The verdict by the jury of the Chicago court which has cleared Pakistani Canadian Tahawwur Hussain Rana of any involvement in the 26/11 terrorist attack on multiple targets in Mumbai that left at least 166 people dead has no doubt come as a dampener. It is amazing that despite the overwhelming evidence by way of extensive depositions by Pakistani American Daood Sayed Gilani, who later changed his name to David Coleman Headley, and what seemed to be a robust case presented by the prosecution, the jury thought it fit to absolve the man who played a key role in plotting the massacre.
It is equally intriguing that Rana should have been found guilty on two other charges — providing material support to the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and participating in the aborted plot to attack the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten for publishing cartoons allegedly caricaturing Prophet Mohammed — on the basis of the same evidence, namely Headley's disclosures. If we are to believe that the jury went along with Rana's lawyers who dismissed Headley's testimony as "unreliable" and termed him "a life-long manipulator, liar and con man" while striking down the prosecution's charge that he was involved in plotting the Mumbai attack, then it would be in order to raise the question as to why the star witness's deposition was found to be 'reliable' while upholding the two other charges against the accused. Headley's testimony was in continuum; it cannot be seen in separate compartments with facts being fitted in to suit the jury's verdict.
There is obviously a missing link somewhere and the prosecution must address this issue. The ghastly bloodletting in Mumbai was not about either America (though American citizens were among the victims) or Pakistan (whose establishment was involved in planning and executing the attack); it's also about India and the US cannot be allowed to ignore this significant fact.
It is absurd to suggest, as has been done by Rana's lawyers — and accepted by the jury — that Headley had all along "duped" his associate. The two had discussed the Mumbai carnage both before and after it was committed; Rana was fully aware of Headley's association with the ISI and its pet terrorist organisation, the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba; he knew all along what the America spy-turned-Pakistani agent was up to; he was deeply involved with the LeT (a fact that the jury has upheld); and, he entirely endorsed the butchery. To allow such a man to go unscathed — it's really not material whether he will serve 30 years in prison for plotting the aborted attack on Jyllands-Posten and his association with a banned terrorist organisation, the LeT — is both a travesty of justice and a repudiation of America's claim to be leading the war on global jihad.
The US Administration will no doubt claim that the verdict is that of an 'independent' jury and the unexpected finding is one of the hazards of that country's justice system with which we must learn to live. But that's balderdash. The crime was committed in India and both Headley and Rana should have stood trial in this country. That never happened because the US did not want the world to learn more about the deadly duo than was told by American officials. The reason is obvious: The US has a lot to hide, both about itself and its frontline ally, Pakistan.
