Who is Dr. Usman and why is he constantly being released from custody?
The Pakistani people deserve an explanation as to who is Dr. Usman aka Muhammad Aqeel who has been acquitted by a Rawalpindi Anti Terrorism Court today due to “lack of evidence” in the Marriott Bombing case of 2008.
According to this report by Long War Journal, this Dr. Usman is the same Dr. Usman who led the attack on the GHQ in October 2009. At the time, Dr. Usman was the only terrorist caught alive after the rescue operation. After the operation, according to this report in The News, a committee was formed whose mandate was to investigate the GHQ attack. In November 2009, it presented its report to General Kayani. According to this report:
During the investigation, most of the information was provided by Aqeel Ahmed alias Dr Usman, the mastermind behind the attack, security sources told Online. The investigation team, comprising senior intelligence officials, was constituted by the Army chief, the sources said.
After Dr. Usman’s capture following the GHQ attack, the authorities announced that he was the mastermind of several terrorist attacks such as the attack on the Sri Lankan team, and an attack on President Musharraf. However it was never clarified that this was the same Dr. Usman who had been arrested following the Marriott bombing.
The Pakistani public deserves an explanation regarding this mysterious individual on several counts:
1. Is the Dr. Usman of the Marriott attack the same as the Dr. Usman of the GHQ attack?
2. If this is the case, then why has Dr. Usman been set free by the Rawalpindi ATC in the Marriott Bombing case and why is he not being tried for the GHQ case?
3. If this is the same Dr. Usman then why and when was he set free in the middle of the Marriott Bombing investigation?
4. Dr. Usman was allegedly being interrogated in the Special Intelligence Agency’s office in Model Town shortly before it was bombed. Is there any relation between his presence at the office and the attack on it?
5. What is the connection of Dr. Usman with the army medical store or medical corps as has been previously alleged?
6. Has the military privately made some kind of deal with Dr. Usman, securing his acquittal on the Marriott Bombing charges in exchange for information provided to the committee investigating the GHQ case?
See also this letter published in The News on October 14 2009 which asks the same questions, none of which have been answered to this date by the government:
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
If one goes back a year or so and reads local papers, one will find that the alleged mastermind of the attack on GHQ, Aqeel alias Dr Usman, had in fact been arrested by the secretariat police in October last year, for suspected involvement in the attack on the Marriott hotel. Reports published in national newspapers on Oct 25, 2008, said that an anti-terrorist court (ATC) in Rawalpindi had been told that four people had been arrested by the police in connection with the attack on the hotel. The report said that investigation officer Altaf Khattak had informed ATC Number 2 that the Secretariat police had arrested Dr Usman, Rana Ilyas, Muhammad Hameed Afzal and Tehseenullah Khan.This means that the police — otherwise much-maligned for not doing their job and generally having a very shoddy performance in such matters — were actually able to get hold of at least some people who were quite clearly terrorists. May I ask why Dr Usman, whose arrest in 2008 is part of the published record, was released? May I also ask that was, upon his release, any effort made by the authorities — civil and/or military — to keep him under surveillance? Quite clearly, had this been done, perhaps the GHQ attack could have been pre-empted.
Taimur Ahmad
Karachi
Excellent article, Rabia, and very valid questions.
The Marriott Hotel bombing episode also reminded me of Ansar Abbasi and his despicable role in the reporting of that tragedy. Here is the result of my quick search:
http://criticalppp.com/?s=marriott+islamabad+ansar+abbasi
Apparently it seems that the real power holders (military bureaucrats, i.e., GHQ and civil bureaucrats, i.e., Supreme Court of Pakistan) have agreed to persist with their double-cross approach towards the war on terror.
Dr Aqeel and other terrorists of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Sipah-e-Sahaba and Jaish-e-Muhammad etc are their key assets. Our judges and generals will do all what they can in order to protect and promote their assets. Dr Usman’s case is no different.
For readers’ benefit, here are some articles on Dr Usman:
http://criticalppp.com/?s=%22dr+usman
These kind of people deserve punishment with a huge amount
An excellent analytical approach by the author. The whole nation wants to know why such a terrorist was released. Why this double-approach during these tough times?
Half-baked measures and flaky concepts such as the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban, ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ strategic depth, have failed time and time again and the country continues to spiral downwards, creating an anarchical situation which weakens the state further while strengthening the non-state elements. It is best, therefore, that this vicious cycle is broken, and now, through a decisive long-term strategy rather than hesitant, patchwork measures, which, because they have not been thought through, carry little conviction.
Strategic depth, for example, was never a sensible idea. National security must be built on national strength, buttressed, when necessary, by traditional alliances and not through an idea that encroaches on the sovereignty of another country, which can as easily be directed against Pakistan by others seeking similar strategic depths. Besides, how can one, from the practical standpoint, fight an adversary, in our case India, from beyond our borders, without becoming dangerously dependent on the goodwill of the other state? Would it not be far better to repair and rebuild our state-to-state relationship with Afghanistan? Not only would that make it considerably easier to offset the Indian influence in Afghanistan but, given Afghanistan’s geographical imperatives, Kabul too would be far better off politically and economically developing a cooperative relationship with Pakistan.
As for the notion of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban, the Taliban are now frankly an autonomous force beyond the control and manipulation of Pakistan or, for that matter, any other country or militant umbrella group.
As long ago as 1995-96, when the Taliban were almost wholly dependant on Pakistan’s goodwill for recruits, supplies and funding, they had balked at being ordered around. And on even a matter as strategically peripheral as blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan had scornfully rejected our counsel. Perhaps that was the time for us to draw the conclusion that the Taliban mindset could as easily be directed against our civilisational values and pose as great a threat to us as they did to our adversaries. And to be fair, Benazir Bhutto saw the danger. Her antipathy to the Taliban cause was no secret and nor was their animus towards her. And she did try and gather support, but to no avail. Her counsels were rejected and her orders flouted. The prospect of Afghanistan and subsequently Central Asia being drawn into an axis of Islamic fundamentalist states centred around Kandahar and dominated by Pakistan was a prospect that was simply too alluring. When nationalism and religion combine with the personal aggrandisement of some, nothing can stand in the way and certainly not a woman.
Of course, we can continue to blame it on others and there is so much blame to spread around that attention is easily deflected. But that is hardly the answer or the requirement of the moment. To succeed today, it seems essential that first and foremost the power of the armed groups within Pakistan be broken. Without an all-out effort to do so, the terrorised population will not lend us support. They will sit on the fence as spectators, rather than players. They will be coerced to provide the enemy shelter and supplies. They will be forcibly recruited and serve as foot soldiers and once in the service of the enemy, albeit reluctantly, they become the enemy.
But defeating the extremists can only be one dimension of the strategy. The other is to seek the reintegration of rank and file elements and this is a no less challenging task. Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former combatants are concepts that the UN has pursued in many civil conflicts around the world. The idea is to wean away former combatants, including non-state elements, with the assistance of donor countries in situations where such elements have agreed to lay down arms or have been captured. We see no signs of such a policy at present.
Since Pakistan is effectively at war, the country should be brought on a war footing. That will help the public realise that sacrifices are inevitable. It cannot be business as usual. Civil-military relations, that have never been good, must be repaired and rebuilt. A united front must be forged against terrorism. Moreover, since the armed power of the extremists can only be curbed by the army, and since the army will require broad political support, the initiative for putting the country on a war footing must come from the army. The mainstream political parties undoubtedly will provide the required support and also help galvanise civil society. In this regard, the role of Punjab, where extremism is entrenched, will be crucial, which means that Punjab will have to emerge from its current mood of denial.
The challenge ahead —Zafar Hilaly
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\07\story_7-5-2010_pg3_2
From prison to house arrest. Soon they will be in action again detonating bombs in Lahore, Delhi, Peshawar or Kabul.
Four Marriott bombing accused put under house arrest
RAWALPINDI: The Punjab government on Thursday issued orders to place the main accused of the Marriot Hotel blast under house arrest. The order comes days after an Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) released Dr Usman, Tehseen Ullah, Rana Ilyas and Muhammad Hameed Afzal, the main accused of the Marriot Hotel blast due to inadequate evidence. The Punjab Home Department had issued orders to keep all the four men under house arrest for one month under Clause 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order (MPO). It was also decided that the prosecution would challenge the verdict of the ATC in the Lahore High Court. tahir rashid
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201057\story_7-5-2010_pg7_9
Perhaps the court was right in its decision, because in absence of any evidence, the court couldn’t give a verdict. But a provision can be made in case of those involved in terrorism related acts.
Good day! This is kind of off topic but I need
some guidance from an established blog. Is it difficult
to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick.
I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure where to begin.
Do you have any points or suggestions? Thanks