The Adiala 11
Cyril Almeida | Opinion | From the Newspaper10 hours ago

STATES sometimes dispose of their citizens. Abduct them, torture them, kill them. All states have done it at some point or the other in their history.

Many states still do it and some with more impunity than others. When Bashar al-Assad recently told Barbara Walters, “We don’t kill our people … no government in the world kills its people, unless it’s led by a crazy person,” you may have snickered and called Assad crazy.

But Assad isn’t crazy — or any crazier than you have to be to run an Arab hereditary dictatorship — he’s killing his people because he wants to extend his rule. Quite likely, Assad genuinely believes that were it not for his leadership and policies, Syria would suffer great harm.

That’s usually why states kill their own people: they do it for the sake of what they believe to be the collective good. Yes, sometimes there really is a madman involved and he kills because he likes and wants to. The macabre equivalent of, just because.

For the most part, there aren’t madmen in the Pakistani state apparatus. But there are killers. They need to be stopped. Not because one day they might kill you, me or the lot of us but because we don’t want to live in a country where the state disposes of any of its citizens.

A clandestine judge, jury and executioner working in the recesses of the state is inimical to all things good that a state ought to be aspiring to in the 21st century. If that sounds like weak-kneed moralism, so be it.

I think it’s safe to say that most of us would rather be on the side of Tom Cruise’s character in A few good men than Jack Nicholson’s Col Jessep. “You want answers?” “I think I’m entitled to them.” “You want answers?” “I want the truth!” “You can’t handle the truth!”

Actually, we can handle the truth.

Eleven men were scooped up by the ISI after being set free by the courts. The army believes they weren’t just terrorists but a very special category of terrorists: those who have directly targeted security installations and personnel.

History suggests nothing quite earns the ire of ‘security agencies’ like targeting them deliberately and wilfully. So now we have an implicit justification for the miserable fate of the Adiala 11, courtesy an unnamed ‘security official’ via an official news
service:

“Sympathisers of terrorists have forgotten the miseries of those 28 innocent families who suffered the loss of their loved ones in Hamza Camp attack in which these 11 detainees were arrested. Media should reach out to those families of victims who embraced shahadat at the hands of these Adiala Jail detainees.”

Four of the Adiala 11 are dead, probably through a combination of starvation and beatings, and the other seven are in a condition so miserable that decent people were horrified at the sight of their broken, barely alive bodies.

But our unnamed security official isn’t horrified. Instead, he’s angry and wants to know why the media doesn’t care about his comrades and the other innocent people whose bodies were turned into charred heaps after the Adiala 11 had struck.

Most modern societies have figured out that it’s probably best not to ask the victims’ comrades, friends or relatives what to do with the perpetrators. Vengeance, not justice, usually animates their response.

Which is why there is general horror at the fate of the Adiala 11. The public at large, untouched by the spirit of vengeance in the present instance, have seen the dead bodies and extreme suffering of the 11 and recoiled. This is not the kind of state they want to live in.

But our unnamed security official probably isn’t a monster either. He thinks justice is being served. The investigative, prosecutorial and judicial systems are too broken to allow the Adiala 11 to be punished for their crimes. Hence the resort to the extrajudicial.

There is, though, a streak of monstrousness at work here. The 11 could also have been disposed of in an ‘encounter’. Quick bullets to the head, ‘justice’ served. But there appears to be an intention to inflict pain, that before they pass on to the hereafter the Adiala 11 suffer for what they have done. Hence the broken, starving bodies.

The clandestine judge, jury and executioner have determined a particular kind of punishment and they are methodically enforcing it.

Merely exposing them will not prevent it from occurring again, or save the seven who are still clinging to life. The simple, unhappy reality is that public exposure is not enough to deter states from disposing of their own citizens. The law itself must become a deterrent. Do this and you will be punished.

Our unnamed security official would rail against this. Why don’t you demand that the law and the process ensure the Adiala 11 are punished for their crimes, he will ask. We are working to keep you safe from these murderers and terrorists, he will scream.
Why do you care more about terrorists than about your fellow Pakistanis, he will remonstrate.

“You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know.
That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.”

There are many Col Jesseps in the recesses of the Pakistani state.

Our unnamed security official is institutionally hardwired to argue against the obvious. But his are not either/or questions. A state which does not dispose of its own citizens — a state which does not abduct, torture and kill its own citizens — and a state that punishes terrorists and militants are not mutually exclusive goals.

If guilty, the Adiala 11, now down to seven, must be punished. But punishment cannot come at the hands of the victims’ comrades. Vengeance extracted in the name of justice is not justice; it must itself be punished.

The writer is a member of staff.

[email protected]

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/19/the-adiala-11.html

Agencies fail to provide any

Umar Cheema
Sunday, February 19, 2012

2

ISLAMABAD: As the killing of four detainees in the intelligence agencies custody and plight of the remaining seven have caught the attention of the Supreme Court, also sparking debate in the media, a story ran through the official news agency (APP) has tried to establish the captives were found guilty of committing attacks on ISI bus near Hamza Camp, other installations, yet being portrayed innocent.

Going by the report published on Saturday, one assumes the charges are of a grave nature. However, intriguingly neither the evidences in this respect were shared with the police and prosecution for presenting before the court of law that acquitted them due to lack of evidence nor were used for trying the accused through Army Act as it hasn’t been done so far, a fact admitted by ISI-MI lawyer, Raja Irshad Ahmad. Regardless the fact that the captives under question were involved in terrorism cases or not, lack of coordination between the army/agencies and the police has resulted in acquittal of the accused in many terrorism-related cases.

Right from bus attack in front of Hamza Camp down to the killing of Lt Gen Mushtaq Baig and others, lack of cooperation marred the prosecution of cases resulting in the acquittal of the accused. In the latter case, even an investigation by Punjab’s Prosecution Department found that army/agencies not only remained at distance throughout the case, even the FIRs were registered by the police itself, instead of the army. The report also found police faking FIRs at the behest of security establishment from backdates; the captives were held in the agencies’ custody and when handed to the police, it was done without sharing evidences collected during the course of one-year long detention.

As far as the attack on bus near Hamza Camp is concerned, the police were kept away from the investigation and no evidence was shared. The FIR was registered in some backdate, and none from the Army appeared as a witness, though four officials initially showed readiness but two backed out when approached by police for the purpose and the remaining two refused court appearance.

No inquiry was ordered to determine what caused the acquittal of the Hamza Camp attack accused though a meeting was held in the Regional Police Officer’s office in April to examine the reasons. Top officials of the Prosecution department, representatives of intelligence agencies and police bosses were in attendance, insiders of that meeting told The News. According to the officials privy to the meeting, the intelligence sleuths accused the police and prosecution of badly handling the case that led to the acquittal of the accused. The police instead put the blame on intelligence agencies. Officials from the New Town Police Station in whose jurisdiction the incident occurred told the meeting that they were kept out of the loop. The accused subsequently secured acquittal from the Anti-Terrorism Court for want of evidence.

An explosives-laden van had hit a bus packed with security personnel at the gate of Hamza Camp (old Ojhri Camp) near Faizabad, killing 17 persons and injuring 35 others, on the morning of November 24, 2007. As the incident occurred and police reached the spot, even the then SSP (Operation) Yasin Farooq was not allowed to visit the crime scene that was hosed down within hours, the relevant officials told the meeting in the presence of intelligence sleuths. The wreckage of vehicle was removed and the police were told to leave the place.

The intelligence officials had an application registered with the police station about the incident, only four months after the incident. As a result, a Joint Interrogation Team was formed four months later but with no work as the suspects remained in the exclusive custody of intelligence personnel. The police were directed to leave blank an FIR to be filled later and it was done nine months after the incident when the six accused were handed over to the police.

Narrating how the ‘arrest by police’ of the accused was flashed in the media, an official said that the police learnt through TV tickers about the arrest of some suspects who were initially locked up in the Civil Lines Police Station. The New Town Police Station was later ordered to take them in custody and register their arrest. The media was told explosives jackets had been recovered from them as the seven suspects were found sitting together. As the issue emerged how to link them with Hamza Camp attack, the agencies offered to present their four officials as witnesses, who would testify that they had seen them running from the scene. As the police approached the would-be witnesses working in Hamza Camp, two of them flatly refused while the other two showed willingness. But one of them backed out when asked to accompany for identity parade and the other refused to appear in the court as a prosecution witness.

As nine months had already passed, the police now had the accused but neither the witnesses nor the agencies shared their findings, the meeting was told. The police even didn’t have the medico-legal reports of those killed and injured in the incident. These reports were also got prepared in the backdate from the Combined Military Hospital (CMH), the police officials told the meeting.

According to the police, they sent many reminders to the agencies for handing over the evidence. Finally, a letter was sent issuing a warning that non-provision of evidence would spoil the case for which the police could not be blamed. Again, no evidence was shared. The end result was the acquittal of the accused. This entire episode was reported in The News on July 8,2008. The ISPR was contacted with a list of questions for version that was never answered. As for the investigation into suicide attack on surgeon Lt. Gen Mushtaq Baig (Feb. 24, 2008) and the attack on bus of trainees of Armed Forces Post-Graduate Medical Institute (AFPGMI) (Feb. 4, 2008) is concerned, the faults in investigation process and subsequent fate were not different either. After the acquittal of the accused in these cases, Punjab’s Prosecution Department investigated into the reasons behind it. The inquiry said the army “neither assisted nor showed any interest in the trial of the accused.” The intelligence agencies were accused of over-stepping their mandate and also of not sharing information with the police, as the accused remained in their custody for a year though they don’t have any legal power to keep any person in detention. “The role of the complainant department (army) and the investigation agencies was deplorable,” said an inquiry report published by The News on July 7, 2010. Although the report also blamed the police and prosecution for poor performance, the army and intelligence agencies were to face major blame.

In both cases, FIRs were registered by the police through its own officials, and in the backdates when the accused were handed over by the intelligence agencies after one-year detention. The Army neither got registered the FIRs nor its officials volunteered to stand in witness box and this job too was done by the police. No one from the army represented the department in the court. “No one from any agency facilitated nor any liaison was made from any person to pursue the prosecution in the court of law.”

The report proposed action against all those responsible for negligence, no matter which department they belonged to. The action was taken against the police and prosecution officials whose role was found negligent, it remains to be known whether or not any head rolled in the army/agencies for failing in this respect. The ISPR then didn’t offer any comment to a list of 11 questions sent by The News for version. A reading of 52-page inquiry report and background discussions with officials in Lahore and Rawalpindi reveals how the law is over-stepped in the absence of any strict mechanism and the suspected terrorists manage to secure release due to internal conflicts of the department and distortion of evidence.

“Neither the complainants (army officials) appeared nor have any contact with them (police) nor any representative of department (army) ever assisted them (police) or showed any interest in the trial of the accused,” said the inquiry report quoting the statement of a police official, ASI Bostan Khan of R. A. Bazaar Police Station, who was deputed as inquiry officer. The report says: “They (army) remained aloof throughout, from the day one of the charge sheet to the accused till the conclusion of the trial.” According to the report, no police official was exclusively deputed for investigation of these two high profile cases as Bostan Khan, the investigation officer, was tasked to “pursue all the criminal cases in the courts.” The report said: “The concerned agencies didn’t exhibit any interest in the follow-up of the cases regarding prosecution…The role of the complainant department (army) and the investigation agencies was deplorable.” Nine accused, believed to have carried out the two attacks, were picked up, seven without any evidence. “Without an iota of evidence seven accused were challaned out of nine,” the report said, and the remaining two were challaned on the statements of the police officials “whose statements were recorded after a lapse of one year.” The police officials told The News the accused were handed over to them after one year, the FIRs number 75 and 114 from February diary, were reserved to be filled on the receipt of the accused and hence it was done in backdate a year later. As none from the army was ready to become witness, two police officials were listed as witnesses.

The inquiry report while confirming that the accused remained in the custody of the intelligence agencies, has also accused the spy officials of not sharing any finding with the police, only handing them the accused for trial. “It is a fact that the accused remained under probe with the agencies prior to the arrest (by police), but no positive information was passed onto the local police and thus the role played by the agencies couldn’t be availed to probe the guilt of the accused,” said the inquiry report furnished by district public prosecutor of Rawalpindi, Malik Asghar.

According to police officials, no technical evidence was handed over to police like forensics, Nadra record, mobile record, findings of polygraphic machines. They say acquiring such things is not possible without excellent personal relations with the intelligence officials as it is done only through the sweet will of the keepers of such record and there is no legal force for pressuring them. The police even don’t have free access to Nadra record as they pay Rs25 for verification of a computerised record, they say.

There is no provision in law empowering the intelligence agencies to detain any accused or keep him in custody. In case of suspicion, it can be done by keeping them in police custody and after the passage of 24-hour, the court permission is required for remand, say the police and prosecution officials.

The report besides questioning the role of Joint Interrogation Team (JIT), has also raised alarms about the agencies’ overstepping of their mandate. The JIT was headed by the then CPO, Saud Aziz and had representatives from all the agencies, the report said. It further adds: “It is a matter of great concern that no one from the members of JIT bothered to record their comments or have even meeting for this purpose. Surprisingly, the investigation was conducted by the persons who were neither vested with the powers nor were members of the JIT, hence they were unauthorised, and were incompetent to investigate and finalise the investigation.” The report further notes: “It is time to think about the behaviour of all concerned, their non-cooperative attitude and to take action against the negligent officers in such high-profile case.”

Apart from police, the report said, the prosecutor concerned was also not provided any assistance from the department concerned.” At the same time, the report has questioned the role of the prosecutor, saying it was his responsibility “to check and analyse all the flaws and defects of the investigation and that if it was not found fit for submission, he should not have forwarded it against the accused persons in the court of law.”

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=12569&Cat=13