who considers the CJ in his pocket now)

So on top of lack of effort on the part of prosecution, criminal failure of the security forces (police, intelligence agencies, military) resulted in NO RESULT

This very much boosted the captured terrorists. This is why the Lal masjid captives wowed to seek revenge from the state once they were free after the operation.

Another reason for the lack of conviction or punishment was the perceived reprisal of the sectarian outfits like Sipah sahabah who after killing the Iranian diplomat had threatened to spill the blood of thousands of Shias if the captured killer was punished and that’s what they did when he was hanged eventually after a decade or so.

Since all of these terrorists were sectarian outfits so the same kind of reluctance has continued. So the vicious circle continues.

 

[sparklingway]

Another thing which I personally felt very strongly during the Musharaf’ standoff with the judiciary. That Ch Ifitkhar group made a point of freeing every known terrorist just to tease or mock the General

May I question your understanding of the law, the judicial system and the criminal justice system? Have you ever followed any case thoroughly? Do you know that Terrorism cases are only "appealed" in the SC, meaning convicted ones appeal against the judgment in the SC under its appellate jurisdiction and the case of an appeal isn't pleading your case again, rather the defence pleads about possible miscarriage of justice, wrong conviction and problems in the earlier judgment rather than the prosecution making it's case again. Please read some basic criminal law before making such a hollow and baseless accusation.

Most people make these kinds of statements for they never have read about the justice system and consider that every case is like appearing before their jirgas/panchiats and still consider the justice system to be some kind of fancy tribal council (tribal as in old and archaic not the tribal areas). For well established reasons, the justice system does not allow the prosecution to accuse the defendant of any new crimes during the case or swing the case to another direction outside the nature of the trial. These things happen in panchaits and tribal courts and that is something our people still wish to see rather than appreciating the reasons for these limitations.

And for that the honourable chief Justice had full backing of Nawaz Sherif (who considers the CJ in his pocket now)

Nothing to do with this issue.

 

[Hyde]

The convicted militants are 14-year-old Mohiuddin, Tehsil Khan, Abdul Basir alias Qari Waqas, Dilawar Saeed, Abdul Rehman and Sakhi Shah.​

hmmm

I would say they should be educated behind the prison and should be treated as a special case. These are only 14 year old brainwashed kids who cannot even differ between right and wrong, who does not have the ability to see the picture in broader sense. So there should be a special zone in the prison for such childrens who are educated and well treated behind the prison.

Who knows in future they are changed and come out with the vision of brighter Pakistan - anything is possible in this world and no disagreements please, i have always been taught to "hope for the best" and "prepare for the worst" and i hope BEST ​

 

[GUNNER]

USEFUL THREAD.

To begin with, does anyone know what happened to the guy Dr. Usman, who was caught from GHQ after the attack. Never heard of him since.

 

[sparklingway]

I would say they should be educated behind the prison and should be treated as a special case. These are only 14 year old brainwashed kids who cannot even differ between right and wrong, who does not have the ability to see the picture in broader sense. So there should be a special zone in the prison for such childrens who are educated and well treated behind the prison.

Under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, juveniles can't be given death sentences and although Juvenile courts were to established (which are yet to be established), the Anti Terrorism Legislations are supreme here and the juvenile defendant was successfully convicted here.

He'll be sent to the Juvenile section of a Central Prison. The juveniles live in blocks with cellmates of their ages, and a number of such blocks are overseen by an elder prisoner.

 

[sparklingway]

To begin with, does anyone know what happened to the guy Dr. Usman, who was caught from GHQ after the attack. Never heard of him since.

I'll quote a friend's work here:-

Dr. Usman was acquitted in the Marriott case and the surgeon general case. There’ve been a number of really weird irregularities with him, like why was he released from custody after he he was picked up by the FIA for the marriott case… he then went on to allegedly do the sri lankan team attack & the GHQ attack. Then he was picked up by the army after the GHQ attack and they decided to have their own ‘inquiry committee’ which submitted a report directly to Kayani. So it doesn’t even seem like they ever wanted to prosecute him for the GHQ attack. That’s not negligence, that’s deliberately letting him go which raises major question marks.

The first example is the case of the GHQ attack of 2009. Despite a terrorist being caught alive (which should have been a major source of information and an important tool in preparing the prosecution), the military leadership’s approach to investigating the attack on its own headquarters seemed non-serious. Despite a report being prepared and submitted to General Kayani based primarily on the evidence provided by Dr. Usman (the surviving terrorist), no criminal action was taken against him or any of the individuals or organizations identified in the report.

Now that Dr. Usman has been acquitted of all charges against him and is a free man, just in case ISPR starts whining about the justice system and the courts, let’s remember that the very upmost levels of the GHQ had a chance to review testimony provided by him and so is equally a party to his release.

Here’s the news report from November 2009:

COAS gets investigation report of GHQ attack

Tuesday, November 17, 2009
ISLAMABAD: The investigation report of the last month’s terrorist attack on the General Headquarters, Rawalpindi, has been dispatched to Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. During the investigation, most of the information was provided by Aqeel Ahmed alias Dr Usman, the mastermind behind the attack, security sources told Online. The investigation team, comprising senior intelligence officials, was constituted by the Army chief, the sources said.

The report said the perpetrators of the attack had planned to hold some generals hostage to get their demands accepted.

The terrorists stayed in Rawalpindi for a month to gather information and monitor the GHQ, but due to strict security measures, they could not get the information they needed about the GHQ, it said.

No high-profile terrorists were among those arrested from Rawalpindi, Islamabad, Lahore and other areas of the country, but majority of them had assisted the perpetrators of the terrorist attack, the sources said. No Army man or employee of the GHQ was found involved in the attack, directly or indirectly, the sources said.

During the investigation, Dr Usman told the interrogators that they wanted to storm the GHQ on the day of the corps commanders meeting, so that they could hold two generals hostage to get their 100 arrested accomplices, including members of a banned organisation, released, the sources added.

Note: Dr Usman is yet to be nominated in the GHQ Attack case FIR. Why the military does not want to name him is anybody's guess. Perhaps kill him extra judicially or there are other possibilities I will not like to mention.

 

[GUNNER]

Now that Dr. Usman has been acquitted of all charges against him and is a free man, just in case ISPR starts whining about the justice system and the courts, let’s remember that the very upmost levels of the GHQ had a chance to review testimony provided by him and so is equally a party to his release.

I don't think he is a free man as yet. He is still in the custody of intel. What they are doing with him is unknown.

Secondly, whenever a court acquits known terrorists like Dr Usman in some case, they are never released but intel keeps them locked up untill they can frame some other charges.

 

[sparklingway]

I don't think he is a free man as yet. He is still in the custody of intel. What they are doing with him is unknown.

We can only speculate.

Secondly, whenever a court acquits known terrorists like Dr Usman in some case, they are never released but intel keeps them locked up untill they can frame some other charges.

Which is illegal. Last week, four people acquitted by an ATC were handed over to the IB by the Adiala Jail instead of releasing them into the custody of their relatives. This is illegal and if they have proof, they should follow the law for it has made their work in the court room quite easy. Even if with this wide ranging powers allocation, they still choose to arrest, detain and prosecute illegally; then shame on us a society.

 

[M8R]

I think this judicial system should not apply to Millitants.Take them out on the scene or after interrogation.We need to create fake encounters and kill these pigs.They don't deserve defense in court of law.We should have some spys with license to kill to take out these pigs.

 

[sparklingway]

I think this judicial system should not apply to Millitants.Take them out on the scene or after interrogation.We need to create fake encounters and kill these pigs.They don't deserve defense in court of law.We should have some spys with license to kill to take out these pigs.

After suggesting this, you have lost the right to complain against Abu Gharaib, Guantanamo and all such facilities.

 

[M8R]

After suggesting this, you have lost the right to complain against Abu Gharaib, Guantanamo and all such facilities.

Well I don't honestly care about these facilities.What i care about is my country.If these pigs kill Pakistanis then they deserve no mercy.Should be executed and that will save a lot of money and time.Putting them through judicial process is a strain on our resources..I mean how are you supposed to go free after bombing HQ of Pakistan Army or attacking some Mosque.I have no sympathy for these people.