|« Back to article||Print this article|
ProPublica.org, the respected journalism Web site, has blown the lid off US claims about Lashkar-e-Tayiba operative David Coleman Headley.
In a series of investigative reports, the non-profit news organisation has revealed how US intelligence agencies ignored about five warnings from Headley's family about his terror activities.
Sebastian Rotella, the award-winning correspondent at ProPublica, believes that Headley could not have undertaken the surveys of targets for the November 26, 2008 attacks in Mumbai all by himself.
Please click on NEXT to read Vicky Nanjappa's revealing interview with the investigative reporter.
Also Read: 'For a successful end, you must be killed'
What according to you is the real story?
In my story that I have reported recently, I have written about the time line of the warnings and inputs the agencies have received on Headley.
A review of the US government's contacts with Headley had identified at least 5 different cases in which relatives or associates had warned that he was training or working with Pakistani terrorists.
Leads about this man surfaced in 2001, 2002, December 2008 and April 2009. Now coming to your question on the exact nature of intelligence shared by the US with India, not one of them mentioned or referred to David Headley.
The intelligence shared with India made mentions about an attack in Mumbai, but the name of Headley never cropped up during the intelligence sharing between the two countries.
In April 2008, she had spoken about a special mission being undertaken by Headley and in my thinking this is pretty specific.
The agencies seem to have a different interpretation of this and I really cannot comment why this is the case.
Do you think the agencies were a bit slow in reacting to Headley considering the first warnings about him came after the 9/11 attacks?
That is a matter to be seen. I have mentioned that there were various instances where his relatives or friends have spoken about him.
The nature of the warnings by his wife, according to me, was specific in nature. However, it is about how each one analyses this information. I cannot comment why they thought it was not specific in nature.
Headley's arrest has deprived these groups of a good scout.
In Headley they had a lot of benefits. He could speak in several languages and the manner in which he could operate was very unique. They do not have many like him.
Hence, his arrest is a big blow to them although not the end of the road.
However, the most important thing is the information that he has shared regarding Ilyas Kashmiri. This bit of information has helped agencies in India, Pakistan and the US realise the threat posed by Kashmiri.
Headley also goes on to reveal the importance of Kashmiri and what a threat he is to the world.
Headley also lists the manner in which both these organisations work and also how their modules function.
Overall, I think Headley was a prime catch for the agencies and will help nations fight the terror war more effectively in future.
Was there any support from the US agencies?
I cannot tell if there was any support for him from US agencies. The fact that he had a clean passport and a legitimate business made the job very easy for him.
He travelled on clean documents on various occasions and that didn't create any doubt for anyone.
Moreover, as I said earlier too, he was a good scout and his operations were unique in nature.
He ensured that there was no mess up in his documents. All these factors helped him carry out a smooth operation in India without getting noticed.
However, that seems unlikely.
He had a legitimate business and many of those working in this set-up too have managed to immigrate into India. These factors need to be looked into.
The entire case needs to be seen as a whole since there was also talk that there were scouts such as Fahim Ansari in India who also did some part of the work.
Why has the name of Tawwahur Rana, which was prominent in the early part of the Headley investigation, vanished? What role did he play?
Rana is a less important character in this entire case. Headley has already pleaded guilty whereas the case against Rana is still going on and one needs to see what comes out of it.
As of now what we know is that Rana is the one who provided Headley with the infrastructure. It is too early to say anything much on Rana as of now since the case is still open against him.