Clicky

No indication that India has given up extradition of Headley: Ranas legal professional

There is no evidence that India has abandoned the extradition of David Coleman Headley, the alleged terrorist attack in Mumbai, said co-defendant Tahawwur’s attorney Hussain Rana in a US court.

Rana, 59, a childhood friend of Headley’s, is being asked to extradite from India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. Rana, who has been declared a refugee by India, is against his extradition.

In a statement earlier this week before U.S. District Court judge Jacqueline Chelonian who opposed his extradition, Rana’s attorney alleged that there is currently no evidence on file that India has consented to the Refrain from extraditing Headley to India.

“India could presumably have agreed not to extradite Headley in return for its support for the United States, but there is no evidence that this was the case,” the court told the court.

“Indeed, the statement from the Indian public prosecutor, who is acting as an expert witness to the government, states:” This statement relates specifically to the extradition request relating to the refugee Tahawwur Hussain Rana. This statement shall in no way be construed as either abandoning or abandoning the various extradition requests pending in various sovereign nations in relation to the above case, including the case relating to Defendant No. 1, David Coleman Headley Not be vigorously prosecuted, “said the application submitted by his lawyers. The Pakistani-American terrorist Headley from Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was involved in planning the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack. He was appointed approver of the case and is currently serving a 35-year sentence in the US for his role in the attack.

Also read | The Mossad team joins the NIA in the embassy explosion

Rana attorneys said the court should not lightly assume (as the government seems to suspect) that the government is fulfilling its contractual obligation to India through a “sham interpretation” of Article 6 of the India-US extradition treaty under its treaty dealt with Headley.

The government’s conclusion in Headley’s plea agreement that Article 6 defines offenses in terms of conduct rather than elements, and thus prohibits the extradition of Headley, must be viewed as a bona fide interpretation of the terms of the contract.

Rana describes his childhood friend, Headley, as a liar in the court record.

Headley lied to federal agents, judges, and presumably prosecutors in these cases. After his first heroin sentence (reduced because of his cooperation), he returned to the heroin trade, although he had promised not to do so.

“He ignored the agents’ instructions on how to deal with targets and went to Pakistan without permission. After his second heroin conviction, he used his DEA status to divert government control over his activities with Lashkar and his statements in support of jihad, ”his lawyers claimed.

This story was published by a wire agency feed with no changes to the text.

Leave a Comment