nviews headley

8/9/2019 NVIEWS HEADLEY

1/11

N EWSVI

DEADLYHEADLEYPLEADSGUILTYTO...


2/11

Avideo still thatallegedlyshowsactressRanjithaandSwamiNityanandaindulging in actsofintimacy.

I, David Coleman Headley,PLEAD GUILTY TO...

DavidColemanHeadley,aU.S.citizenpartlyofPakistanidescent,pleadedguiltytoadozenfederalterrorismcharges,admittingthatheparticipatedinplanningtheNovember2008terroristattacksinMumbai,India,aswell

aslaterplanningtoattackaDanishnewspaper.Inpleadingguiltytoall12countsthatwerebroughtagainsthiminDecemberandwererepeatedinasubsequentindictmentinJanuary,HeadleyadmittedthatheattendedtrainingcampsinPakistanoperatedbyLashkare Tayyiba,adesignatedforeignterroristorganization,onfiveseparateoccasionsbetween2002and2005.Inlate2005,HeadleyreceivedinstructionsfromthreemembersofLashkartotraveltoIndiatoconductsurveillance,whichhedidfivetimesleadinguptotheMumbaiattacksthreeyearslaterthatkilledsix Americansamongapproximately164peopleandwoundedhundredsmore.A writtenpleaagreementcontainingadetailedrecitationofHeadleysparticipationintheforeignterrorism

conspiracieswaspresentedwhenHeadley,49,ofChicago,changedhispleatoguiltythisafternoonbeforeU.S.DistrictJudgeHarryLeinenweberinFederalCourtinChicago.InlightofHeadleyspastcooperationandexpectedfuturecooperation,the AttorneyGeneraloftheUnitedStateshasauthorizedtheUnitedStatesAttorneyinChicagonottoseekthedeathpenaltyagainstHeadley.WhendirectedbytheU.S. AttorneysOffice,Headleymustfullyandtruthfullyparticipateinanydebriefingsforthepurposeofgatheringintelligenceornationalsecurityinformation,andHeadleyfurtheragreesthat,whendirectedbytheUnitedStates AttorneysOffice,hewillfullyandtruthfullytestifyinanyforeignjudicialproceedingsheldintheUnitedStatesbywayofdeposition,video-conferencingorlettersrogatory.


3/11

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTNORTHERNDISTRICTOFILLINOISEASTERNDIVISION

1.ThisPleaAgreementbetweentheUnitedStatesAttorneyfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,PATRICKJ.FITZGERALD,anddefendantDAVIDCOLEMANHEADLEY,andhis attorneys,JOHNT.THEISand ROBERTSEEDER,is madepursuantto Rule11 ofthe Federal Rulesof Criminal Procedureand isgovernedin partby Rule11(c)(1)(B),asmorefullysetforthbelow.ThepartiestothisAgreementhaveagreeduponthefollowing:

ChargesinThisCase2.The SupersedingIndictmentin thiscasechargesdefendantin twelvecounts:CountOne,which chargesdefendantwithconspiracytobomb placesof

publicusein India,including,butnotlimitedto, theconductwhichled totheattacks onplaces ofpublic useinMumbai, India,fromNovember26to 28,2008,inviolationofTitle18,UnitedStatesCode,Section2332f(a)(2);CountTwo,whichchargesdefendantwithconspiracytomurderandmaimpersonsinIndia, in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 956(a)(1); Counts Three through Eight, which charge defendant with aiding and abetting themurdersofsixUnitedStatesnationalsinMumbai,India,inviolationofTitle18,UnitedStatesCode,Section2332(a)(1);CountNine,whichchargesdefendantwithconspiracytoprovide

material supportto terrorismin India,in violation ofTitle 18,UnitedStatesCode, Section 2339A;CountTen,which chargesdefendantwith conspiracytomurder and maim persons in Denmark, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 956(a)(1); Count Eleven, which charges defendant withconspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339A; and Count Twelve, whichchargesdefendantwithprovidingmaterialsupporttoLashkare TayyibainviolationofTitle18, UnitedStatesCode,Section2339B.3.Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the Superseding Indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his

attorneys.4.Defendantfullyunderstandsthenatureandelementsofthe crimeswithwhichhehasbeencharged.ChargestoWhichDefendantisPleadingGuilty5. By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of guilty to all counts of the Superseding Indictment, as previously described inParagraph2above.

FactualBasis6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges contained in Counts One through Twelve of the Superseding Indictment. Inpleadingguilty,defendantadmitsthe followingfactsand thatthosefactsestablishhisguiltbeyonda reasonabledoubtand constituterelevantconduct

pursuanttoGuideline1B1.3:a.WithrespecttoCountOneoftheSupersedingIndictment:2

Beginningnolaterthaninoraboutlate2005,andcontinuingthroughonoraboutOctober 3, 2009, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere within and without the jurisdiction of the United States,defendantconspiredwithmembersof Lashkare Tayyiba,includingbutnot limitedto individualsidentifiedhereinas LashkarMembersA, B,C andD, andothers, to deliver, place, discharge and detonate explosives and other lethal devices in, into and against places of public use, state and governmentfacilities,publictransportationsystems,andinfrastructurefacilitiesin India,withtheintentto causedeathandseriousbodilyinjury,andwiththe intent

to cause extensive destruction of such places and facilities which such destruction would likely result in major economic loss, and defendant was anationaloftheUnitedStatesandwasfoundintheUnitedStates.Morespecifically,inor aroundlate 2005,defendantmet withthreeindividualshereinidentifiedasLashkarMembersA, Band D,and receivedinstructionstotraveltoIndiatoconductsurveillanceofvariouslocationsin India,includingplacesof publicuse,andstateandgovernmentfacilities.Priortoreceivingtheseorders,defendanthadattendedtrainingcampsorganizedandoperatedbyLashkare Tayyibaon fiveseparateoccasionsin oraround2002 through2005.StartinginoraroundFebruary2002,defendantattendedathree-weekcourseandreceivedindoctrinationonthemeritsofwagingjihad.Startingin

oraboutAugust2002,defendantattendeda three-weekcourseandreceivedtrainingin,amongotherskills,theuse ofweaponsandgrenades.StartinginoraboutApril2003,defendantattendedathree-monthcourseandreceivedtraininginvariousskills,including,butnotlimitedto,close3combattactics,theuseweaponsandgrenades,andsurvivalskills.StartinginoraroundAugust2003,defendantattendeda three-weekcourseandreceivedtrainingin, amongotherskills,counter-surveillance.Startinginor aroundDecember2003, defendant attended an approximately three month course and received combat and tactical training. On multiple occasions, following his

completionof theabove-describedtrainingcourses,defendantadvisedco-defendantTAHAWWURHUSSAINRANA(RANA)of hismembershipin LashkareTayyibaandthetrainingthathehadreceived.

Inor aroundFebruary2006,in ordertofacilitatehisactivitiesonbehalfof Lashkarby portrayinghimselfin Indiaasan Americanwho wasneitherMuslimnorPakistani,defendantchangedhis namefrom DaoodGilani to DavidColeman Headley in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.Thereafter, in or aroundtheearly summer of 2006, defendant met with Lashkar Members A and D, and discussed opening an immigration office in Mumbai, India, as cover for hissurveillanceactivities. Onseveral occasionsprior tothis meeting, defendanthad advised Lashkar Members A andD of hisfriendshipwithcodefendant

RANA,andRANAsownershipandoperationofFirstWorldImmigration,an immigrationservicesbusinesslocatedinChicagoandotherlocations.Inor aroundJune2006,defendanttraveledtoChicagoandmet withco-defendantRANA.Defendantadvisedco-defendantRANAof hisassignmentin India,andexplainedthat opening an officefor FirstWorldImmigrationwouldprovide a coverstory forhis activities.Followingdefendantsexplanation,RANAagreedtoopenanimmigrationofficeinMumbai,India,andprovideassistancetodefendantsactivities.Atco-defendantRANAs4

direction,anindividualassociatedwithFirstWorldprepareddocumentstosupportdefendantscoverstory.RANAfurtheradviseddefendanton howto obtainavisa forhis traveltoIndia.In applyingfor thisvisa,defendantmisrepresentedhisbirthname,hisfathersnameandthetruepurposeofhistraveltoIndia.SurveillanceTripsAfter receiving RANAs approval, defendant traveled back to Pakistan and met with Lashkar Members A and D, among others, on several occasions.DefendantadvisedthemthatRANAhadagreedtotheuseofFirstWorldImmigrationascoverforhisactivities.Defendantalsoshowedthemthevisathathe

hadobtainedwithRANAsassistance.Duringthesemeetings,defendantreceivedadditionalinstructionsregardinghisintendedtravelto India.Defendant thereafter traveled to India in or around September 2006, using the opening and operation of RANAs immigration business as cover fordefendantstravel toandextendedstayin Mumbai,India.Duringthistrip,defendantconductedextensivevideosurveillanceof variouslocationsin India,including, but not limited to, the Taj Mahal Hotel. After this trip, defendant met in Pakistan with various co-conspirators, including but not limited tomembers of Lashkar e Tayyiba, provided them with the video recordings he had made and discussed with the co-conspirators the video and thesurveillancehehadconducted.Further,defendantreceivedinstructionstoreturntoMumbaiandperformadditionalsurveillance.

5

InoraroundFebruary2007,defendantreturnedtoMumbaiandconductedvideosurveillanceof various locations,including,butnot limitedto, extensivevideo of thesecondfloor of theTaj MahalHotel in Mumbai, India.Afterthis trip,defendantagain metin Pakistanwith various co-conspirators,includingbutnot limitedto members of Lashkar e Tayyiba,providedthem withthe videorecordingshehadmadeanddiscussedwiththecoconspiratorsthevideoandthe surveillancehehadconducted.In or around June 2007, defendant traveled to Chicago and met with co-defendant RANA. Defendant advised RANA of the surveillance work that he had

performedin Mumbai,includingthevideo takenatthe TajMahalHotel.DefendantfurtheradvisedRANAabouthis meetingwith co-conspiratorsandtheirreactiontothe surveillanceworkthatdefendanthadperformed.Followingdefendantsreturnto Pakistan,defendantwas instructedtoreturnto Mumbai.In oraroundSeptember2007,defendantreturnedtoMumbaiandconductedadditionalsurveillance,asinstructed.AfterreturningtoPakistan,defendantagainmetwithvariousco-conspirators,includingbutnotlimitedto members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, provided them with the video recordings he had made and discussed with the co-conspirators the video and the

surveillancehehadconducted.In or about March 2008, defendant met with co-conspirators in Pakistan and discussed potential landing sites in Mumbai for a team of attackers thatwouldarriveby sea.Followingthisdiscussion,defendantwasorderedto returntoMumbaitoperformadditionalsurveillanceandlocatepossiblelandingsites.InoraroundApril2008,defendantreturned6toMumbaiwithaglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)deviceandperformedthesurveillance,

includingtaking boattrips in andaroundthe Mumbai harborand enteringlocationsin theGPS device.Afterreturningto Pakistan,defendantagainmetwith various co-conspirators, and, among other things, advised them of his recommendations as to potential landing sites. During these meetings,defendantlearnedthatattackplanswerebeingdelayed,inpart,towaitforwhentheseawascalmer.AtaroundtheendofApril2008,defendanttraveledtotheUnitedStatesforaboutsixweeks.OverthecourseofafewdaysinoraroundtheendofMay2008,defendantmet withco-defendantRANA inChicago.DefendantadvisedRANA aboutthe extensive surveillancethat hehad conductedin Mumbaiand themeetingsthat hehad withvariousco-conspirators.Defendantrelatedto RANAthe landingideas and,in particular, theidea ofone coconspirator thatthe

teamof attackersland infront ofthe TajMahalHotel. Defendantfurthertold RANAaboutthe boattripsin andaroundthe Mumbai harbor anddefendantsuseoftheGPSdevice.DefendantinformedRANAthattheattackplanswerebeingdelayed,inpart,towaitforcalmerwaters.

PLEAAGREEMENT

ImportantsectionsofDavidColemanHeadleyspleaagreementintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourt,NorthernDistrictofIllinois,EasternDivision

Beginningnolaterthaninor

aboutlate2005,andcontinuingthroughonoraboutOctober3,2009,atChicago,intheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,EasternDivision,andelsewherewithinandwithoutthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,defendantconspiredwithmembersofLashkareTayyiba,includingbutnotlimitedtoindividualsidentifiedhereinasLashkarMembersA,B,CandD,andothers,todeliver,place,dischargeanddetonateexplosivesandotherlethaldevicesin,intoandagainstplacesofpublicuse,stateandgovernmentfacilities,publictransportationsystems,andinfrastructurefacilitiesinIndia,withtheintenttocausedeathandseriousbodilyinjury,andwiththeintenttocauseextensivedestructionofsuchplacesandfacilitieswhichsuchdestructionwouldlikelyresultinmajoreconomicloss,anddefendantwasanationaloftheUnitedStatesandwasfoundinTheUnitedStates.

Morespecifically,inoraroundlate2005,defendantmetwiththreeindividualshereinidentifiedasLashkarMembersA,BandD,andreceivedinstructionstotraveltoIndiatoconductsurveillanceofvariouslocations,includingplacesofpublicuse,andstateandgovernmentfacilities.Priortoreceivingtheseorders,defendanthadattendedtraining

campsorganizedandoperatedbyLashkareTayyibaonfiveseparateoccasionsinoraround2002through2005.


4/11

During discussions over the course of approximately five days in or around May 2008, defendant also advised RANA of the surveillance that he hadconducted in other locations in India. Further, defendant informed RANA of the request by one co-conspirator for defendant to conduct additionalsurveillanceactivitiesinDelhi,anddiscussedopeninganofficeforFirstWorldImmigrationinDelhias coverforsuchactivities.7AfterreturningtoPakistan,defendantmetwithvariousco-conspiratorsandreceivedinstructions to return to Mumbai and conduct surveillance of various locations. In or around July 2008, defendant returned to Mumbai and conducted

extensivevideo surveillanceofvarioustargets,includingbutnot limitedtothe TajMahalHotel,theOberoiHotel,the ChabadHouse,the ChhatrapatiShivajiTerminustrainstation, theLeopoldCaf,aswell aspotential landingsites fortheteamof attackers. Afterthistrip,defendantagainmetseveraltimesin

Pakistanwithvariousco-conspirators,includingbutnotlimitedtomembersof Lashkare Tayyiba,providedthemwiththe videorecordingshehadmadeanddiscussedwiththeco-conspiratorsthevideoandthe surveillancehehadconducted.Inadditiontothesemeetings,defendantmet withLashkarMemberA onseveraloccasionsandat severallocations.LashkarMemberAadviseddefendantofa numberof detailsconcerningthe planned attacks,includingthata teamof attackerswas beingtrainedin a varietyof combatskills,the teamwould be

travelingto Mumbaiby seaandusing thelandingsiterecommendedbythe defendant, theteamwouldbefightingto thedeath andwouldnot attempttoescape followingthe attacks,the ChhatrapatiShivajiTerminustrain stationwould beone target ofthe attacks,and theteam wouldbe usinga GPSdeviceandremainintelephoniccontactwithLashkarMemberAduringtheattacks.TheMumbaiAttacksInlate November 2008,ten co-conspiratorstrainedby Lashkar e Tayyibacarried outassaultswith firearms,grenadesand improvised explosive devices

againstmultipletargetsinMumbai,India,includingattackson theTajMahalhotel;theOberoihotel;theLeopold8Cafe;theNarimanHouseandthe ChhatrapatiShivajiTerminustrainstation,killingapproximately164peopleandwoundinghundredsmore.OtherSurveillanceinIndiaIn addition to the surveillance performed on the five separate trips described above, defendant traveled to India in or about March 2009 to conduct

additionalsurveillance.Amongotherlocations,defendantconductedsurveillanceof theNationalDefenseCollegein Delhi,India,andof ChabadHousesinseveralcitiesinIndia.b.WithrespecttoCountTwooftheSupersedingIndictment:Beginningno laterthanin oraboutlate2005,andcontinuingthroughon oraboutOctober3, 2009, atChicago,in theNorthern Districtof Illinois, EasternDivision,and elsewherewithin andwithoutthejurisdiction ofthe UnitedStates,defendant conspiredwithLashkarMembersA, B,C, andD, andothers,tocommit acts outside the United States that would constitute the offenses of murder and maiming if committed in the special maritime and territorial

jurisdiction of the United States, namely, murder and maiming in connection with attacks carried out by Lashkar e Tayyiba in India. As described in

subparagraph(a),defendantagreedtoassistmembersofLashkareTayyibatoprepareforcarryingouttheNovember2008attacksinMumbai,whichkilledapproximately164personsandwoundedhundredsmore.c.WithrespecttoCountsThreethroughEightoftheSupersedingIndictment:9Onoraboutthedateslistedbelow,atChicago,intheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,

Eastern Division, andelsewherewithinand without thejurisdictionof theUnitedStates,defendantaidedand abetted themurdersin Mumbai, Indiaof thefollowingUnited States nationals:Ben ZionChroman(November26,2008), GavrielHoltzberg(November27, 2008),SandeepJeswani(November 26,2008),AlanScherr(November26,2008), NaomiScherr(November26,2008) andAryehLeibishTeitelbaum(November27,2008).As describedinsubparagraph(a),defendant agreed to assist members of Lashkar e Tayyiba to prepare for carrying out the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, during which the team ofLashkare TayyibaattackerskilledthesesixUnitedStatesnationals.

d.WithrespecttoCountNineoftheSupersedingIndictment:Beginningno laterthanin oraboutlate2005,andcontinuingthroughon oraboutOctober3, 2009, atChicago,in theNorthern Districtof Illinois, EasternDivision,andelsewhere,defendantconspiredwithco-defendantRANAandotherstoprovidematerialsupportorresources,andtoconcealanddisguisethenature, location, source and ownership of such support and resources, knowing and intending that they were to be used in the preparation for, and incarryingout, violationsof Title18,UnitedStatesCode,Section2332fand956(a)(1).Morespecifically,defendantprovidedpersonnel,namelyhimself,whenheworkedunderthe directionand controlof membersofLashkare Tayyibato preparefor carryingout theNovember2008attacksinMumbai,whichkilled

approximately164personsandwoundedhundredsmore.e.WithrespecttoCountsTenandElevenoftheSupersedingIndictment:10InoraboutearlyNovember2008,defendantmetwithLashkarMemberAinKarachi,Pakistan,and wasinstructedto travelto Denmark toconductsurveillance ofthe Copenhagenand Aarhusofficesof theDanishnewspaperMorganevisenJyllands-Posten(the Jyllands-Posten), in preparationfor anattack on thenewspaperin retaliationfor itspublication of cartoons depictingthe Prophet

Mohamed.Followingthis meeting, defendantinformedcodefendant ABDURREHMANHASHIM SYED(Pasha)of hisassignment.Pashastatedto defendantwordstotheeffectthatifLashkardidnotgothroughwiththeattack,Pashaknewsomeonewhowould.Althoughnotidentifiedbynameatthetime,defendantlaterlearnedthisindividualtobeco-defendantILYASKASHMIRI.PashapreviouslyhadstatedtodefendantthathehadbeenworkingwithKASHMIRIandthatKASHMIRIwasindirectcontactwithaseniorleaderforAlQaeda.In or around December 2008, defendant met with Lashkar Member A and again discussed an attack on the Jyllands-Posten facility. More specifically,defendantandLashkarMemberA discussedthescopeoftheattack.Whendefendantsuggestedthattheyfocusonthoseresponsible,referringtokillingthe

editor and cartoonist identified in the Superseding Indictment as Editor A and Cartoonist A, Lashkar Member A stated that all Danes are responsible.Shortlyafterthismeeting,defendantreturnedtothe UnitedStates.InoraroundDecember2008,defendantmetwithco-defendantRANAand,overthe courseoftwoor threediscussions,advisedRANAabouthisassignmenttoconductsurveillanceof theJyllands-Postenin Denmark, as wellas thestatementmade by Lashkar MemberA. Defendantfurther advised RANAabout hisconversationswithPashaand

11PashasstatementthatheknewsomeonewhowouldcarryoutanattackifLashkardidnot.Inor aroundlateDecember2008 andearly January 2009,defendant sentemailsto, andreceivedemailsfrom, Pashain orderto continueplanningfor theattack and coordinate defendants travel to Denmark. In or about early January 2009, defendant asked for RANAs approval and assistance to identifyhimselfas arepresentativeofFirstWorldImmigration,tofalselyrepresentthatFirstWorldwas planningto openanofficein Copenhagen,andto gainentrytotheJyllands-PostensofficebyfalselyexpressinganinterestinplacinganadvertisementforFirstWorldinthenewspaper.RANAapprovedoftheideaand

agreedtoprovideassistance.InoraroundJanuary2009,defendantandRANAhad businesscardsmadetoidentifydefendantas anImmigrationConsultantfortheImmigrantLawCenter,abusinessnameforFirstWorldImmigration.Inor aboutJanuary2009,defendanttraveledfrom Chicago, Illinois, to Copenhagen,Denmark,to conduct surveillanceof theJyllandPosten officesin thecitiesofCopenhagenandAarhusinDenmark.OnoraboutJanuary20,2009,defendantobtainedentrytotheofficeinCopenhagenonthepretextthathewasseeking to place an advertisement on behalf of First World Immigration. Defendant also scouted and took extensive video surveillance of the area

surrounding the Copenhagen office. While in Copenhagen, defendant provided one of the business cards which RANA and the defendant had made to aJyllandPosten employee.Becausethis cardidentifiedotherbusiness addressesfor FirstWorldin NewYorkand Canada,defendantsentan emailto RANAaskinghimtocontactthoseofficestomake12surethatifJyllandPostenemployeescontactedoneofthoseoffices,theFirstWorldemployeesatthoselocationswouldnotblowdefendantscover.On or about January 23, 2009, defendant obtained entry to the Jyllands-Posten office in Aarhus, again on the pretext that he was seeking to place an

advertisementonbehalfofFirstWorldinthenewspaper.Defendantalsoscoutedtheareasurroundingthatoffice.Inor aroundlateJanuary2009,defendantmet separatelywithLashkarMemberA andPashain Pakistanconcerningtheplannedattackon thenewspaperandprovidedeachwithvideosofhissurveillance.Ataboutthesametime,PashaprovidedtodefendantavideoproducedbythemediawingofAlQaedainoraroundAugust2008.ThevideoclaimedcreditfortheJune2008attackontheDanishembassyinIslamabad,Pakistan,andcalledforfurtherattacksagainstDanishintereststoavengethepublicationofthecartoonsoftheProphetMohamed.

InoraroundFebruary2009,defendantandPashametwithco-defendantKASHMIRIin theWaziristanregionofPakistan.DefendantdiscussedwithKASHMIRIandPashathe videosurveillance thatdefendant hadtakenin Copenhagenand waysin whichto carryout theattack.KASHMIRItold thedefendantthathe(KASHMIRI)couldprovidemanpowerfortheoperationandthatthe participationof Lashkarwas notnecessary.Afterthismeeting,inor aroundMarch2009,Lashkar Member A advised defendant that Lashkar put the plans to attack the Jyllands-Posten on hold due to pressure on Lashkar resulting from theNovember2008attacksinMumbai.13

Thereafter,in oraroundMay2009,defendantandPashaagainmetwithKASHMIRIinWaziristan.KASHMIRItold thedefendantthat hehad metwitha Europeancontactwhocould providethe defendantwithmoney,weaponsandmanpowerfortheattackonthenewspaper.KASHMIRIdirectedthedefendanttomeetwiththisEuropeancontact,andrelateKASHMIRIsinstructionsthatthisshouldbea suicide attack and that the attackers should prepare martyrdom videos beforehand. Among other details, KASHMIRI stated that the attackers should

StartinginoraroundFebruary2002,defendantattendedathree-weekcourseandreceivedindoctrinationonthemeritsofwagingjihad.Startinginorabout

August2002,defendantattendedathree-weekcourseandreceivedtrainingin,amongotherskills,theuseofweaponsandgrenades.St

artinginoraboutApril2003,defendantattendedathree-monthcourseandreceivedtraininginvariousskills,including,butnotlimitedto,closecombattactics,theuseweaponsandgrenades,andsurvivalskills.Startinginoraround

August2003,defendantattendedathree-weekcourseandreceivedtrainingin,amongotherskills,counter-surveillance.StartinginoraroundDecember2003,defendantattendedanapproximate

lythreemonthcourseandreceivedcombatandtacticaltraining.Onmultipleoccasions,followinghiscompletionoftheabove-describedtrainingcourses,defendantadvisedco-defendant TAHAWWURHUSSAINRANAofhismembershipinLashkarandthetrainingThathehadreceived.isactivitiesonbehalfofLashkarbyportrayinghimselfinIndiaasanAmericanwhowasneitherMus

limnorPakistani,defendantchangedhisnamefromDaoodGilani to DavidColemanHeadley inPhiladelphia,Pennsylvania.Thereafter,inoraroundtheearlysummerof2006,defendantmetwithLashkarMembersAandD,anddiscussedopeninganimmigrationofficeinMumbaiascoverforhissurveillanceactivities.Onseveraloccasionspriortothismeeting,defendant

hadadvisedLashkarMembersAandDofhisfriendshipwithcodefendantRANA,andhisownershipandoperationofFirstWorldImmigration,animmigrationservicesbusinessinChicagoandotherlocations.InoraroundJune2006,defendanttraveledtoChicagoandmetwithco-defendantRANA.DefendantadvisedRANAofhisassignmentinIndia,andexplainedthatopeninganofficeforFirstWorldImmigrationwouldprovideacoverstoryforhisactivities.RANAagreedtoopenanofficeinMumbaiandprovideassistancetodefendantsactivities.

AtRANAsdirection,anindividualassociatedwithFirstWorldprepareddocumentstosupport


5/11

beheadcaptivesand throwtheirheadsout ofthe newspaperbuildinginorderto heightenthe responsefrom Danishauthorities.KASHMIRIstated

thattheelders,whodefendantunderstoodtobeAl Qaedaleadership,wantedtheattacktohappenassoonas possible.Afterthismeeting,in oraroundearly June2009,defendantreturnedtoChicago.Defendantmetwith RANAon severaloccasionsin oraround JuneandJuly2009.DefendantrelatedwhatKASHMIRIhadstatedinthe May2009meeting,includingthe detailsdescribedin theaboveparagraph.In oraroundJuly2009,defendantalsoprovidedtoRANA,amongothermaterials,theAlQaedavideodescribedabove.InoraboutlateJulyandearlyAugust2009,defendanttraveledfromChicago,Illinois,tovariousplacesinEurope,includingCopenhagen,Denmark,to conduct additionalsurveillanceof theJyllands-Postennewspaper officeand surroundingarea.In doingso, defendanttook approximately13

surveillancevideos.Further,whilein anotherlocationin Europe,defendantmetwith,and attemptedtogain assistancefrom,KASHMIRIsEuropeancontacts.WhenreturningtotheUnitedStatesonor aboutAugust5,2009,defendantfalsely14advisedaCustomsandBorderPatrolinspectoratanairportinAtlantathathehadvisitedEuropeforbusinessreasonsrelatedtoFirstWorld.Following hisreturnto Chicago,defendantadvisedRANA in detailabouthis surveillanceeffortsin Copenhagenand hismeetingwith KASHMIRIs

Europeancontact.Defendantalsospokewith Pashabytelephoneand, usingcode,relatedsomeof thedetailsrelatingto hissurveillance andhismeetingwithKASHMIRIsEuropeancontact.OnmultipledatesthroughouttheremainderofAugustandSeptember,defendantcommunicatedwithRANAandPashaconcerningplanningfortheattack on theJyllands-Postenandmedia reportsthatco-defendantKASHMIRIhad beenkilled.On or aboutOctober3, 2009,defendant traveled toOHare Airport intending ultimately to travel to Pakistan in order to meet with Pasha and KASHMIRI and to deliver to them the approximately 13

surveillancevideos.f.WithrespecttoCountTwelveoftheSupersedingIndictment:Beginningno laterthanin oraboutlate2005,andcontinuingto onor aboutOctober3, 2009,defendant knowinglyprovided material supportorresourcesto aforeignterroristorganization,namelyLashkare Tayyiba.Morespecifically,defendantknew atleastas earlyas2004, thatLashkareTayyiba was designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization. At the same time, defendant knowingly worked under thatterroristorganizationsdirectionandcontrol,asdescribedhereininsubparagraph(a).

g.The foregoingfactsare setforthsolelyto assistthe Courtindeterminingwhethera factualbasisexistsfor defendant'spleaofguiltyand arenotintendedtobea15completeor comprehensivestatementofallthefactswithindefendant'spersonalknowledgeregardingthechargedcrimesandrelatedconduct.

MaximumStatutoryPenalties7.Defendantunderstandsthatthechargestowhichheis pleadingguiltycarrythefollowingstatutorypenalties:a.CountOnecarriesamaximumsentenceoflifeimprisonmentorthedeathpenaltybecausedeathresulted.PursuanttoTitle18,UnitedStatesCode,Section3561,defendantmaynotbesentencedtoatermofprobationonthiscount.CountOnealsocarriesamaximumfineof$250,000,ortwicethegrossgainor grosslossresultingfrom thatoffense,whicheveris greater.Defendantfurtherunderstandsthatwithrespectto CountOnethe judgealsomayimposeatermofsupervisedreleaseofnotmorethanfiveyears.

b.Count Two carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not besentencedto aterm ofprobationon thiscount.CountTwo alsocarriesa maximumfineof $250,000,or twicethegrossgainor grosslossresultingfrom that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that with respect to Count Two, the judge also may impose a term ofsupervisedreleaseofnotmorethanfiveyears.

c.CountsThreethroughEightcarrya maximumsentenceof lifeimprisonmentor thedeathpenalty.Pursuantto Title18, UnitedStatesCode,Section3561 defendant may not be sentenced to a term of probation on these counts. Counts Three through Eight also each carry a maximum fine of$250,000.Defendantfurtherunderstands16thatwithrespecttoCountsThreethroughEightthejudgealsomayimposetermsof

supervisedreleaseofnotmorethanfiveyears.d.Count Nine carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not besentencedtoatermofprobationonthiscount.CountNinealsocarriesamaximumfineof$250,000,ortwicethegrossgainorgrosslossresulting

from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that with respect to Count Nine, the judge also may impose a term ofsupervisedreleaseofnotmorethanfiveyears.

e.Count Ten carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not besentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count Ten also carries a maximum fine of $250,000. Defendant further understands that withrespecttoCountTen,thejudgealsomayimposeatermofsupervisedreleaseofnotmorethanfiveyears.f.CountElevencarriesa maximumsentenceof 15yearsimprisonment.Pursuantto Title18, UnitedStatesCode, Section3561 defendantmay notbe

sentencedtoa term ofprobation onthiscount. CountElevenalsocarriesa maximumfineof $250,000.Defendantfurtherunderstands thatwithrespecttoCountEleven,thejudgealsomayimposeatermofsupervisedreleaseofnotmorethanfiveyears.g.Count Twelve carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not besentencedtoatermofprobationonthiscount.CountTwelvealsocarriesamaximumfineof$250,000,

17ortwicethegrossgainorgrosslossresultingfromthatoffense,whicheverisgreater.Defendantfurtherunderstandsthat with respect toCountTwelve,the judgealsomay imposea term ofsupervisedrelease ofnot morethan fiveyearsh.Inaccordwith Title18, UnitedStatesCode,Section3013,defendantwill beassessed$100on eachcountto whichhe haspledguilty,in additionto

anyotherpenaltyimposed.i.Therefore, under the counts to which defendant is pleading guilty, the total maximum sentence is life imprisonment or the death penalty. In

addition,defendantissubjecttoatotalmaximumfineof$3,000,000,ortwicethegrossgainorgrosslossresultingfromtheoffensesofconviction,whicheverisgreater,a periodofsupervisedrelease,andspecialassessmentstotaling$1200.TheDeathPenalty

8. Defendant has been cooperating with the Government since the time of his arrest on October 3, 2009, and to date has provided substantialassistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value. In addition, as provided for inParagraph12of thisPleaAgreement,thedefendanthasagreedtofully andtruthfullycooperateinfurtherproceedings.Inlightof defendantspastcooperationand expected future cooperation,and allthe otherrelevantfactorsbeing considered,the AttorneyGeneral of theUnited States hasauthorizedthe UnitedStatesAttorneyfor theNorthernDistrictof Illinoistonot seekthe deathpenaltyagainstdefendant.Defendantunderstandsthatifheshouldbreachthiscooperationagreementandifthe

18government,atitssolediscretion,voidssuchagreement,thegovernmentwillnolongerbeboundbyitsdecisionnottoseekthedeathpenalty.Extradition9.PursuanttoArticle6 ofthe ExtraditionTreatyBetweentheUnitedStatesand theRepublicof India,Article7 ofthe ExtraditionTreatybetweenthe

United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, and Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Islamic Republic of Pakistan,defendant shall not be extradited to the Republic of India, the Kingdom of Denmark, or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, respectively, for anyoffenses forwhich he hasbeen convictedin accordancewith thisplea.The defendantand theUnited States AttorneysOfficeaccordinglyagreethat,if defendantpleadsguilty toand isconvictedof all offensesset outin theSupersedingIndictment,including Conspiracyto BombPlacesofPublicUsein India(in violationof 18U.S.C.2332f (a)(2)),Conspiracy toMurderand Maim inIndia(inviolationof18 U.S.C.956(a)(1)),AidingandAbetting Murder (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2332(a)(1) and 2), Conspiracy to Murder and Maim in Denmark (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956(a)(1)),

ConspiracytoProvideMaterialSupportto Terrorism,inbothIndiaandPakistan(inviolationof18U.S.C.2339A),andConspiracytoProvideMaterial

defendantscoverstory.RANAfurtheradviseddefendantonhowtoobtainavisaforhistraveltoIndia.Inapplyingforthisvisa,defendantmisrepresentedhisbirthname,hisfathersnameandthetruepurposeofhistraveltoIndia.

AfterreceivingRANAsapproval,defendanttraveledbacktoPakistanandmetwithLashkarMembers

A andD,amongothers,onseveraloccasions.DefendantadvisedthemthatRANAhadagreedtotheuseofFirstWorldImmigrationascoverforhisactivities.Duringthesemeetings,defendantreceivedinstructionsregarding

hisintendedtraveltoIndia.DefendantthereaftertraveledtoIndiainoraroundSeptember2006,usingtheopeningandoperationofRANAsimmigrationbusinessascover.Duringthistrip,defendantconductedextensivevideosurveillanceofvariouslocationsinIndia,including,butnotlimitedto,theTajMahalHotel.Afterthistrip,defendantmetinPakista

nwithvariousco-conspirators,includingbutnotlimitedtomembersofLashkar,providedthemwiththevideorecordingsanddiscussedwiththeco-conspiratorsthevideoandthesurveillancehehadconducted.Further,defendantreceivedinstructionstoreturntoMumbaiandperformadditionalSurveillance.

InoraroundFebruary2007,defendantreturnedtoMumbaiandconductedvideosurveillanceofvariouslocations,including,butnotlimitedto,extensivevideoofthesecondflooroftheTajMahalHotel.Afterthistrip,defendantagainmetinPakistanwithvariousco-conspirators,providedthemwiththevideorecordingsanddiscussedthesurveillance.

InoraroundJune2007,defendanttraveledtoChicagoandmetwithRANA.DefendantadvisedRANAofthesurveillanceworkhehadperf

SurveillanceTrips


6/11

SupporttoLashkar-e-Tayyiba,a foreignterroristorganization(inviolationof18U.S.C. 2339B), then the defendant shall not be extradited to the Republic of India, the Kingdom of Denmark or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for theforegoingoffenses,19

includingconductwithinthescopeofthoseoffensesforwhichhehasbeenconvictedinaccordancewiththisplea,solongashefullydisclosesallmaterialfactsconcerninghisrolewithrespecttotheseoffensesandabidesbyallotheraspectsofthisagreement.SentencingGuidelinesCalculations

10.Defendantunderstandsthat in imposing sentencethe Courtwill beguided bythe UnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines.Defendant understandsthattheSentencingGuidelinesareadvisory,notmandatory,butthattheCourtmustconsidertheGuidelinesindeterminingareasonablesentence.11.ForpurposesofcalculatingtheSentencingGuidelines,thepartiesagreeon thefollowingpoints:a.Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following statements

regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the November 2009 GuidelinesManual.b.OffenseLevelCalculations.i.Thebaseoffenselevel forthe chargein CountOneof theSupersedingIndictmentis 43,pursuanttoGuideline2K1.4(c)and 2A1.1.Becausethe defendantintentionallyselectedvictimsandpropertyof theattacksbasedontheactualandperceivedreligion,nationaloriginand ethnicityof persons(e.g.targets

wereselectedbecausetheywerein India),a 3-pointenhancementappliespursuantto3A1.1.Becausesomevictimswererestrainedduringthe offense,a2pointenhancementiswarrantedpursuantto203A1.3.Becausetheoffenseisafelonythatinvolvedafederalcrimeofterrorism,a12pointenhancementappliestodefendantsbaseoffenselevel pursuantto 3A1.4.Defendantsuse ofhis specializedtrainingin surveillancewarrantsa specialskillenhancementof2-pointpursuantto3B1.3.Thus,defendantsadjustedoffenselevelislevel 62;

ii.TheadjustedoffenselevelforCountTwoislevel62forthereasonssetforthinsubparagraph11(b)(i)above(see2A1.5);iii.The adjustedoffenselevel forCountsThree,Six andSevenis level60 forthe reasonsset forthin subparagraph11(b)(i),exceptthatno enhancementisappropriatepursuantto3A1.3asthevictimsinthosecountswerenotphysicallyrestrained;

iv.Theadjustedoffenselevels forCountsFour,Five andEight is level62 forthe reasons setforth in subparagraph11(b)(i)(the victims inthese counts were

physicallyrestrained);v.TheadjustedoffenselevelforCountNineislevel62forthereasonssetforthinsubparagraph11(b)(i)(see2X2.1).;vi.ThebaseoffenselevelforthechargeinCountTenoftheSupersedingIndictmentis33,pursuanttoGuideline2A1.5.Becausetheoffenseisafelonythatinvolved a federal crime of terrorism, a 12 point enhancement applies pursuant to 3A1.4. Defendants use of his specialized training in surveillancewarrantsaspecialskillenhancementpursuantto3B1.3.Thus,thedefendantsadjustedoffenselevelfor CountTenislevel47;

21vii.TheadjustedoffenselevelforCountElevenislevel47forthereasonssetforthin subparagraph11(b)(vi)(see2X2.1);viii.TheadjustedoffenselevelforCountTwelveislevel62forthereasonssetforthinsubparagraph11(b)(i)(see2X2.1);ix.CountsOnethroughNineandTwelvearegroupedpursuantto3D1.2(a)andtheapplicableoffenselevelis62;

x.CountsTenandElevenaregroupedpursuantto3D1.2(a)andtheapplicableoffenselevelis47;xi.Therefore,thecombinedoffenselevelforbothgroupsislevel62pursuantto3D1.4;xii.

Defendanthasclearlydemonstrateda recognitionandaffirmativeacceptanceofpersonalresponsibilityforhiscriminalconduct.Ifthe governmentdoesnotreceiveadditionalevidencein conflictwith thisprovision,and

if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United StatesAttorneysOfficeandtheProbationOfficewithallrequestedfinancialinformationrelevanttohisabilitytosatisfyanyfinethatmaybeimposedinthiscase,atwo-levelreductionintheoffenselevelisappropriate.

xiii. In accord with Guideline 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting thegovernmentto avoidpreparingfortrial andpermittingtheCourt to allocate itsresourcesefficiently.Therefore,as providedby Guideline3E1.1(b),if theCourtdeterminesthe22offenseleveltobe16orgreaterpriortodeterminingthatdefendantisentitledtoatwo-levelreductionforacceptanceof responsibility,thegovernmentwillmove foranadditionalone-levelreductionin theoffenselevel.

c.CriminalHistoryCategory.Withregardtodeterminingdefendant'scriminalhistorypointsandcriminalhistorycategory,basedonthe factsnowknowntothegovernmentand stipulatedbelow,defendant'scriminalhistorypointsequal6. Dueto theoperationofGuideline3A1.4,however,defendant'scriminalhistorycategoryisVI.i.Inor about1988,defendantwasconvictedin theUnitedStates DistrictCourtforthe Eastern Districtof NewYork ofconspiracyto importheroin into the

UnitedStatesandsentencedonJanuary5,1989,tofouryearsimprisonment.OnoraboutMarch27,1995,defendantwasfoundtohaveviolatedthetermsofhissupervisedrelease,and wassentencedto sixmonthsimprisonment.Pursuantto Guideline4A1.2(e)(1)and (k),becausedefendantwasincarceratedforhis supervisedreleaseviolationin 1995,his1989convictionisconsideredtohave occurredwithin15 yearspriorto thecommencementof theinstantoffense,whichbegannolaterthanlate2005.PursuanttoGuideline4A1.1,thedefendantisassessed3criminalhistorypointsforthisconviction;ii.OnoraboutJuly18,1997,defendantwasconvictedofconspiracytoimportandpossessheroinwiththeintenttodistributeitinviolationofTitle21,UnitedStates Code,Sections963and 846in theUnitedStatesDistrictCourt forthe Eastern Districtof NewYork andsentencedon November 7,1997, toeighteen

months

23imprisonment.PursuanttoGuideline4A1.1(a),defendantisassessed3criminalhistorypointsforthisconviction;iii.

Basedupontheabove,defendantstotalcriminalhistorypointsare6.d.AnticipatedAdvisorySentencingGuidelinesRange.Therefore,based onthe factsnowknownto thegovernment,the anticipatedadjustedoffenselevelis59, which, when combined with the anticipated criminal history category of VI, results in an anticipated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of lifeimprisonment,inadditiontoanysupervisedrelease,fine,andrestitutiontheCourtmayimpose.e.

Defendantandhis attorneysandthe governmentacknowledgethatthe aboveGuideline calculationsarepreliminaryin natureandbasedon factsknowntothe partiesasof thetime ofthis PleaAgreement.Defendantunderstandsthatthe ProbationOfficewill conductits owninvestigationand thattheCourtultimatelydeterminesthe factsandlaw relevant to sentencing,and thatthe Court's determinations governthe finalGuidelinecalculation.Accordingly,thevalidityof thisAgreementis notcontingentuponthe probationofficersor theCourt'sconcurrencewith theabove calculations, anddefendantshallnothavearighttowithdrawhispleaonthebasisoftheCourt'srejectionofthesecalculations.f.

Both parties expressly acknowledge that while none of the Guideline calculations set forth above are binding on the Court or the Probation Office, thepartieshaveagreedpursuanttoFed.R.Crim.P.11(c)(1)(B)thatcertaincomponentsofthosecalculations24

specifically,thosesetforthaboveinsubparagraphsa,bandcofthisparagrapharebinding on the parties, and it shall be a breach of this Plea Agreement for either party to present or advocate a position inconsistent with the agreedcalculationssetforthintheidentifiedsubparagraphs.

ormedinMumbai.DefendantfurtheradvisedRANA abouthismeetingwithco-conspiratorsandtheirreactiontohissurveillancework.FollowingdefendantsreturntoPakistan,defendantwasinstructedtoreturntoMumbai.InoraroundSeptember2007,defendant

returnedtoMumbaiandconductedadditionalsurveillance,asinstructed. AfterreturningtoPakistan,defendantagainmetwithvariousco-conspirators.InoraboutMarch2008,defendantmetwithcoconspiratorsinPakistananddiscussedpotentiallandingsitesinMumbaiforateamofattackersthatwouldarrivebysea.Followingthisdiscussion,defendantwasorderedtoreturntoMumbaitoperformadditional

surveillanceandlocatepossiblelandingsites.Inoraround April2008,defendantreturnedtoMumbaiwithaglobalpositioningsystemdeviceandperformedthesurveillance,includingtakingboattripsinandaroundtheMumbaiharborandenteringlocationsintheGPSdevice.

AfterreturningtoPakistan,defendantagainmetvariousco-conspirators,and,amongotherthings,advisedthemofhisrecommendations

astopotentiallandingsites.Duringthesemeetings,defendantlearnedthatattackplanswerebeingdelayed,inpart,towaitforwhentheseawascalmer.

Ataroundtheendof April2008,defendanttraveledtotheUnitedStatesforaboutsixweeks.OverthecourseofafewdaysinoraroundtheendofMay2008,defendantmetwithco-defendantRANA inChicago.DefendantrelatedtoRANA thelanding

ideasand,inparticular,theideaofoneco-conspiratorthattheteamofattackerslandinfrontofthe TajMahalHotel.DefendantinformedRANAthattheattackplanswerebeingdelayed,inpart,towaitforcalmerwaters.DuringdiscussionsoverthecourseofapproximatelyfivedaysinoraroundMay2008,defendantalsoadvisedRANA ofthesurveillancethathehadconductedinotherlocationsinIndia.Further,defendantinformedRANAoftherequestbyoneco-conspiratorfordefendanttoconductadditionalsurveillanceactivitiesinDelhi,anddiscussed


7/11

g. Defendant understands that with the exception of the Guideline provisions identified above as binding on the parties, the Guideline calculations setforthaboveare non-bindingpredictions,uponwhichneitherpartyis entitledto rely,andare notgovernedbyFed.R.Crim.P.11(c)(1)(B).Errorsin applyingorinterpreting any of the Sentencing Guidelines (other than those identified above as binding) may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing. Thepartiesmaycorrecttheseerrorseither bystipulationor bya statementto theProbationOfficeor theCourt, settingforth thedisagreementregardingtheapplicableprovisionsoftheGuidelines.ThevalidityofthisPleaAgreementwillnotbeaffectedbysuchcorrections,anddefendantshallnothavearighttowithdrawhisplea,northegovernmenttherighttovacatethisPleaAgreement,onthebasisofsuchcorrections.

Cooperation12.Defendantagreeshe willfullyand truthfully cooperateinany matterinwhichhe iscalleduponto cooperatebya representativeof theUnitedStates

Attorney'sOfficefor theNorthernDistrictof Illinois. Thiscooperation shallincludeprovidingcomplete andtruthfulinformationin anyinvestigationandpre-trial preparation and complete and truthful testimony in any criminal, civil or administrative proceeding in the United States, including anyproceedingbeforeamilitarytribunalorcommission.Defendantagreesthat,when

25directedbytheUnitedStatesAttorneysOffice,hewillfullyandtruthfullyparticipateinanydebriefingsforthe purposeof gatheringintelligenceor nationalsecurityinformation.Defendantfurtheragreesthat,when directedby theUnitedStatesAttorneysOffice,he willfullyand truthfullytestifyinany foreignjudicialproceedingsheldin theUnitedStatesbyway ofdeposition,videoconferencingorlettersrogatory.Defendantagreesto thepostponementofhissentencinguntilaftertheconclusionofhiscooperation.AgreementsRelatingtoSentencing

13.Atthetime ofsentencing,the governmentshallmakeknownto thesentencingjudgetheextentof defendant'scooperation.Ifthegovernmentdeterminesthat defendant has continued to provide full and truthful cooperation as required by this plea agreement, then the government shall move the Court,pursuant to Guideline 5Kl.l, to depart downward from the applicable Guideline range. Defendant understands that the decision to depart from theapplicable guidelines range rests solely with the Court. Defendant further understands that the government reserves the right to make whateverrecommendationit deemsappropriateregardingtheextentofanydownwarddeparture.

14.Ifthe governmentdoesnot movethe Court,pursuantto SentencingGuideline5K1.1,to departfromtheapplicableGuidelinerange,as setforthabove,thepreceding paragraph of this plea agreement will be inoperative, both parties shall be free to recommend any sentence, and the Court shall impose asentencetaking intoconsiderationthe factors setforth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)as wellas theSentencingGuidelineswithout anydownwarddeparture forcooperationpursuantto5K1.1.Defendantmaynotwithdrawhispleaof26

guiltybecausethegovernmenthasfailedtomakeamotionpursuanttoSentencingGuideline

5K1.1.15.It is understood by the parties that the sentencing judge is neither a party to nor bound by this Plea Agreement and may impose a sentence up to themaximumpenaltiesas setforthabove. Defendantfurtheracknowledgesthatif theCourtdoes notacceptthe sentencingrecommendationofthe parties,

defendantwillhavenorighttowithdrawhisguiltyplea.16.Defendantagreesto paythe specialassessmentof $1200at thetime of sentencingwitha cashierscheckormoneyorderpayableto theClerkof theU.S.DistrictCourt.17.Defendant agrees that the United States may enforce collection of any fine or restitution imposed in this case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,

Sections3572,3613,and3664(m),notwithstandinganypaymentschedulesetby theCourt.AcknowledgmentsandWaiversRegardingPleaofGuiltyNatureofPleaAgreement2718.ThisPleaAgreementisentirelyvoluntaryandrepresentstheentireagreementbetweentheUnitedStatesAttorneyanddefendantregardingdefendant'scriminalliabilityin case09CR830.

19.ThisPleaAgreementconcernscriminalliabilityonly.ExceptasexpresslysetforthinthisAgreement,nothinghereinshallconstitutealimitation,waiverorreleaseby theUnitedStatesorany ofits agenciesof anyadministrativeorjudicialcivilclaim,demandor causeofactionit mayhaveagainstdefendantorany otherperson orentity.The obligationsofthisAgreementarelimited tothe UnitedStatesAttorney'sOffice fortheNorthernDistrictof Illinois andcannotbindanyotherfederal,stateorlocalprosecuting,administrativeor regulatoryauthorities,exceptasexpresslysetforthinthisAgreement.WaiverofRights20.Defendantunderstandsthatbypleadingguiltyhesurrenderscertainrights,includingthefollowing:

a.Trialrights.Defendanthastherighttopersistinapleaofnotguiltytothechargesagainsthim,andifhedoes,hewouldhavetherighttoapublicandspeedytrial.i.The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge sitting without a jury. Defendant has a right to a jury trial. However, in order that the trial be

conductedby thejudgesittingwithouta jury,defendant,the government,and thejudgeall mustagreethat thetrial beconductedby thejudgewithoutajury.28ii.Ifthetrialisajurytrial,thejurywouldbecomposedoftwelvecitizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court removeprospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising

peremptorychallenges.iii.Ifthe trial isa jurytrial,thejurywouldbeinstructed that defendantis presumedinnocent,that thegovernmenthastheburdenof provingdefendantguilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond areasonabledoubtand thatit wasto considereach countof theSupersedingIndictmentseparately. Thejury wouldhaveto agreeunanimouslyas toeachcountbeforeitcouldreturnaverdictofguiltyornotguiltyastothatcount.iv.

If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering each countseparately,whetherornot thejudgewaspersuadedthatthegovernmenthadestablisheddefendant'sguiltbeyonda reasonabledoubt.v.Ata trial,whetherby ajury ora judge,the governmentwouldbe requiredto presentits witnessesandotherevidenceagainstdefendant.Defendantwouldbeableto confrontthosegovernmentwitnessesandhisattorneywouldbeabletocross-examinethem.

29vi.Atatrial,defendantcouldpresentwitnessesandotherevidenceinhisown behalf.If thewitnessesfordefendantwouldnotappearvoluntarily,he couldrequiretheirattendancethroughthesubpoenapoweroftheCourt.Adefendantisnotrequiredtopresentanyevidence.vii.Ata trial,defendantwouldhave aprivilegeagainstself-incriminationso thathe coulddeclinetotestify,andno inferenceof guiltcouldbe drawnfromhis

refusaltotestify.Ifdefendantdesiredtodoso,hecouldtestifyinhisownbehalf.b.Waiver of appellate and collateral rights. Defendant further understands he is waiving all appellate issues that might have been available if he hadexercised his right to trial. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, afford adefendant the right to appeal his conviction and the sentence imposed. Acknowledging this, if the government makes a motion at sentencing for adownwarddeparturepursuantto SentencingGuideline 5K1.1, defendantknowinglywaives therightto appealhisconviction,any pre-trialrulingsby the

Court, and any part of the sentence (or the manner in which that sentence was determined), including any term of imprisonment and fine within themaximums provided by law, and includingany order of restitution or forfeiture, in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this PleaAgreement.Defendantalso waiveshisrightto challengehis convictionandsentence,andthe mannerinwhichthe sentencewas determined,and(in anycasein whichthe termof imprisonmentandfine arewithin themaximumsprovidedby statute)his attorney'sallegedfailureor refusal tofile a noticeofappeal,inanycollateral30

attackorfuturechallenge,includingbutnotlimitedtoamotionbroughtunderTitle28,UnitedStatesCode, Section 2255.The waiverin thisparagraphdoesnot applyto a claimof involuntariness,or ineffectiveassistance of counsel, whichrelatesdirectlytothiswaiverortoitsnegotiation,nordoesitprohibitdefendantfromseekingareductionofsentencebaseddirectlyonachangeinthelawthatisapplicabletodefendantandthat, priortothe filingofdefendantsrequestfor relief,hasbeenexpresslymaderetroactiveby anAct ofCongress,the

openinganofficeforFirstWorldImmigrationinDelhiascoverforSuchactivities.

AfterreturningtoPakistan,defendantmetwithvariousco-conspiratorsandreceivedinstructionstoreturntoMumbaiandconductsurveillanceofvariouslocations.InoraroundJuly2008,defendantret

urnedtoMumbaiandconductedextensivevideosurveillanceofvarioustargets,includingbutnotlimitedtotheTajMahalHotel,theOberoiHotel,theChabadHouse,theChhatrapatiShivaji Terminustrainstation,theLeopoldCaf,aswellaspotentiallandingsitesfortheteamofattackers.Afterthistrip,defendantagainmetseveraltimesinPakistanwithvariousco-conspiratorsandprovidedthemwiththevideo

recordingsanddiscussedthesurveillancehehadconducted.Inadditiontothesemeetings,defendantmetwithLashkarmemberAonseveraloccasionsandatseverallocations.LashkarmemberAadviseddefendantofanumberofdetailsconcerningtheplannedattacks,includingthatateamofattackerswasbeingtrainedinavarietyofcombatskills,theteamwouldbetravelingtoMumbaibyseaandusingthe

landingsiterecommendedbythedefendant,theteamwouldbefightingtothedeathandwouldnotattempttoescapefollowingtheattacks,theChhatrapatiShivaji Terminuswouldbeonetarget,andtheteamwouldbeusingaGPSdeviceandremainintelephoniccontactwithLashkarmemberAduringtheattacks.

InlateNovember2008,tenco-

conspiratorstrainedbyLashkare Tayyibacarriedoutassaultswithfirearms,grenadesandimprovisedexplosivedevicesagainstmultipletargetsinMumbai,India,includingattacksonthe TajMahalhotel;theOberoihotel;theLeopoldCafe;theNarimanHouseandtheChhatrapatiShivaji Terminustrainstation,killingapproximately164peopleandwoundinghundredsmore.

Inadditiontothesurveillanceperformedonthefiveseparatetripsdescribedabove,defendanttraveledtoIndiainoraboutMarch2009toconductad

TheMumbaiAttacks

OtherSurveillanceinIndia


8/11

SupremeCourt,or theUnitedStatesSentencingCommission.c.Defendantunderstandsthatby pleadingguilty heis waivingallthe rightssetforth inthe priorparagraphs.Defendant'sattorneyshaveexplainedthoserightstohim,andtheconsequencesofhiswaiverofthoserights.21.By enteringthis pleaof guilty, defendantalso waivesanyand allrightthe defendantmay have,pursuantto 18U.S.C.3600,to require DNAtestingof anyphysicalevidencein thepossessionof theGovernment.Defendantfullyunderstandsthat, asa resultofthis waiver, anyphysicalevidence inthis casewillnotbepreservedbytheGovernmentandwillthereforenotbeavailableforDNAtestinginthefuture.

PresentenceInvestigationReport/Post-SentenceSupervision22. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney's Office in its submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at

sentencingshallfullyapprisetheDistrictCourtandtheProbationOfficeofthenature,scopeandextentof31defendant'sconductregardingthechargesagainsthim,andrelatedmatters.Thegovernment

willmakeknownallmattersinaggravationandmitigationrelevanttosentencing,includingthenatureandextentofdefendant'scooperation.23.Defendantagreesto truthfullyand completelyexecutea Financial Statement(with supportingdocumentation)priorto sentencing,to be providedto andshared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorneys Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including hisrecent income tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that providing false or incomplete information, or refusing toprovidethis information,maybe usedasa basisfordenialof areductionforacceptanceof responsibilitypursuanttoGuideline3E1.1andenhancementof

his sentence for obstruction of justice under Guideline 3C1.1, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 or as acontemptoftheCourt.24.For the purpose of monitoring defendant's compliance with his obligations to pay a fine during any term of supervised release to which defendant issentenced,defendantfurtherconsentstothe disclosurebythe IRSto theProbationOfficeandthe UnitedStatesAttorneysOffice ofdefendant'sindividualincometaxreturns(togetherwithextensions,correspondence,andothertax information)filedsubsequenttodefendant'ssentencing,toand includingthe

finalyearof anyperiodof supervisedreleaseto whichdefendantis sentenced.Defendantalso agreesthata certifiedcopy ofthis PleaAgreementshallbesufficientevidenceof defendant'srequestto theIRS todisclosethe returns andreturninformation,as providedfor inTitle 26,UnitedStatesCode,Section6103(b).32OtherTerms25.

Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney s Office in collecting any unpaid fine for which defendant is liable, including providing

financialstatementsandsupportingrecordsasrequestedbytheUnitedStatesAttorneysOffice.26.Shoulddefendantengage in additionalcriminalactivityafter he haspled guiltybutprior to sentencing,defendantshall beconsideredto havebreachedthispleaagreement,andthegovernmentatitsoptionmayvoidthisPleaAgreement.

Conclusion27.DefendantunderstandsthatthisPleaAgreementwillbefiledwiththeCourt,willbecomeamatterofpublicrecordandmaybedisclosedtoanyperson.28.Defendantunderstandsthathiscompliancewitheachpartof thisPleaAgreementextendsthroughouttheperiodof hissentence,andfailureto abidebyanytermof theAgreementis a violation of theAgreement.Defendantfurtherunderstandsthatin theevent he violatesthisAgreement,the government,at its

option,maymoveto vacatetheAgreement,renderingit null andvoid, andthereafterprosecute defendantnotsubjectto anyofthe limitssetforthin thisAgreement,or maymove toresentence defendantor requiredefendantsspecificperformanceof thisAgreement.DefendantunderstandsandagreesthatintheeventthattheCourtpermitsdefendanttowithdrawfromthisAgreement,ordefendantbreachesanyofitstermsandthegovernmentelectstovoidtheAgreementand prosecutedefendant,any prosecutionsthatare nottime-barredby theapplicablestatuteof limitationson thedate of thesigningof thisAgreementmaybecommencedagainstdefendantin33

accordancewiththisparagraph,notwithstandingtheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitationsbetweenthesigningofthisAgreementandthecommencementofsuchprosecutions.29.Shouldthejudgerefusetoacceptdefendant'spleaofguilty,thisPleaAgreementshallbecomenullandvoidandneitherpartywillbe boundthereto.30.Defendant and his attorneys acknowledge that no threats,promises, or representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set

forthinthisPleaAgreementtocausedefendanttopleadguilty.3431.Defendantacknowledgesthathe hasreadthis PleaAgreementandcarefullyreviewedeach provisionwithhis attorneys.DefendantfurtheracknowledgesthatheunderstandsandvoluntarilyacceptseachandeverytermandconditionofthisAgreement.

AGREEDTHISDATE:_____________________PATRICKJ.FITZGERALDDAVIDCOLEMANHEADLEYUnitedStatesAttorneyDefendant

ditionalsurveillance. Amongotherlocations,defendantconductedsurveillanceoftheNationalDefenseCollegeinDelhi,India,andofChabadHousesinseveralcitiesinIndia.Beginningnolaterthaninoraboutlate2005,andcontinuingthroughonoraboutOctober3,2009,atChicagoandelsewherewithinandwithoutthejurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,defendantconspiredwithLashkarMembers A,B,C,andD,andothers,tocommitactsoutsidetheUnitedStatesthatwouldconstitutetheoffensesofmurderandmaimingifcommittedinthespecialmaritimeandterritorialjurisdictionoftheUnitedStates,namely,murderandmaiminginconnectionwith

attackscarriedoutbyLashkarinIndia.Onoraboutthedateslistedbelow,defendantaidedandabettedthemurdersinMumbai,IndiaofthefollowingUnitedStatesnationals:BenZionChroman(November26,2008),GavrielHoltzberg(November27,2008),SandeepJeswani(November26,2008),

AlanScherr(November26,2008),NaomiScherr

(November26,2008)andAryehLeibish Teitelbaum(November27,2008).Beginningnolaterthaninoraboutlate2005,andcontinuingthroughonoraboutOctober3,2009,defendantconspiredwithRANAandotherstoprovidematerialsupportorresources,andtoconcealanddisguisethenature,location,sourceandownershipofsuchsupportandresources,knowingandintending

thattheyweretobeusedinthepreparationfor,andincarryingout,violationsof Title18,UnitedStatesCode,Section2332fand956(a)(1).Morespecifically,defendantprovidedpersonnel,namelyhimself,whenheworkedunderthedirectionandcontrolofmembersofLashkare TayyibatoprepareforcarryingouttheNovember2008attacksinMumbai.

UShasletdownIndiabadly

Allgovernmentsindulgeinspin.Oneshouldnot,therefore,blamethegovernmentofDrManmohanSingh[ ]forindulginginspininthecaseofDavidColemanHeadley,oftheChicagocelloftheLashkar-e-Tayiba[ ],andfortryingtomisleadthehaplessIndianpublicwiththehelpofobligingjournaliststhatthepleabargainenteredintobytheFederalBureauofInvestigationwithHeadleywasnotasetback,butagreattriumphforIndiandiplomacy.

WemightnothavesucceededingettinghimextraditedintheMumbai[]26/11case,saysUnionHomeSecretaryGKPillaibravely,but

theoptionofgettinghimextraditedinothercasesisstillopen.Whatothercases?Wewillkeeptrying,saysUnionHomeMinisterPChidambaram[ ].And,inthemeanwhile,moreIndianswillkeepdyingatthehandsoftheterrorists.

Images

Images

Images

Images


9/11

'FourReasonsWhyIndiaisSmiling'saysTheTimesofIndia[ ].WhyIndiaissmilingaccordingtothewhizkidsoftheTOI?ForthefirsttimeLeT's

linkswiththeAlQaeda[ ]beingunderscoredinaUnitedStatescourt.Ohreally?ThefirsttimeaclandestinecelloftheLeTwasdetectedintheUSwasin2003whenGeorgeBush[ ]wasthePresident.TheFBIarrestedanumberofAmericannationalsofPakistani,SaudiandotheroriginandchargedthemwithwagingwaragainstIndiafromUSterritory.

WhatisthesecondreasonforIndia'ssmilevisibleonlytotheTOIandnottomanyofus?"Thethreatofexecutionwillhangoverhim."Ohreally?Under

theUSlawoncetheFBIrenouncesitsrighttodemanddeathpenaltyina

case,itcannotgobackonitscommitmentwhateverbethenewevidence.

Whatisthethirdreasonforthesmile?IndiacaninterrogateHeadleyevenifheisnotextradited.AnothergemfromtheTOI.Interrogationisdonein

yourcustody.Otherwise,itismeaningless.Yes,underthepleabargain

IndianinvestigatorscanquestionhiminFBI'scustody.TheFBIofficerwill

decidetherelevanceofthequestions.

WhatisthefourthreasonforIndia'ssmilesovisibletotheTOI?India's

caseagainsttheLeThasbecomestronger.Sowhat?WillIndiabeableto

getHafizMohammadSaeed,thefounderoftheLeT,arrestedandprosecuted

byPakistan?WillIndiabeabletoseethatPakistandismantlestheLeT

infrastructureinPakistaniterritory?WillIndiabeabletopreventanother

26/11?ThenofwhatuseIndia'scaseagainsttheLeTbecomingstronger?

TheHindu,anothernationalotherdaily,hascomeoutwithitsowngem.

"Barringdeathpenaltyenthusiasts,noonehasanyreasontobemoanthe

pleaagreement,"itsays

Images

Images

Images

TheDeathPenaltyDEFENDANThasbeencooperatingwiththe

Governmentsincethetimeofhisarreston

October3,2009,andtodatehasprovided

substantialassistancetothecriminal

investigation,andalsohasprovided

informationofsignificantintelligencevalue.

Inaddition,asprovidedforinParagraph12of

thisPleaAgreement,thedefendanthas

agreedtofullyandtruthfullycooperate

infurtherproceedings.Inlightofdefendants

pastcooperationandexpectedfuture

cooperation,andalltheotherrelevant

factorsbeingconsidered,theAttorney

GeneraloftheUnitedStateshasauthorized

theUSAttorneyfortheNorthernDistrict

ofIllinoistonotseekthedeathpenalty

againstdefendant.Defendantunderstands

thatifheshouldbreachthis

cooperationagreementandifthe

government,atitssolediscretion,voidssuchagreement,thegovernmentwillnolongerbe

boundbyitsdecisionnottoseekthedeath

penalty.

PursuanttoArticle6oftheExtraditionTreaty

BetweentheUnitedStatesandtheRepublic

ofIndia,Article7oftheExtraditionTreaty

between

theUnitedStatesandtheKingdomof

Denmark,andArticle4oftheExtradition

TreatybetweentheUnitedStatesandIslamic

RepublicofPakistan,defendantshallnotbe

extraditedtotheRepublicofIndia,the

Kingdom

ofDenmark,ortheIslamicRepublicofPakistan,respectively,foranyoffensesfor

whichhehasbeenconvictedinaccordance

withthisplea.

Extradition


10/11

Butithasgotnothingtodowithdeath

penalty.Ithasgoteverythingtodo

withPakistan'scontinueduseofthe

LeTtokillhundredsofinnocent

Indians.

Ourinvestigationinto26/11runson

twoparalleltracks--the

responsibilityoftheLeT,whichthe

Pakistanisprojectasanon-state

actorwithwhichthestateofPakistan

hasnothingtodo.WhattheUShas

soughttoachievethroughthe

choreographedpleabargainisthat

whileIndiawillbeabletohighlight

theresponsibilityoftheLeT,itwillnot

beabletoestablishtheresponsibility

ofthestateofPakistan.TheObama[

]administrationwantsthe

worldtoperceive26/11asthecrime

ofanon-stateactorasclaimedby

Pakistanandnotthecrimeofthe

stateofPakistan.Thatistherealissuehere.WhatdidHeadleyknow

accordingtotheFBI'sowncourt

affidavits?

Heknewchiefoperationalchiefof

Harkat-ul-JihadiIslamiIlyasKashmiri

ofthe313Brigade,whoisclosetoAl

QaedachiefOsamabinLaden[

]andwhorecentlythreatened

toattacktheIndianPremierLeague[

]cricketmatchesandthe

CommonwealthGames[ ] .

HeadleyhadmethiminNorth

Waziristaninthebeginningof2009.Heknewmanyoffice-bearersofthe

LeTwhoseidentitiestheFBIhasnot

revealed.Heknewmanyservingand

retiredofficersofthePakistanArmy[

].

Theidentitiesofthemanycontactshe

madeinIndiaduringhisrepeated

visits.Theidentitiesofthesleeper

cellsoftheLeT,whichhavenotyet

cometothenoticeoftheIndian

investigators.IftheFBIhadallowedustoquestionHeadleyintime,we

mighthavebeenabletopreventthe

PuneblastofFebruary13ifithad

beenplannedbytheLeToritsIndian

associates.TheFBIhadseentoitthat

wewillnotbeabletofindoutallthis

byindependentlyinterrogating

Headley.Itisagreattragedyand

speakseloquentlyofthedecayofour

senseofnationalself-respectthat

insteadofhavingthespinetostand

uptotheUSandprotestloudand

clearovertheFBI'sshuttingout

accesstoHeadley,weareindulgingin

morespinstoprojectwhathas

happenedasatriumphforIndo-US

cooperationoverwhichweshould

smileandnotcry.

Images

Images

Images

Images

Images

Whathemustbeknowing?

SOONafterDavidColemanHeadleywasbornintheUS,hisparentsmovedtoLahore.Themarriage

souredasSayedGilaniturnedadevoutMuslimandSerrillHeadleyrefusedtosubmitherselfto

Islamictraditions.SheleftfortheUSwithoutDavidandSyedah,herinfantdaughter.Intheearly'70s,

SerrillworkedinofficesanddatedwealthymeninPhiladelphia.Oneofthemlenthermoneytobuyan

oldbar.Sherenovatedit,nameditKhyberPassanddecorateditwithAfghantents.Itservedexotic

beer.In1977,SerrillvisitedPakistanaftergettingDavid'scustody.ShepulledhimoutofHasanAbdal

CadetCollegeinIslamabadandtookhimtotheUS."AfterwatchingAmericanTV,hetoldhismotherin

hissoftUrdu-EnglishthatsheappearstohimastheBionicWoman,"ThePhiladelphiaInquirersaid

aboutDavid.Theyoungmanrebelledagainsthismother'sheavydrinkingandmultiplesexual

relationshipsbyfollowinginherfootsteps.Hestartedexpressingangeratallnon-Muslims.Anex-

employeeofhismother'spubsaidHeadleykepttalkingaboutareturntothe14thcenturyandthat

Islamwouldtakeovertheworld.In1985,hismotherputhiminchargeofKhyberPass,buthispoor

managementskillsledtothepubsufferingheavylosses.Whilehismothermarriedathirdtime,

HeadleyleftforNewYorkandopenedtwovideorentalstoresinManhattan.In1998,hewasconvicted

ofconspiringtosmuggleheroinintotheUSfromPakistan.Heprovidedsomuchinformationthathe

gotofflightly.In2005,theLeTadvisedHeadleytotraveltoIndiatoreccepotentialtargets.In2006,he

movedwithhisPakistaniwifeandchildrentoChicagobecauseithadasizeableMuslimcommunity.

HeadleyreportedlystartedworkingforTahawwurHussainRana'sFirstWorldImmigrationServices.

Aftertheirarrest,RanaandHeadleywereinitiallychargedwithplottinganattackonJyllands-Posten,

theDanishnewspaperwhosecartoonsoutragedtheMuslimworld.TheFBIalsoaccusedHeadleyof

plottingthe26/11Mumbaiattack

CRADLE-TO-JAILSAGAOFHEADLEY


11/11

TheObamaadministrationhasbeenrepeatedlykickingusintheback.ItdidsoinrespectofAfghanistan.Ithasdonesoinrespectof

Headley.InsteadofhavingthecourageandintellectualhonestytoadmittoourpeoplethatwehavebeenletdownnastilybytheUS,we

areindulginginmorespinstoprojectthekicksas,infact,bouquetsfromObamawithlove.

DearDrManmohanSingh,DearChidambaram,DearPillai,anddearjournalistsoftheHinduandTOI:SomeweeksagoMullaBaradar,

supposedlyNo2intheAfghanTaliban[ ],wasarrestedbytheInterServicesIntelligenceinKarachi.HeisintheISI'scustody.The

USandAfghanintelligencewantedindependentaccesstohimforinterrogation.

TheISIrefusedandtoldthemhecouldbequestionedintheISI'scustody.TheUSinsistedonindependentaccessandwarnedPakistanof

thelikelyconsequencesifitdidnotagreetoit.Thisweek'sreportssaythatPakistanhasbeenforcedtoallowindependentaccesstothe

Americans.

Thatisthewayaself-respectingnationprotectsitsinterestsandnationals.FortheUS,independentinterrogationofBaradarwas

necessarytoholdthoseresponsibleforAmericandeathsinthepastaccountableandtopreventmoredeathsinfuture.Itinsistedonit

andhaditsway.

IndiaisnottheUS.ThecloutwhichithasoverPakistanwedonothaveanywhereintheworld.Atleastwecouldhavehadthecourageto

protest--loudlyandopenly--insteadofprojectingeverystabinthebackbyObamaasakissintheback.

Images

nviews headley

Documents