“The order came just a day after Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said there would be no differentiation between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban.” Which side is Pakistan on? That’s obvious. And they’ve got the jizya train rolling in from Washington to bankroll them. “Pakistan court grants bail to Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, man behind 26/11,” Express News Service, December 19, 2014 (thanks to Mirren10):
In a decision that sparked outrage in India, a Pakistani anti-terrorism court on Thursday granted bail to LeT operations commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, accused of masterminding the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The order came just a day after Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said there would be no differentiation between “good” and “bad” Taliban.
Lakhvi, 54, and six others accused in the case had filed bail applications on Wednesday, in the midst of a lawyers’ strike to condemn the Peshawar school attack. The in-camera proceedings were held by Justice Kausar Abbasi Zaidi at Adiala Jail in Rawalpindi due to security concerns.
“As the trial was near conclusion, the anti-terrorism court in Islamabad today granted bail to Lakhvi, despite evidence against him,” said prosecution chief Chaudhry Azhar. “We were not expecting this decision,” he said, expressing surprise as 15 more witnesses are yet to testify.
The Pakistan government is set to challenge the bail order in the Lahore High Court. “After going through the court order, we will decide to challenge it,” said Azhar.
A Pakistan Interior Ministry spokesman said the government would certainly file an appeal against the trial court’s decision. “We have a strong case against the seven accused and we will challenge Lakhvi’s bail in the high court,” said the official, who requested anonymity.
“We have so far produced 46 witnesses in the court who testified against all seven accused — Lakhvi, Abdul Wajid, Mazhar Iqbal, Hamad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jameel Riaz, Jamil Ahmed and Younis Anjum. Only 15 more witnesses have to testify against them. And the trial is likely to be concluded in three to four weeks,” said Azhar.
The court granted bail as “evidence against Lakhvi was deficient,” said his counsel, Raja Rizwan Abbasi. The court has asked Lakhvi to submit surety bonds worth Rs 500,000 before he can be released.
In Delhi, Home Minister Rajnath Singh blamed “shortcomings on the part of the prosecution”. Terming the bail order as “unfortunate”, he said India had handed over “adequate evidence to Pakistan regarding Lakhvi”.
“Just after so many children were mercilessly killed in Peshawar, bail is being granted to the mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attacks… it is quite unfortunate… Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif said they would continue operations against terrorists, so I expect the Pakistan government to appeal in a higher court against the bail granted to Lakhvi,” said Singh….
Salah says
Never Forget.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/06/never-forget-mumbai.html
mortimer says
Indians have not forgotten Mumbai or the 80 million killed by Muslim invaders or the massacres of the partition or the slaughters in Bangla Desh.
Zebo says
Just one or two news before this a muslim was posting how ignorant we are and that
only a few muslims are giving islam with non-muslim savage behaviour a bad name-
well,it seems that he was wrong and that this is just muslim business as usual and evil behaviour ,conyism,and protection of fellow muslims is not just rewarded but inhetently systemic within islam.
Therefore violent jihad and honorkillings(*) will never stop as they are less sanctionised than other crimes
(i’m pretty sure instead of bail this guy would have already been killed by the government,but his victims were kafurs-therefore no problem)
(*)
muslims never get tired to cry out that honorkillings have nothing to do with islam,willingfully ignoring the fact that punishments for honorkillings are a lot lower than usual killings and that honor and (man)pride
in islam are blown up to delusional proportions and therefore honorkillings the logical result.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
So the Mumbai mass murder chieftan gets off easy. The dudes who did the murder attack on the U.S.S. Cole “escaped” from their “prison” and were never “found” by Yemeni “authorities.” And recall the Lockerbie airliner bomb boss, who was released from a U.K. prison and was met at Tripoli International by a throng of thankful worshiping tiny minority fellow Moslems. And let us not forget the unindicted co-conspirators; why weren’t they charged again? A Moslem’s got to be free, regardless of his crimes, which anyway are part of their faith. That’s why nobody connected the dots on Major Hasan’s clear as a bell manifesto PowerPoint presentation before he did his mass murder. Look for him to be released on his third or fourth parole hearing, about twenty years from now. Like his comerades, the Major must be free.
St. Croix says
Another day, another travesty.
Say, isn’t that the same court system Bollywood blasphemer Veena Malik is “putting her faith in”? Hopefully she has reconsidered by now instead of returning to her country.
Wellington says
Pakistan is arguably the trickiest of all nations for the US to deal with. On the one hand, they sometimes help America, for instance in the apprehension of Abu Zubaydah, as Mike Morell, twice acting Director of the CIA, has detailed in his criticism (which was extensive) of the recently released Feinstein report on the CIA. On the other hand, Pakistan sometimes is clearly duplicitous, for instance respecting Osama bin Laden being in Pakistan and disingenuously claiming this was unknown by Pakistani authorities (ah, which ones, eh?) but yet quite irked we took out the bastard without informing them first.
There is also the HUGE matter of Pakistan having nuclear weapons. Here’s a scenario I would run past anyone asserting that we should cut off all aid to Pakistan: Suppose you were President of the United States and you were told by very highly placed intelligence authorities in the American government, authorities you knew, admired and trusted, and they said to you that even with continued American aid to Pakistan there was a 20% chance that Islamic terrorists (of whatever God-forsaken group) would get hold of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal but that without American aid to Pakistan there was a 60% chance that Islamic nutjobs would get hold of the same arsenal. What would you promote, what would you do? Keeping in mind the entire picture, I mean the ENTIRE PICTURE, what would you promote, what would you do?
Pakistan is a dismal excuse for a nation but it exists and there are nuances peculiar to it that make it an especially difficult nation to know what to do with. Just saying. I welcome reasoned opinions on this matter. Understand, I wish Pakistan didn’t exist in the first place——but it does and it’s not just one more dismally run country. It’s “special.”
Angemon says
Wellington posted:
“Pakistan is a dismal excuse for a nation”
You’re being too kind. Pakistan is the poster child for “failed state”.
Wellington says
Whether, Angemon, Pakistan is “merely” a “dismal excuse for a nation” or a “failed state” (really, just out of curiosity, what would be any real difference between the two?), it is a polity that has nuclear weapons and this factor, I submit, is a gamechanger, requiring a different approach to Pakistan by any American Administration, as opposed to dealings with, let’s see now, the U.A.E., Nigeria, Venezuela, et al.
You see, the main thrust of my original comment was to indicate that Pakistan has to be treated with as no other nation on earth has to be treated with by the US. It’s unique. In a bad way to be sure, but unique nonetheless. Ah, life is sometimes so complicated. The existence of Pakistan is living proof of this at the geopolitical level.
Angemon says
I understood the gist of your post, Wellington, and I wasn’t trying to oppose it in any way – if anything, I was agreeing with you. There’s no official international criteria for declaring a state as being failed (at least as far as I know) but the Fund for Peace has an index of “Fragile States” (http://ffp.statesindex.org/) – it was originally called “Failed States Index”. Pakistan closes the top 10. It’s not just just the situation nowadays (rampant corruption up to the highest levels of government, loss of control over some areas of its territory, inability to ensure the safety of its citizens and provide basic services), it goes back to how and why Pakistan was created – religion, while not being the only reason, wasn’t the smallest one either.
As you and RonaldB correctly state, the pakistani nuclear program and its weapons of mass destruction – whose total number and location elude western intelligence – are not something that can be ignored. If the international community comes to its senses and realizes that Pakistan is brain dead and being kept alive by the “International Aid” machine (although the possible consequences of withholding it make it more similar to a mafia shakedown), and that throwing money at it won’t change anything, perhaps they would take a harsher approach that to ensure that Pakistan’s WMDs wouldn’t fall into the wrong hands.
RonaldB says
Wellington, your argument in a nutshell is that we have to continue paying the Pakistani government, or it will likely disintegrate even further, and make the release of nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists more likely.
That puts the whole discussion on a different, and more rational basis. Instead of saying we are giving Pakistan aid to help Pakistanis, we are giving Pakistan aid to help ourselves. Actually, I like that. Perhaps the State Department should mandate that all our aid go to the maintenance of a security and military structure that ensures the safety of nuclear weapons. No aid for education, commerce, or anything else. The Pakistanis would have to give a detailed list of how the aid would be used, and institute some measures of accountability. We would exert no leverage on the continuation, or repeal of, the blasphemy laws, because we would only be paying for our security. Actually, the US has not done very much concerning the persecution of non-Muslims there, so it doesn’t seem a big loss.
Would the Pakistanis engage in such accountability? I would argue that if they refused to give us the explicit accountability we demanded, in return for directed aid, that giving the aid is a crapshoot anyway. We would actually have no more security with the aid than without it.
Take the worst-case scenario: the Pakistanis say if they don’t get the unconditional aid they are used to, with no accountability, they will deliberately downgrade the nuclear weapons security. In other words, pay us or we’ll cause you great damage. It’s a straightforward threat for protection money. Would the United States be more secure by paying the money indefinitely, maintaining a fragile protection, until Pakistani security finally collapsed from it’s own internal Islamist pressures?
Just to carry it a bit further, probably the greatest leverage the US has on Pakistan is to threaten to align more strongly with India, which Pakistan considers its greatest enemy in existence. The Pakistanis might well agree to limited security accountability with this on the table.
In sum, I think your idea of a foreign policy designed to empirically benefit the US has much to be said for it, and needs to be developed further.
Wellington says
Thank you for that reasoned analysis, RonaldB. I think you said it better than I did.
Salah says
Here comes the role of the international community. If pakistani nukes are deemed unsafe, an international coalition must dismantle them through negociations or through military force.
Arthur says
Wellington,
I just posted a similar comment on a previous article to the same point and now I see your comment. It is a frightening thing to think about.
Pakistan shares a border with Iran as well, so not too hard to imagine a missile launcher driving across the border and instantly, Israel is against a wall. I think Iran, in its full Islamic reliance on Allah, would strike without calculating the costs. Russia and China are Iranian allies. Putin assumes the US is not up to the test, so will probably guarantee Iran’s defense, although I think Putin is no friend of Islam. I don’t think Putin would put himself out for Iran’s sake, but he would gladly work against us and work Iran up to a frenzy. North Korea is Japan’s enemy and China’s ally. France and the UK will be politically paralyzed. A host of European nations will have only hot air to defend themselves and Putin will welcome the chaos. Only the US and Israel will have a choice to act. Reaction is too late for little Israel.
Here’s my senseless prediction:
I suspect the US and Israel would take a conventional approach to the “loose canon” and try to destroy nuclear capabilities without actually using nuclear warheads. If Israel uses a nuclear option on one enemy, it will probably have to fight a conventional war against every neighboring country, backed only by the US. If Israel looks like it is losing, I expect it will nuke its way out, to much global protest and inaction. If a Muslim sympathizer is in the US Presidency, Congress can force the money through but military action will be undermined. On the other hand, a pro-Israeli president would send troops and the media would give the body count every night for the next 3 years. The oil embargo would be immediate. That President would lose the next election (but it would really pay to be holding Tesla Motors stock!). US support of Israel would be a financial strain pushing our debt ever higher. China’s economy might collapse without big spending customers like us coupled with the mismanagement that is communism. NATO would dissolve when Turkey joined the attack against Israel and European nations desert the US and Israel. Russia would take back the Baltic states, stopping at Poland who would have German military support. The US would fail to defend its allies there. US energy policy would have to change away from dependence on oil, never to fully return. Oil-dependent middle east countries would begin a sharp decline and the money would (finally) drain out of jihad. Oil companies would eat each other up and we would have to bail out the automotive industry again. The internet will get even more chopped up and controlled for national securities, so getting accurate information will be more difficult.
What’s my score?
Wellington says
Fine analysis, Arthur. I’d give you an A. Just a few comments.
First, I’m so tired of Russia being xenophobic and, in general, paranoid. As George Kennan, adviser for many, many years to both Democratic and Republican Presidents and a man fluent in many languages, including Russian, observed to President Truman, the Russians look upon their neighbors as vassals or enemies. It was true under the czars, under the Soviets and now under Putin, an ex-KGB agent. And this hurts Russia as much as it is deleterious to others. The Russians are great at courage and artistic and scientific achievements, but they are just awful with liberty. What a waste. Imagine a Russia which prized freedom as much as the ancient Greeks, the Dutch, the Swiss, the English or the Americans historically have. The sky would be the limit and Russo-American relations would be optimal and profoundly beneficial to both countries.
Second, it is my understanding we have plenty of oil here in the US if only we’ll extract it. While oil is certainly not a perfect energy source (what is?), I think it gets a bad rap and, with environmental safeguards in place, why not go after what we have not gone after so far in Alaska, North Dakota, Colorado, etc.? Of course, the Keystone Pipeline should have already been functioning by now but excessive environmental worries have stalled this, courtesy first and foremost of that woeful figure currently occupying the Oval Office, who has a penchant for getting almost everything wrong.
Third, as bleak as your scenario is, it could be even worse. Once the engines of war are unleashed, war often times has a way of getting out of anyone’s control for a while and devastation in massive amounts is the inevitable result. And this is what often occurs with sane leaders (as an aside, I would note that Putin and the Chinese leadership are bastards but they’re not crazy). Imagine war waged by nutjob Muslims with the most advanced weapons available. It could prove to be a spiraling-out-of-control that would top all other martial spirals in history.
Good to read your posts. They are informed and well thought out. May you and yours have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Kevin Walker says
You mean keep on paying protection money to the goons, otherwise…………
They are terrorist because you let them terrorize you. Face them boldly with firm resolution & they’ll be terrified of you.
Wellington says
Fine, you make the call. But remember, that there are things worse than paying protection money, distasteful as that is. And what about that scenario I mentioned above? What would do if President? Would you take that greater risk? Just asking.
mortimer says
The Pakistan government surely realizes that letting a mass murderer free sends the wrong message, so they must appeal the judge’s decision.
They will use every means now to stop the terrorists. If they don’t, worse massacres will take place.
Garry says
Thankfully the Pakistani Government has already detained him again and so there is still a chance that they may do the proper thing:
Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, a key planner of the 2008 Mumbai attack, was on Friday detained by Pakistani authorities for three more months, a day after he was granted bail by a court that caused an outrage in India.
“I have just learnt that my client has been detained by the govt under section 16 of the Maintenance of public order act,” Lakhvi’s lawyer Rizwan Abbasi told HT.
– See more at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/pakistan-detains-26-11-accused-zaki-ur-rehman-lakhvi/article1-1298164.aspx#sthash.ouqDVKhx.dpuf