Ishrat Jahan: The inconvenient story no one wants to tell

[someone]

I am doing the homework for you : An encounter is killing the terrorist or gangster in self defense when he is in the possession of arms. A fake encounter or a "staged encounter" happens when the police or armed forces kill the suspects in custody or when the suspects are unarmed, and the police claim that they had to shoot in self-defence. In such cases, the police may plant weapons on or near the dead body to provide a justification for killing the individual. Now don't go all over searching for an argument.

Is it some dictionary competition? It was a simple question asked and a simple answer was needed and yet you took it on some another level. BTW, your definitions is not really correct.

[urbestfriend]

Is it some dictionary competition? It was a simple question asked and a simple answer was needed and yet you took it on some another level. BTW' date=' your definitions is not really correct.[/quote'] I had to do this as you are bringing random names which has nothing to do with fake encounter and strangely claiming not supporting fake encounters are setting bad precedent!!!

[The Outsider]

Boston bomber shooting was a fake encounter? WTF! :hysterical:

[someone]

I had to do this as you are bringing random names which has nothing to do with fake encounter and strangely claiming not supporting fake encounters are setting bad precedent!!!

Don't you read your posts? Having sympathy for terrorists and that is one bad precedent. And you haven't even answered the previous questions, so I await your answers. You have conveniently ignore so many points

[someone]

Boston bomber shooting was a fake encounter? WTF! :hysterical:

Well if that had happened in India, there would have been doubts given how "secularists" like yourself behave. Batla encounter is very similar

[bulbul]

NEW DELHI: A former home ministry official questioned by the SIT officer assisting CBI in the Ishrat Jahan probe has alleged that he was coerced, complaining how he was subjected to a "rough" interrogation and asked to sign a statement with twisted facts. R V S Mani, who had prepared the two MHA affidavits in the case, was summoned to Gandhinagar and questioned by IG, SIT, Satish Verma last month. Soon after his questioning, Mani wrote to his seniors in the urban development ministry, where he is currently posted, claiming that he was forced to sign a statement that presented facts he was not privy to. He alleged discrepancies in the facts to his knowledge and framing of the same by Verma.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ishrat-case-Ex-MHA-official-claims-he-was-coerced-into-giving-statement/articleshow/21012576.cms

[someone]

Well if that had happened in India' date=' there would have been doubts given how "secularists" like yourself behave. Batla encounter is very similar[/quote'] While we are on this, although a bit off-topic, even 26/11 was meant to be presented as a Hindu terror. We got lucky that a terrorist was captured alive, if not, till today, there would have a huge debate. A lot of perception tactics in modern word.

[Crookbond]

David Headley did not name Ishrat, NIA tells Home Ministry

When contacted, G K Pillai, who was the home secretary between 2009-2011, said: "To the best of my knowledge, there is no mention of Ishrat in Headley's 117-page interrogation report submitted by NIA before me."

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/headley-did-not-name-ishrat-nia-tells-mha/1142285/

[Raghav_12]

David Headley did not name Ishrat' date= NIA tells Home Ministry http://www.indianexpress.com/news/headley-did-not-name-ishrat-nia-tells-mha/1142285/

Shinde refuses to disclose Headley̢۪s statement on Ishrat, cites pact with US

NEW DELHI: Amid the raging controversy over the 'status' of the Mumbai girl Ishrat Jahan, who was killed along with three others in an alleged fake encounter by the Gujarat Police in 2004, the government on Tuesday said it cannot disclose any information given by the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack convict David Coleman Headley due to an agreement with the US. Ads by Google UK Care Home Investment 8% NET Returns p.a. for 10 years. 21% BMV, Income paid to you monthly www.experience-investments.co.uk/ Free Beginner FX Guide Read Our Free Introduction to Forex Guide to Learn the Basics of Forex. www.FXDD.com "Whatever Headley had said, it had been told to the FBI. We have an agreement between FBI and NIA. So, we cannot disclose it," said Union home minister Sushilkumar Shinde. Asked whether the NIA has given any report to his ministry saying Headley in his confessional statement did not take the name of Ishrat, Shinde said, "I have not received any such report". Though Headley, quoting Lashkar-e-Taiba commander Zaki-ur-Rehman-Lakhvi, told FBI and NIA that Ishrat was part of the LeT module of another Lashkar commander Muzzammil, the Indian agency in its final report deleted those two relevant paragraphs having reference to the Mumbai girl. Since the 'final' report did not have such reference, former home secretary GK Pillai had told TOI that he did not recall any reference to Ishrat Jahan in Headley's interrogation report submitted to him by the NIA. Pillai — in whose tenure the home ministry had filed two contradictory affidavits in court in the Ishrat encounter case — also conceded that there was not enough clarity on the extent of Ishrat's involvement in the LeT plot of which Javed Shaikh and two Pakistanis, killed in the encounter, were an integral part. "It is possible that she was just a cover used by Shaikh to escape suspicion while travelling to far-flung cities in UP and Gujarat. They had stayed at hotels in these places as a couple... there are records of their hotel stays," he had said. Asked about her alleged links with Lashkar, Pillai said there were intelligence reports of her being in touch with the terrorists but he was not sure whether she was innocent. "There were intelligence inputs about her links with the LeT," he said. Pillai also said Ishrat's name was mentioned as a martyr on LeT's website, but it was later removed. "One has to keep all these things in mind while passing any judgment. It was very complex," he said. Headley was quoted as saying in paragraph 168 of the NIA's original report, "On being asked about Ishrat Jahan, I state that in late 2005, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi introduced Muzammil to me. Having introduced Muzammil, Zaki talked about the accomplishments of Muzammil as a Lashkar commander. Zaki also sarcastically mentioned that Muzammil was a top commander whose every big 'project' had ended in a failure. Zaki added that Ishrat Jahan module was also one of Muzammil's 'botched up' operations." The next paragraph stated that "apart from this, he (Headley) had no other information/knowledge about Ishrat Jahan". Surprisingly, the NIA did not put this part of Headley's interrogation in its final report. Ads by Google 2013 Stock Market Tips3 simple tips to make money that professional investors use daily. www.arnheimreport.com Reacting to Pillai remarks, BJP spokesperson Nirmala Sitharaman said, "In the revised affidavit of 2009 and in his file noting of 2011 he has not questioned her terror links. Now by saying she should be given an advantage is contradicting himself. This is for the courts to say. What is the pressure on Pillai. Was it there then or now? It's the same government so it should clarify this".

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-16/india/40611720_1_ishrat-jahan-david-coleman-headley-nia

[Crookbond]

^ From the link which I posted earlier -

The NIA is yet to trace the origin of the report which is being circulated as Headley's testimony in which he mentions Ishrat. NIA informed the MHA that it had dismissed the report as "hearsay" and was yet to get any corroboration from the FBI.

I am sure we will get to the bottom of this soon.

[Raghav_12]

Home Minister has categorically told that he is not going to share what Headley told to us. 1. then how it can be denied that Headley did take Ishrat's name? 2. what are the chances that Shinde would have hidden information with such vigor if it anyway was uncomfortable to Modi?

[Crookbond]

1. If that's the way to go then it can not be confirmed that Headley took Ishrat's name as well just like it can not be denied. 2. There is a chance and a possibility but that effectively means nothing. Just like there is a chance of Modi fabricating information to convey Ishrat as a terrorist to cover up Ishrat's murder as an encounter rather than a mistake.

[Raghav_12]

1. If that's the way to go then it can not be confirmed that Headley took Ishrat's name as well just like it can not be denied. 2. There is a chance and a possibility but that effectively means nothing. Just like there is a chance of Modi fabricating information to convey Ishrat as a terrorist to cover up Ishrat's murder as an encounter rather than a mistake.

This information that Headley took Ishrat's name very prominently in news immediately after NIA had interrogated Headley. The way it had come without any context or pre-cursor makes it almost implausible that it was fabricated. Surprisingly, at that point nobody denied that nothing like that happened. If it was complete figment of imagination of Modi machinery, then I would have expected strong rebuttal immediately, But nothing like that happened. It makes me believe Ishrat's name had come up during interrogation of Headley definitely. All denials about Ishrat being discussed in that interrogation started coming very late and now there is attempt to put complete lid on that interrogation details by saying that it violates some understanding between India and US. Sequence of events defintely makes me believe Ishrat's name had somehow come up in that process.

[Crookbond]

This information that Headley took Ishrat's name very prominently in news immediately after NIA had interrogated Headley. The way it had come without any context or pre-cursor makes it almost implausible that it was fabricated. Surprisingly, at that point nobody denied that nothing like that happened. If it was complete figment of imagination of Modi machinery, then I would have expected strong rebuttal immediately, But nothing like that happened. It makes me believe Ishrat's name had come up during interrogation of Headley definitely. All denials about Ishrat being discussed in that interrogation started coming very late and now there is attempt to put complete lid on that interrogation details by saying that it violates some understanding between India and US. Sequence of events defintely makes me believe Ishrat's name had somehow come up in that process.

I would like to respectfully disagree. The news channels will publish whatever they want to - it is ultimately what stands up in the court of law that counts. Finally, things will always evolve once further details come out - First Come First Serve is not the law of the land.

[The Outsider]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that there are two seperate interrogations: 1. By the FBI of Headley, contents of which were shared with the government. 2. By the NIA of Headley in FBI presence. Shinde is referring to the first interrogation when he saying that the interrogation cannot be made public. With regards to the second interrogation, the NIA had said that the name was mentioned as hearsay and so could not be taken seriously.

[Raghav_12]

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that there are two seperate interrogations: 1. By the FBI of Headley, contents of which were shared with the government. 2. By the NIA of Headley in FBI presence.Shinde is referring to the first interrogation when he saying that the interrogation cannot be made public. With regards to the second interrogation, the NIA had said that the name was mentioned as hearsay and so could not be taken seriously.

I wasn't aware of if it happened like this.

[Crookbond]

Outsider - YES, from whatever little I know of the case, you seem to be correct. The executive summary of the NIA's investigation of Headley can be accessed here. It does not mention any information regarding Modi or Ishrat. This seems to be consistent with NIA's reply to the Gujarat HC. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/read-david-headleys-nia-interrogation-report/154008-53.html

[someone]

Leaked NIA document indicates cover up in Ishrat Jahan case http://www.firstpost.com/india/leaked-nia-document-indicates-cover-up-in-ishrat-jahan-case-958401.html Terrorists getting celebrated. Only happens in India.

[bulbul]

^ Sorry we don't believe in stories here.

[asterix]

Breaking news... Amit Shah gets clean chit in this case from CBI... Looks like the 'request to Vasundhara Raje to investigate Vadra' clinched the deal... If BJP doesn't investigates the Vadra land deals in Rajasthan then SHAME ON IT.... I'd be seriously contemplating supporting AAP instead of BJP....