Mumbai attack accused Tahawwur Rana opposes extradition to India

Pakistaniorigin Canadian businessman Tahawwur Rana a key accused in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack has opposed his extradition to India arguing that he has previously been acquitted of the offences for which his extradition is soughtRana 59 a childhood friend of David Coleman Headley was rearrested on June 10 in Los Angeles on an extradition request by India for his involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack in which 166 people including six Americans were killed He has been declared a fugitive by IndiaPakistaniAmerican LashkareTaiba LeT terrorist Headley was involved in plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack He was made an approver in the case and is currently serving a 35year prison term in the US for his role in the attackThe motion in opposition of Ranas extradition was filed by his attornies early this week before the US District Court Judge in Los Angeles Jacqueline ChelonianRanas extradition is barred under Article 6 of the United StatesIndia extradition treaty with India because he has previously been acquitted of the offences for which extradition is sought and under Article 9 of the Treaty because the government has not established a probable cause to believe that Rana committed the alleged offences his attorneys arguedThe US government which is supporting his extradition expected to file its motion soonThis is the rarest of cases the government seeks to extradite Tahawwur Rana to India to face the death penalty based on alleged criminal conduct for which an American jury acquitted him Ranas attorneys saidThe US government seeks to accomplish this inequitable result by reading double jeopardy provision of the extradition treaty contrary to its text to international and Indian law to the interpretation the government gave that provision in its plea agreement with Ranas alleged coconspirator David Headley and even to United States double jeopardy principles they saidThe government relies for its required showing of probable cause on the very witness Headley whose testimony the American jury rejected The court should dismiss the extradition complaint and deny the request for extradition they arguedRana was previously prosecuted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois He was charged with conspiring to provide material support to terrorism in IndiaThe motion also argues that the US government has failed to establish probable cause to believe that Rana committed the crimes charged in IndiaIt says that the US government relies for its probable cause showing almost entirely on Headleys directexamination testimony and other evidence from the Illinois trial at which Rana was acquitted on Indiarelated chargesThe governments theory has two essential pillars One that Headley told Rana he was working with LeT including in preparation for the Mumbai attack and secondly that Rana furthered Headleys efforts on LeTs behalf by for example opening the Mumbai office of Immigrant Law Center to provide cover for Headleys surveillance of potential attack sites and helping Headley obtain a business visa for India through the submission of false documentsHis attorneys claim that Headley lied to Rana about his true plans in MumbaiHe then brazenly lied to his handler in Pakistan telling Major Iqbal he was using the USD 25000 to pay for the office when in fact Rana was paying for it to con the Pakistanis out of thousands of dollars the motion saysGiving several examples the motion to oppose extradition says that the governments probable cause rests on Headleys uncorroborated and at times demonstrably false testimonyThe Illinois jury rejected that testimony The government nonetheless insists that the court must accept Headleys testimony at face value without any inquiry concerning his credibility it saysIt would be no less of an unthinkable imposition on this courts duty to determine independently whether probable cause supports Ranas extradition if the court had to swallow uncritically Headleys false testimony it saidProbable cause may not be a stringent standard but it requires something more than the sayso of a twiceconvicted drug dealer and conman who has repeatedly and admittedly lied to judges prosecutors federal agents his own family and anyone else necessary to get what he wanted particularly because what he wanted here was of utmost importance to him to avoid a death sentence in the United States and his own extradition to India where he would surely face execution his lawyers addedThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever