The case against Hafiz Saeed

[ajpirzada]

did someone find out wat were the charges pressed against him?? there is no point arguin here if we dont know the exact charges.

if u say that case filed against him was weak and therefore GoP is not serious. this can and cannot be true. wat if there is not solid evidence provided by india which links hafiz saeed to mumbai attack? in that case GoP cant do much about it.

some of u might be in better position to comment if u remember the evidence pointin towards his involvement coz i dont.

 

[Skeptic]

did someone find out wat were the charges pressed against him?? there is no point arguin here if we dont know the exact charges.

if u say that case filed against him was weak and therefore GoP is not serious. this can and cannot be true. wat if there is not solid evidence provided by india which links hafiz saeed to mumbai attack? in that case GoP cant do much about it.

some of u might be in better position to comment if u remember the evidence pointin towards his involvement coz i dont.

What charges were pressed against him will will extremely clear if you bothered to follow the proceedings of the court, which I was through primarily Pakistani media only. He was initially detained on precautionary ground and no charges were presented within the stipulated period of 15 days. Thereafter, it was stated that he has been detained as per instructions of United Nations, which was sighted by the court and the court decided that 1) Pakistan is not bound by UN instructions 2) UN asked to freeze the assets and restrict his movement but not to arrest him. 3) detention was technically illegal on the account that no charges were pressed against Saeed in first 15 days.

GoP then came up with argument that Saeed has had association with AQ and this provides ground to extend his detention. GoP claimed "sufficient material" for the same which were shared with court in an in camera hearing as the evidence were classified. Court decided that a) AQ is not recognized by GoP as a terrorist organization officially and b) Evidence is not sufficient hence the acquittal.

This is as accurate summary of events as possible. Official text of the charge-sheet is not published in media but the arguments and counter arguments were. LeT and its association with Saeed were part of neither, and hence the hue and cry over the event being an eyewash.

 

[Zob]

Laying foundation of a Terrorist Organization (LeT) is not a crime? Raising funds to sustain a terrorist organization is not crime? Do you seriously and honestly believe that Jamaat Ud Dawa had nothing to do with LeT?

Which part seems to be untrue? Hafiz laid foundation for LeT or LeT is a terrorist outfit from which he jumped off just one day before it was declared by GoP. Howzzzat for timing.

he setup an organiation that went rogue after he pulled out of it....timing and all the conicidence luck cannot be accounted for as proof....



as for charges well if there is so much EVIDENCE against him why isn't INDIA providing it to the world to see.....so that the world pressureizes pakistan....

 

[ajpirzada]

What charges were pressed against him will will extremely clear if you bothered to follow the proceedings of the court, which I was through primarily Pakistani media only. He was initially detained on precautionary ground and no charges were presented within the stipulated period of 15 days. Thereafter, it was stated that he has been detained as per instructions of United Nations, which was sighted by the court and the court decided that 1) Pakistan is not bound by UN instructions 2) UN asked to freeze the assets and restrict his movement but not to arrest him. 3) detention was technically illegal on the account that no charges were pressed against Saeed in first 15 days.

GoP then came up with argument that Saeed has had association with AQ and this provides ground to extend his detention. GoP claimed "sufficient material" for the same which were shared with court in an in camera hearing as the evidence were classified. Court decided that a) AQ is not recognized by GoP as a terrorist organization officially and b) Evidence is not sufficient hence the acquittal.

This is as accurate summary of events as possible. Official text of the charge-sheet is not published in media but the arguments and counter arguments were. LeT and its association with Saeed were part of neither, and hence the hue and cry over the event being an eyewash.

y shoudl i not say it lik this. gov made a weak claim of him having links with Al qaeda which therefore could not be proved in the court.

now the question is why didnt gov press the case of him being involved in mumbai attacks? to answer this question u should first ask urself that on wat grounds such charges can be pressed. apparently there is no evidence of that (except for kasab's statement) and therefore its difficult to built a case on those grounds.

i hope gov this time tries to press the charges of him aidin to mumbai attacks. will remove this misunderstanding as well. but no then u guys will say that gov didnt present the evidence properly. show me wat evidence have u provided us which proves his involvement.

 

[Skeptic]

y shoudl i not say it lik this. gov made a weak claim of him having links with Al qaeda which therefore could not be proved in the court.

now the question is why didnt gov press the case of him being involved in mumbai attacks? to answer this question u should first ask urself that on wat grounds such charges can be pressed. apparently there is no evidence of that (except for kasab's statement) and therefore its difficult to built a case on those grounds.

i hope gov this time tries to press the charges of him aidin to mumbai attacks. will remove this misunderstanding as well. but no then u guys will say that gov didnt present the evidence properly. show me wat evidence have u provided us which proves his involvement.

Sir, First the trial was not to ascertain Hanif Saeed innocence / guilt in Mumbai case, it was in response to Hanif's petition that he should not be detained at all. All GoP had to do was to provide enough evidence that his activities were suspicious and JuD had links with terrorism. Which would simply mean proving in court that He was part of LeT till a day before it was declared rogue and has been involved in funding the same organization. That he was infact collecting funds on their behalf. It would have provided sufficient ground for extending his detention. Apart from confession of Kasab, transcripts from Taped conversation and their audio (in DVDs) have also been provided to Pakistan, but till the time an investigation into Mumbai attack is launched, they don't have any relevance.

Question is not that why was he not pressed with involvement in Mumbai attack. Question is - Could GoP provide enough reason to detain him? Pakistan police has yet to conduct it's investigation into mumbai terror attack so accusation and proving guilt in Mumbai case is a far cry. It was a simple case to establish Hanif Saeed as a suspicious figure having association with terrorist organisation, justifying his detention as precautionary measure aiding in investigation.

Pressing charges for Mumbai attack is a far cry, this is just to establish whether he is even a suspect or not. If he is let off free by the court again, we can very well kiss the whole theory of bringing perpetrators of Mumbai attack to justice.

Off the topic:
I think you are a non-resident Pakistani with little information about judicial system and it's working in the subcontinent and under 22-23 years of age. I could make that much out of your arguments, just let me know if I am wrong. I don't think who have resided in Pakistan for last 6-8 years atlest I suppose. Tell me if my assessment is correct.

 

[Skeptic]

Laying foundation of a Terrorist Organization (LeT) is not a crime? Raising funds to sustain a terrorist organization is not crime? Do you seriously and honestly believe that Jamaat Ud Dawa had nothing to do with LeT?

Which part seems to be untrue? Hafiz laid foundation for LeT or LeT is a terrorist outfit from which he jumped off just one day before it was declared by GoP. Howzzzat for timing.

he setup an organiation that went rogue after he pulled out of it....timing and all the conicidence luck cannot be accounted for as proof....



as for charges well if there is so much EVIDENCE against him why isn't INDIA providing it to the world to see.....so that the world pressureizes pakistan....

Yes Sir, it wa purely coincidence. Why is GoP arresting him ever so often after every terror strike (3 times atlest till date) if he is a simple good muslim running a charity organization. Oh the coincidence again.

For a spiritual leader, Mr. Saeed surely has a very bad fortune of being at the wrong places at the wrong time.

Is the world already not pressurising Pakistan? Did Pakistan arrest Mr. Saeed with internal motivation? India has provided Pakistan with confession of a terrorist and tapes of conversation between the mumbai terrorists and their handlers. What more is required to launch an investigation.

World pressure is alredy there, just as it was slightly relieved due to IDP and FATA situation, the opportunity was pounced upon.

 

[ajpirzada]

Sir, First the trial was not to ascertain Hanif Saeed innocence / guilt in Mumbai case, it was in response to Hanif's petition that he should not be detained at all. All GoP had to do was to provide enough evidence that his activities were suspicious and JuD had links with terrorism. Which would simply mean proving in court that He was part of LeT till a day before it was declared rogue and has been involved in funding the same organization. That he was infact collecting funds on their behalf. It would have provided sufficient ground for extending his detention. Apart from confession of Kasab, transcripts from Taped conversation and their audio (in DVDs) have also been provided to Pakistan, but till the time an investigation into Mumbai attack is launched, they don't have any relevance.

Question is not that why was he not pressed with involvement in Mumbai attack. Question is - Could GoP provide enough reason to detain him? Pakistan police has yet to conduct it's investigation into mumbai terror attack so accusation and proving guilt in Mumbai case is a far cry. It was a simple case to establish Hanif Saeed as a suspicious figure having association with terrorist organisation, justifying his detention as precautionary measure aiding in investigation.

Pressing charges for Mumbai attack is a far cry, this is just to establish whether he is even a suspect or not. If he is let off free by the court again, we can very well kiss the whole theory of bringing perpetrators of Mumbai attack to justice.

Off the topic:
I think you are a non-resident Pakistani with little information about judicial system and it's working in the subcontinent and under 22-23 years of age. I could make that much out of your arguments, just let me know if I am wrong. I don't think who have resided in Pakistan for last 6-8 years atlest I suppose. Tell me if my assessment is correct.

ok so u r sayin mumbai is out of question at this stage.
now comes the point if he was collecting funds on behalf of LeT. let me ask u wat makes u so sure that he was doing this. also wat makes u say that gov didnt try to establish this connection. it can also be said that gov failed to find any substance which could help to prove that.
now about him being a part of LeT some 8 yrs back. well technically he left LeT before it was banned (u might wanna call it a drama but thats how it is). meanin he remained in LeT only untill it had GoPs support.
now this makes it quite hard to keep him in detention.


well u r only partly rit. im 21 but i lived all my life in pakistan. came here only 2 yrs back and been to pakistan for more than 3 month in-between.

 

[Skeptic]

ok so u r sayin mumbai is out of question at this stage.
now comes the point if he was collecting funds on behalf of LeT. let me ask u wat makes u so sure that he was doing this. also wat makes u say that gov didnt try to establish this connection. it can also be said that gov failed to find any substance which could help to prove that.
now about him being a part of LeT some 8 yrs back. well technically he left LeT before it was banned (u might wanna call it a drama but thats how it is). meanin he remained in LeT only untill it had GoPs support.
now this makes it quite hard to keep him in detention.


well u r only partly rit. im 21 but i lived all my life in pakistan. came here only 2 yrs back and been to pakistan for more than 3 month in-between.

Sir, Am I the only one saying it. How many link do you want me to post, so that it'l convince you that JuD is a front for LeT. Indian analysts, Pakistani Analysts, Neutral Analysts, whichever suits you fine. I have followed Pakistan Media and be it Daily Times, Dawn or The news - They have all carried articles pointing JuD as a face for LeT. Ms. Rice from US and UN all share the same view. Unofficially, it is an accepted fact that JuD is a front for LeT, only one missing the boad is GoP, unfortunately they are the one's that matter.

As far as LeT link, Hanif detached from LeT immidiately before it was termed as rogue. No logically, why would an organization be termed as rogue - for it's past actions or for what actions it will conduct in future? Defnitely for past action. Thus, while Saeed was part of LeT these action took place, and being founder and cheif of LeT he'd have some responsibility for the same.

I hope I am coming across clearly to you and look forward to your response.

 

[ajpirzada]

Sir, Am I the only one saying it. How many link do you want me to post, so that it'l convince you that JuD is a front for LeT. Indian analysts, Pakistani Analysts, Neutral Analysts, whichever suits you fine. I have followed Pakistan Media and be it Daily Times, Dawn or The news - They have all carried articles pointing JuD as a face for LeT. Ms. Rice from US and UN all share the same view. Unofficially, it is an accepted fact that JuD is a front for LeT, only one missing the boad is GoP, unfortunately they are the one's that matter.

As far as LeT link, Hanif detached from LeT immidiately before it was termed as rogue. No logically, why would an organization be termed as rogue - for it's past actions or for what actions it will conduct in future? Defnitely for past action. Thus, while Saeed was part of LeT these action took place, and being founder and cheif of LeT he'd have some responsibility for the same.

I hope I am coming across clearly to you and look forward to your response.

well this world is sayin the samething but again how did they come to this conclusion?? was this conclusion based on any proof or just their own analysis? world came to a conclusion on many things but not all of them were correct. many of such conclusions were drawn by only joinin two dots. most quoted is the WMDs with iraq.

i dont know about now but LeT was not involved in rouge activities in pakistan before it was banned. its activities were concentrated in kashmir and in pakistan ppl fightin indian soldiers in kashmir are seen as freedom fighters.
about attacks in india blamed on LeT... i dont know if any legal proceedings took place in pakistan and wat was the verdict or steps were taken only under diplomatic pressure.

 

[Skeptic]

well this world is sayin the samething but again how did they come to this conclusion?? was this conclusion based on any proof or just their own analysis? world came to a conclusion on many things but not all of them were correct. many of such conclusions were drawn by only joinin two dots. most quoted is the WMDs with iraq.

i dont know about now but LeT was not involved in rouge activities in pakistan before it was banned. its activities were concentrated in kashmir and in pakistan ppl fighting indian soldiers in kashmir are seen as freedom fighters.
about attacks in india blamed on LeT... i dont know if any legal proceedings took place in pakistan and wat was the verdict or steps were taken only under diplomatic pressure.

Well if you really want to go down that lane, it just justifies the fear in minds of Indian diaspora. What kind of proof can India provide? It can not provide with registration papers of two organization nor can it lay down a comparative chart showing how many employees were common between LeT and JuD. It can not show that lease for the same compound was continued with after LeT was banned and the very next day JuD was running with same employees and same leaders. It can not show that monetary transaction and source of income for JuD. We don't have those resources and for the same Pakistan's assistance was required. India can tap into phones of JuD operatives and launch surveillance on their activities. India does not have access to its workers who can be grilled to expose their entire working. No Sir we can not provide those proof as these things are happening in Pakistan's territory.

India has passed over taped conversation of terrorist while they were involved in the activity. We have passed over confessional statement of Kasab stating the entire working of terror operations. What India has provided is circumstantial evidence and modus operendi. It is upto Pakistan to verify them and seal the case, which has not happened till now. The line of reasoning you are following is simply denying that any cross border infiltration is happening and no outfit in Pakistan is involved in such activities. This worked for Pakistan til 9/11 but after that under international pressure and domestic circumstances, Pakistan was bound to accept activities of organization like LeT and Ban them.

Iraqis never said that they have WMDs but here loads of Pakistanis are stating clearly that JuD is associated with LeT. You seem to be in a denial mode to pursue so strongly that JuD has nothing to do with LeT. Even Dawn editorial after the court's judgment seems to indicate otherwise. Here is a paragraph from same:

The release of Hafiz Saeed raises many questions about the sincerity and efficacy of the state in quashing jihadi networks that operate on its soil. It may have been a full bench of the Lahore High Court that ordered Saeed’s release, but the fact is the court was left with little option given the prosecution’s reliance on weak grounds for the extension of the preventive detention of Saeed while he possibly awaits trial on charges related to the Mumbai attacks last November.

I am responding with a belief that this exchange is not just for the heck of it and you are not defending JuD as your patriotic duty and rather that you firmly believe that JuD is an absolutely clean organization. If it is just to support the official stand that GoP has taken, then there are enough of these debates happening all over the media. On forums such as these, we can speak out what we really believe in.

 

[Skeptic]

Editorial: Reactions to Hafiz Saeed’s release

India has handed its protest note against the release of Jama’at-ud Dawa leader Hafiz Muhammad Saeed to Pakistani’s high commissioner in New Delhi, saying it was “disturbed” by it while it still wanted Pakistan “to take action against those responsible for the November 2008 Mumbai attacks”.

The US State Department has objected too, saying: “In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks, we made very clear that there is an international responsibility to cooperate and to bring the perpetrators to justice and that Pakistan has a special responsibility to do so, transparently, fully and urgently”. The same day, however, President Obama’s Special Representative to Afghanistan-Pakistan, Mr Richard Holbrooke, announced in Islamabad that the US president had okayed an additional $200 million as aid to the internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Pakistan.

Sensitive to international opinion and keen to restart peace talks with India, Pakistan has decided to appeal the release of Mr Saeed by the Lahore High Court. It was first reported that the prosecution had shown some special evidence to the honourable court; now it comes to light that it had not. How it seeks to appeal in order to overturn the decision of the court cannot be imagined. The truth is that Hafiz Saeed is out of “protective custody”, free once again to speak as he sees fit in light of how the army performs in Swat and elsewhere.

The national press, unhappy with the release, has reacted in interesting ways. One paper editorialised on June 4: “India is unhappy that Saeed and some others arrested in the aftermath of the attacks have been released. At the very least, their release sends a bad [signal] that the government here is perhaps not up to the task of prosecuting them even if evidence is adduced. The Pakistan government must urgently explain what it plans to do next or else risk losing another opportunity for peace, now that the elections have concluded in India.”

There is lack of trust in the general ability of the state to prosecute high profile and powerful people presiding over parallel centres of influence and power. Another paper editorialised thus: “In the current climate this evidence needs to be produced before people. We must tackle terror wherever it exists. This is also the key to eliminating the groups that fuel it and by doing so distancing them from people who still have doubts about their role. The failure to prove charges against men accused of involvement in violence in the past has been a key factor in their growth. The courts cannot of course be blamed for doing what is just. They can only act on the basis of what is placed before them. It is up to the law-enforcement agencies to now explain why they have been able to produce no charges at all against a man for whom full-fledged raids were conducted under the full glare of TV cameras late last year.”

The editorial of a third paper equally took issue with the way the prosecution had conducted itself: “As the counsel for the petitioner argued, the UNSC resolution 1267 which targets JD makes no mention of detaining its leaders or members but only imposes a travel ban, arms embargo and the freezing of assets. This creates the perception that the charges were fabricated after the arrest. The stand taken in the court by the Deputy Attorney General was equally flimsy. According to him, the government is not bound to convey the reasons for his arrest to a detenu. Supposing this was permissible, which it is not by any standard of justice, why did the prosecution fail to bring before the court what it considered the real reasons, if any, for the arrest?”

Most of the Urdu press either ignored the subject, probably waiting for more details to come to light, or was completely taken up in “slamming” India’s reaction to the release. Editorials sought to answer the question as to why the Indians were so riled by the release of Mr Saeed. Reacting to a Times of India comment accusing the Pakistan government of “engineering the release of Hafiz Saeed by presenting before the court a weak case”, they referred to India’s own questionable interference inside Pakistan and defended the court’s decision to let Mr Seed go free. *

___________________________________________________

Seems like entire English Media is resonating my thoughts and Urdu dailies are similar to Pakistani Member's views. Which one is more reasonable is upto the reader to decide.

 

[Spitfighter]

So they released him once again, no surprises there, no amount of proof or justification from either side makes a difference, neither country sees any benefit of working with each other, at least not yet.

I don't really buy any of the independent judiciary stuff, wasn't the president accused of stealing money, the infamous 'Mr.10%', AFAIK Nawaz Sharif had criminal charges against him too? But all of a sudden a new found impetus for a 'free and fair' judiciary materialized overnight when it came to Saeed. What a coincidence. I doubt many in India buy these justifications based on technicalities

Simply put, Pakistan could have easily arrested Saeed and thrown him in jail for the rest of his life and no one would really miss the guy. I don't think anyone seriously doubts that.

Pakistan simply sees no reason to work with India and quite frankly with such impotent leadership over the years, sees no repercussions either. India has time and again backed down in the face of aggression, where other countries would go to war, we fought media battles. I think India simply isn't taken seriously enough, and has no one to blame but itself, this is the core of the issue, if there really is a threat to national security, instead of whining and protesting, why not do something? After spending tens of billions of dollars on defense, surely a state sponsored assassination or two shouldn't sound too far fetched. If not, throw some money at the Israelis, its right up their alley. Our complacency is responsible for the mess in the sub-continent. I believe everyone wants peace, 1.2 billion people in the sub-continent think Saeed will not play a constructive role towards that end, I doubt it would be a national calamity in Pakistan if he went missing.

India needs to stop talking and start walking, if taking him out today means tensions will rise for the next 5 or 6 years, I think that's a fair trade off, things will change for the better. We might then have a real chance at peace as opposed to appeasement.

 

[luckyy]

That was only because
India didnt give solid evidence against him.
.

today CIA official made a statement that it is beyond any doubt that Hafiz Saeed has planned the mumbai terror incident and infect he was in touch with the terroriste till the last minit..

 

[zombie]

If not, throw some money at the Israelis, its right up their alley.

I agree with your post but this statement is not right. This exactly is what someone with a lack of spine tries to do.

 

[pak avatar]

today CIA official made a statement that it is beyond any doubt that Hafiz Saeed has planned the mumbai terror incident and infect he was in touch with the terroriste till the last minit..

Thts the same CIA which told us saddam hussein has WMDs and look were tht got america
And its the same one which has been unable to find osama bin ladin for 9 years.
So i really doubt any info from the great CIA at this point