Earlier this week, Jang Group published a front page story by a mysterious person supposedly named ‘John S Hamilton’ that raised eyebrows as well as many questions. On Wednesday, Jang Group followed up with another story about the memo case that involves another mystery.
The latest media story from Jang Group reports that Judicial Executive Panel (JEP) has criticised Asma Jahangir for defending Husain Haqqani. A short version of the article appeared in The News and a longer version in Daily Jang. What a mystery, though, is the organization – Judicial Executive Panel (JEP). A Google search turns up exactly one reference – the article in The News. So who is this “Judicial Executive Panel (JEP)”?
According to the Urdu piece, the members of JEP are:
Muhammad Irfan
Shehansha Shumail Paracha
Muhammad Hussain
Abu Bakr Siddiq
Shafeeq Chuahan
Zahid Saadiq
Sidrah Chauhdhry
Chauhdry Ahsan
Muhammad Razzaq
Chauhdry Yasin Basheer
Muhammad Saad Shibli
Qaiser Rehman
Muhammad Qaiser Maan
Ahmed Imran Ghaazi
Chauhdry Aftab Majeed
Muhammad Rafaqat Dogar
Muhammad Khalid Arain
Sundus Gul
had presented a bill in the national assembly to make amendments in the blasphemy law (Section 295-C of PPC) and by doing so she had become disqualified under Article 62 of the constitution
The petition was dismissed.
The English medium piece for The News is one paragraph only, criticising Asma Jahangir and saying Husain Haqqani should come out and face the people if he is not guilty. In the Urdu piece for Daily Jang, though, Muhammad Azhar Siddique speaks much more strongly, terming Husain Haqqani a traitor who is hiding in the PM house and daring him to come out and face the people.
Since day one of the new year, Jang Group‘s publications have featured a steady stream of stories attacking the government, their lawyers, and even human rights activists who question whether everything to do with the curious memo case are above board and exactly as they appear. There was the unexplained front page article by a mysterious foreigner who criticised “such heinous crimes against the state”. And now mysterious legal groups headed by right-wing lawyers are appearing from thin air and being quoted by Jang Group strongly condemning people as traitors before any charges have even been brought!
All media groups make mistakes. This is not an excuse, but a reality. But when a pattern of “mistakes” begins to appear in which supposed “news” reporting takes the shape of attempts to influence the public about the proper outcome of a case, one has to ask whether there is an attempt being made to substitute a media trial for a judicial commission.
That was the question that buzzed on Twitter Tuesday as people tried to figure out the identity of the author of a front page story “Special to The News” that is supposed to be by ‘John S Hamilton’ of Woodbridge, Virginia, USA.
At first glance, the article, ‘Understanding the DNA of a BlackBerry set’ appears to be a technical look at how BlackBerry chats can be traced. But as one reads through the piece, something seems very, very off.
The first clue that something was strange was that, despite being an unknown foreigner, this ‘John S Hamilton’ was published on the front page of The News and Daily Jang with no bio or explanation of his qualifications. But that’s really the least of it.
In the second paragraph, the supposed Mr ‘John S Hamilton’ argues that the court’s ability to obtain data from Research in Motion (RIM)…
…will be the key determining factor in whether memogate is consigned to the dustbin of history or is the hammer that nails the coffin shut of those who stand accused of committing such heinous crimes against the state.
“Hammer that nails the coffin shut”? “Such heinous crimes against the state”? This struck many as odd that an American would have such emotional feelings about the case. Reuters journalist Myrae Macdonald reacted on Twitter saying “whoever wrote it needs 2b reminded to avoid giveaway phrases like “such heinous crimes”. Sloppy.” and that “hot on the heels of the Deepak Chopra interview with MI. It all looks very amateur.”
And then there’s the section of the piece supposedly by Mr ‘John S Hamilton’ that admits that even though BBM chats can be faked, nobody would do it because they would not want to get caught.
As a desperate act of last resort, is it possible that BB chat exchanges could be created, existing ones distorted or modified, or even permanently deleted from RIM servers?
Experts interviewed for this article said all were possible, but highly unlikely given the stakes of being discovered as evidence tampering.
Who are the ‘experts interviewed for this article’? This is the first and only time they are mentioned. What are their qualifications? Who are they affiliated with? And how do these experts know what behaviour is likely or unlikely? Is this opinion based on data? Or just a ‘gut’ feeling?
Fasi Zaka noticed that some of the piece by Mr ‘John S Hamilton’ was plagiarised from an article by Daniel Tencer in The Huffington Post about the use of BlackBerry in last year’s London riots.
Here’s a paragraph from the piece supposedly by ‘John S Hamilton’:
RIM’s encrypted communications have ruffled feathers, particularly in repressive governments interested in stopping unwanted political speech. Several countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, threatened to ban BlackBerry services altogether if RIM didn’t give them access to BB chat exchanges, ostensibly for “counter-terrorism purposes”.
RIM’s encrypted communications have ruffled more than a few feathers around the world, particularly among repressive governments interested in suppressing unwanted political speech.
Several countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, threatened to ban the BlackBerry if RIM didn’t give them access to BlackBerry messages. RIM reportedly agreed to provide access.
We could not help but be reminded of a previous instance in which Jang ‘Editor Special Reporting’ Muhammad Saleh Zaafir defended his use of paragraphs copied from Wikipedia by saying they were provided to him by “highly placed defence sources”. Could it be that Mr ‘John S Hamilton’ will also pray his innocence by saying that parts of his article were provided by “highly placed defence sources”?
Of course, the piece also appeared the same day on the front page of Daily Jangfor Urdu readers. It is unknown if Mr ‘John S Hamilton’, in addition to being very concerned about ‘heinous crimes against the state’ is also fluent in Urdu, or if he had someone translate the piece for him. Perhaps the Jang editor who approved this piece can kindly inform us?
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Jang has published articles which appear intended to influence the outcome of the memo case that is presently sub judice in the Supreme Court. Some of these articles have been by suspected political operatives, but now the largest media group is publishing pieces about the case by mysterious foreigners?
This mystery raises several important questions:
1. Who is ‘John S Hamilton’?
2. What are his qualifications for writing a technical article about BlackBerry?
3. How did he come to write for The News? Who solicited his piece?
4. Does he have any relationship with either Mansoor Ijaz, Husain Haqqani, or any other figure involved in the memo case?
5. Did ‘John S Hamilton’ write the full piece himself, or did anyone add anything such as ‘heinous crimes against the state’ or the sentences ‘borrowed’ from the Huffington Post article?
6. Why does Mr ‘John S Hamilton’ take such a keen interest in the memo case, and why does he have such strong opinions about the possibility of ‘heinous crimes against the state’
7. Was the piece by Mr ‘John S Hamilton’ intended to influence an issue that is presently sub judice?
It would be most appreciated if Jang Group would clarify the answers to these questions.
Is The News (Jang Group) reporting on court proceedings or trying to influence an issue that is sub judice? This question must be asked in light of a report by Ahmad Noorani of 31 December, ‘Asma focused on army bashing, not maintainability of petitions.
The short, four paragraph piece in Saturday’s newspaper contains a sensational headline and opening paragraph which can only be read in a way that will influence the readers to believe that Asma Jahangir is anti-military – a dangerous accusation in these times.
Mr Noorani’s article appeared on the same page as another piece that terms the respected international human rights NGO ‘Human Rights Watch’ as taking ‘a highly objectionable and partisan position against the superior judiciary of Pakistan’ after Pakistan Director Human Rights Watch Ali Dayan Hasan expressed concern about the Supreme Court’s verdict. According to The News, the ‘highly controversial statement’ insisted that “all arms of the state must act within their constitutionally determined ambit and in aid of legitimate civilian rule”. Does Jang Group really find the Constitution ‘highly objectionable’?
Just below this piece, in fact, was another piece attacking Human Rights Watch, this time terming it as ‘a foreign organisation working in Pakistan under the cover of human rights’. In an utterly bizarre and inexplicable practice, The News then goes on to quote its source against Human Rights Watch – none other than Mr Ahmad Noorani!
The News goes on to attack the person of Human Rights Watch director Ali Dayan Hasan. After printing his statement:
“No one from the government approached me to issue this press release and it was issued by my organisation considering the fears and threats to constitution, democracy and human rights in Pakistan”
The News injected a rumour that “It was also being said that he had issued this press release on directions of the federal government”. As with very many Jang Group sources, these cannot be verified and The News offers no evidence to support the claims their mysterious ‘sources’.
It should be noted that the person who appears to behind a few of these biased and sensational articles, Ahmad Noorani, has a track record of reporting incorrect information and biased articles attacking the present government.
As the issue of the memo case is presently sub judice, journalists should report only the facts and not attempt to influence proceedings or to anticipate the course of the inquiry or predict the outcome. Let the court do its work. It does not need Jang Group prejudicing the courts statements and decisions and thereby undermining the very independence of the court itself..
For the second year in a row, Pakistan has been awarded the dubious title of ‘deadliest nation for journalists’ according to the international organization Committee to Protect Journalists. The most shocking event, obviously, was the brutal murder of Saleem Shahzad, a case that has followed the usual path to a dusty shelf where it will remain unsolved. But Saleem Shahzad was not the only journalist to lose his life in Pakistan. At least six other journalists were killed here – more than both Libya and Iraq. There are countless others who continue their work under constant threat. When will the court take notice?
Actually, the judiciary and journalism share some common traits. Both are intended to be a search for truth – a careful investigation of facts intended to help steer the nation on the right path. At times the work of journalists and judges overlaps as with the recent example of the ‘memogate’ controversy that grew from the claims made in an op-ed that were further publicised by additional news articles. Long before the Supreme Court took notice of the memo, it was a media story.
The most recent development of the memogate saga occurred recently when a British newspaper reported that one overlooked item from Mansoor Ijaz’s claims was that DG ISI Gen Pasha was secretly meeting with Arab leaders in preparation for a coup against the civilian government. ISPR has denied Mansoor Ijaz’s claim, terming the Independent piece “a baseless article”.
While an official denial is to be expected, Geo anchor Hamid Mir who reported on Mansoor Ijaz’s accusation against Gen Pasha reports that he has received death threats for reporting the story.
Dear Friends,
I would like to inform you that I received an SMS message at my blackberry today at 11:47 pm which said “i have not seen a real bastard than you. i wish somebody comes and strip you naked. i hope some Army man has not done real dirty with your dear ones.” This SMS was reaction of my show Capital Talk which was going on at that time on Geo TV in a repeat telecast.
I responded to this SMS and I got another message from the same number again (03335245252). Within few seconds another SMS from 03318175319 declared me a CIA, RAW and MOSSAD agent. I have received these kinds of threatening messages usually from intelligence agencies in the past. When I responded these messages quickly and told them to go court against me they were silent.
These recent threats are related to two recent shows on Geo TV. I discussed a story in The Independent in the UK reported by Omar Warraich on December 14th and raised questions about the political role of DG ISI [Director General of the Inter Services Intelligence Directorate Ahmad Shuja Pasha]. A constitutional petition was filed by [Community Party Chairman] Engineer Jamil Malik on December 19th in the Supreme Court of Pakistan [asking the court to remove Gen. Pasha] and I was included in the petition as one of the respondents. I came to know about this petition in the evening of December 19th. The same evening I discussed the press conference of Baloch leader Attaullah Mengal on my TV show. Mengal criticized Pakistan Army atrocities against Balochis. This show was aired in the evening of December 19th and repeated in the morning of December 20th between 11 and 12.
I am sure that security establishment of Pakistan is once again angry with all those who will raise questions about the political role of Army. If anything bad happens with me or my “dear ones” the security establishment will be responsible.
Hamid Mir
As Pakistan holds the dubious distinction of being ‘deadliest nation for journalists’ two years running, these threats should raise the interest of the Chief Justice as a matter of national interest. But in this most recent case, the issue should be of special interest to the court. The memo case is presently sub judice, which means that any threat against journalists reporting on the case are meant not only to influence journalists, but the outcome of a case also.
Media cannot be considered as independent if it is operating with a gun to its head. Neither can a judiciary be independent if any element is allowed to use threats of violence and death to influence the outcome of a case. How long must Pakistani journalists search for the truth without the protection of the court? And how long will the court allow its own independence to be questioned by ignoring this issue?
The latest version of the media’s ‘memogate’ parlour game has turned from who knew what and when about the infamous memo to who knew what and when about the US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May. Mansoor Ijaz invented this new version of the game by first alleging that Husain Haqqani and Asif Zardari secretly knew about the raid before it happened. He provides no evidence, of course, and his claim flies in the face of all logic and reason, but since when have logic and reason been required rules for our media parlour games? In fact, already the field has expanded to speculation that UK High Commissioner Wajid Hasan also knows something he’s not telling, including a front page article in The News that asks, “Will Wajid Hasan be the next memogate victim?” But why limit the field to only PPP officials? Surely there are plenty of people who can be brought to dock on the same quality of speculation and innuendo.
Let’s begin with Ahmed Quraishi. On 6th May, Ahmed Quraishi was the guest on Voice of Russia‘s radio programme. During the interview he said that,
“At some level, maybe not the entire government, but at some level Pakistan definitely was on board with the United States before the operation was carried out and some of the logistics that were involved in that operation do indicate that it would not have been possible to carry out the operation in its entirety without a major, a good level of cooperation on the Pakistani side”.
Quraishi goes on to say that the Abbottabad operation “of course also vindicates the US intelligence community [and] the US military in Afghanistan”. Interesting.
Then on 10th May, Ahmed Quraishi further wrote that the operation that killed Osama bin Laden was a joint Pakistan-US victory. Here is how Ahmed Quraishi described the scene:
“Crucial and critical intelligence from Pakistan and the United States succeeding in pinpointing the location of al-Qaeda terror chief. ISI gave decisive leads on the trusted courier of bin Laden. The CIA and the US military put together a plan to take him out. By virtue of the more advanced American surveillance technology, Washington filled in the gaps and sealed bin Laden’s fate.”
Ahmed Quraishi then goes on to criticise the military for not explaining their larger role in the operation.
“Instead of ‘admitting’ failure, it was better for the army chief to object to CIA hijacking a joint victory and turning it into a one-sided victory and a one-sided attack on our military and ISI. And we could have certainly done without our foreign secretary quoting US national security adviser to confirm to our media that we did scramble some fighter jets in the end. The weak media management capabilities of our civilian and military bureaucracies are breathtaking.”
Neither is Ahmed Quraishi the only one who was making such statements. Let us take a moment to revisit the front page of The Nation on 3rd May, just after the raid:
The Nation front page of 3rd May 2011
The front page article by Sikander Shaheen quotes “top level official sources” saying that “200 Pakistan Army men provided ground support” for the operation while “four helicopters of the Pakistan Army hovered over the fortress-like hideout of al-Qaeda chief at Thanda Choh”. Shaheen goes on to quote “military sources” that “US dignitaries thanked the military leadership of Pakistan on intelligence sharing and the successful operation”.
It seems that perhaps not only Ahmed Quraishi but Sikander Shaheen, military and intelligence leadership, 200 jawans and four helicopter pilots should be under suspicion.
Let us be clear: We have not seen any evidence that Ahmed Quraishi, Sikander Shaheen, Wajid Hasan, Husain Haqqani, Asif Zardari…or anyone else had any advance knowledge or was privy to any secret information about the raid. During the aftermath of the raid, there was great confusion and many people were making guesses about what happened. Because of this, it is easy to take even the words of a democrat like Wajid Hasan or a hyper-nationalist like Quraishi and twist them to create suspicion. But that is not journalism.
The White House has categorically denied Mansoor Ijaz’s claims that anyone knew about the Abbottabad operation, and headlines speculating about whether one or another government official may have had secret knowledge of the American operation are completely irresponsible. Rather than carrying out witch hunts against government officials based on speculation and innuendo, perhaps it would be better if journalists thought about who was feeding them false information following the raid and who is feeding them information now.
Farah Zia provides an excellent review of the way media handled the ‘memogate’ story as it broke. Now that the Supreme Court has begun hearing petitions on the case, it becomes even more important that media play its role of reporting facts and not intentionally or unintentionally influencing the outcome – an act that would negatively impact not only the people’s faith in journalism but in the very judiciary itself.
With the temperatures over the memo case having cooled a bit, this may be a good time to see how the media conducted itself in the whole affair. In fact, media is central to the entire controversy, if not indeed an active partner, beginning, of course, with a controversial article in the Financial Times on October 10. It was a startling revelation that ought to have come as a boon for a media-person anywhere. But the manner in which it was picked and presented in the next month-and-a-half to the Pakistani audience can be variously described as manipulative, sensational, unethical, agenda-driven and violating all norms of decent journalism.
Because of the ‘facts’ pouring in, in a chaotic manner, sometimes contradicting each other and not following any chronological scheme, there is no linear analysis possible. But to have a retrospective glance at all that was being published or televised is instructive. It is rather late when the Pakistani media at large got to know that the ISI chief Gen Shuja Pasha reportedly met with Mansoor Ijaz on Oct 22, 2011, but a section of the media apparently knew it as it happened. The analyses immediately after his ‘visit’ (Oct 26, 2011) spoke against the “mandated autocracy” that passed off as “elected democracy” because, note, “all the fact-finding” was over and those who mattered would now decide about the country’s future ruling structure.
Smart journalism, you would think, relying on excellent sources. But the truth is that it was a one-sided story that relied on Mansoor Ijaz’s words as the ultimate truth. The Financial Times, it was assumed and said, must have checked its facts before it published Ijaz’s Op-ed. And, so his words were blown up into a crisis where all depended on how the defenders of national security were going to react to it. Because here ‘treason’ had been committed and the accused — two people in particular, openly named — deserved to be punished under nothing less than Article 6 of the constitution. This was followed by a subtle direction from the media to the non-democratic forces to move in and remove the ‘corrupt’ and ‘incompetent’ government.
Once the tone was set, the belligerent content followed. Very smoothly, the term ‘Memogate’ got invented and was owned by the media.
Interestingly, some parts of the media are now raising questions that ought to have been raised before Ambassador Haqqani’s head got rolled. Who was Mansoor Ijaz, what has been his past role and why did he do what he did? If he was undertaking a secret operation, why did he feel the need to come out in the open and disclose it, especially when he claims the ambassador was a ‘friend’? Why did he decide to meet the ISI chief and share all ‘evidence’ with him when he had written a scathing critique of the ISI only twelve days back? Yes, the media is equally guilty of not letting the common people know that this was the subject of his FT column titled ‘Time to take on Pakistan’s Jihadist Spies’ and not the memo itself.
It is with the benefit of hindsight that the media has exposed Imran Khan who put a name to “senior Pakistani diplomat” in the FT column as he thundered against Hussain Haqqani in his famous Oct 30 rally in Lahore. How did he know it when none else did?
Some have hinted at the absurdity of the DG ISI meeting the accuser without his boss’s (the PM’s) permission but no one mentions the word ‘treason’. How one wished to see an article or a small package on the way words like ‘treason’ and ‘anti-state’ have been played out in our context and who were the people booked under those charges.
In this entire episode, all that the ‘whistle-blowers’ have achieved is an acceptance that there is a monopoly of one institution over national security issues and that the media won’t question it. One might see contrary views in the days and months to come but the whistle-blowers have already achieved what they were mandated to or at least just short of that.
It is unfortunately more common that our reports examine inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour by our respected journalists. Occasionally, however, there are moments that make us proud to be associated with the profession and we do like to recognise these as well. After a week of media circuses, we are pleased to be able to once again post some praise, this time for the responsible manner in which Mujib Shami handled the memogate story on Nuqta-e-Nazar.
What is important to note is that in his handling of the issue, Mujib Shami’s main point is not that one side or the other is correct or incorrect, but that too much of the media reports have been based on conjecture and assumption. For example, consider the way the conversation starts:
This entire case has rested on conjectures or assumptions. The conjecture is that Mansur Ijaz wrote a memo and that the letter was delivered and once delivered action was taken. But the alleged memo, what does it have? It asks Mike Mullen to immediately contact Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and warn him that he should not dare to overthrow the democratic government in the country. And that if Mullen gives this warning to Kayani and to Mr Shuja Pasha and they stop and the democratic government survives then the government will do the following for you. But since memo is unsigned we dont know who wrote the memo.
Now tell me, did Mike Mullen call Kayani?
No.
Did Mullen warm him?
No, he didn’t.
Did they stop because of the warning? Were they going to do a coup?
That is a conjecture. They were not going to do a coup.
When all these are conjectures/assumptions then I am worried that where are we going, what are we doing and what kind of a country have we become?
This last line may be the most important line spoken on television in decades. When we start to treat conjecture and assumption with facts, where can we possibly go as a nation?
Actually, such behaviour has direct consequences on the ability of the nation to function. As Shami points out quite clearly.
That people got after Husain Haqqani so in a way it was important for the government to remove him because they felt that he would not be able to work in such a controversial environment. But please remember that an inquiry has to still take place. Now this is very interesting that the resignation has been taken even before the inquiry.
What if an independent inquiry clears Husain Haqqani’s name? Then an innocent man will have been forced to resign because of a media circus.
This is a serious consideration as we have written before that media coverage of the issue so far has been dominated not only by speculation, but that much of that speculation has turned out to be incorrect.
Once again, Shami lays this all out perfectly.
If Husain Haqqani had to run away from the country why would he return? Even before he returned our media started saying that he wont return. And the Indian papers said that he has sought asylum in US. Then we asked him to resign, he resigned. And when he Tweeted that he has resigned there were counter assertions by the PM house that he had not offered but was asked to resign. So petty are people…
So petty, indeed. Rather than help the people cut through the confusing mess of conjecture, assumption, rumour and innuendo, too many of our most popular media personalities are jumping at the opportunity to give their own opinions and add to the controversy. As Mujib Shami correctly notes, too much of what we believe is because we are not being told facts, but conjecture and assumptions. He is not saying that one side or the other is correct, he says quite clearly “please remember that an inquiry has to still take place.” Husain Haqqani has resigned, and there is a new Ambassador Sherry Rehman. Contrary to media assumptions and speculation, Husain Haqqani has returned to Pakistan and has turned over his Blackberry for investigation. An inquiry is being prepared and the facts will come out. This is what the media should be reporting – facts, not conjecture.
When the cameras are turned off, many people find Mansoor Ijaz’s story thoroughly questionable, but there are still some questions remaining and no one wants to pass up the opportunity presented by such a sensational story. The problem is, writing exciting and controversial stories isn’t be the basis legitimate news programmes. Such stories are for drama serials.
Newsweek Pakistan shows us how easily media can start rumours. Following the resignation of Ambassador Husain Haqqani on Tuesday, Newsweek Pakistan posted the following on Twitter.
A few minutes later, Newsweek Pakistan posted again, clarifying that they were unable to verify the claims of their anonymous source.
While it is good that Newsweek Pakistan clarified their report, it will make little difference as can easily be seen from the number of re-Tweets. At least 20 people spread the unverified rumour, while as few as 5 passed on the clarification. In what looks like a rush to get a ‘scoop’, Newsweek Pakistan may have started a wildfire of inaccurate information. At the very least, they have added to an environment of confusion.
Being the first to report a lie is far worse than being second to report a fact. It is much more important that news reports be correct than they be fast. Newsweek Pakistan needs to exercise restraint and only report items once they have been verified.
Appearing on NDTV yesterday to explain his view to Barhka Dutt, Mansoor Ijaz’s answers actually raised more questions about his allegations in the ‘memogate’ controversy.
Mr Ijaz begins by saying that the international media should be asking “what the government is trying to cover up”, which is a strange way to begin the interview – we know what Mr Ijaz claims that government is trying to “cover up” because Mansoor Ijaz is the one who made the allegations to begin with. From there, the interview only got more bizarre.
Talking to Barkha Dutt, Mansoor Ijaz claims that he was approached about the memo because his anti-ISI beliefs made him “a plausibly deniable channel…and I agreed,” said Ijaz. “I knew that if something went wrong, there would be a need for plausible deniability.” Barkha picks up on this logical disconnect, and presses him on it. If he understood and agreed that this was a confidential process and that he would be denied if word got out, why did he reveal the story in a newspaper op-ed, and why does he act surprised when it is denied?
According to Mansoor Ijaz, he publicly revealed his alleged role in the ‘memogate’ affair because it added authenticity to his op-ed for The Financial Times. This raises another obvious question: If Mansoor Ijaz is as credible and trusted among American officials as he claims, why would he need to include some anecdote about his involvement with Pakistani officials in order to grant authenticity?
But that’s not the only strange thing about his new explanation. Mansoor Ijaz wrote an almost identical op-ed on 2nd June that also terms the ISI as “the enemy” and alleges a secret ‘S-Wing’ that is responsible for breeding terrorism – but he did not then feel the need to include any stories about secret memos.
Here is what Mansoor Ijaz wrote about the ISI on 2nd June:
The enemy is the ISI—it runs Pakistan from the shadows like a puppet master. The ISI is a danger to civilized societies everywhere, because it nurtures and breeds hatred among Pakistan’s Islamist masses, and then uses their thirst for jihad as a foreign policy sledge hammer against Pakistan’s neighbors and allies, often for no purpose besides just creating chaos.
And here is what he wrote about the ISI on 10th October:
The enemy is a state organ that breeds hatred among Pakistan’s Islamist masses and then uses their thirst for jihad against Pakistan’s neighbours and allies to sate its hunger for power. Taking steps to reduce its influence over Pakistan’s state affairs is a critical measure of the world’s willingness to stop the terror masters at their very roots.
Here is what Mansoor Ijaz wrote about the alleged ‘S-Wing’ on 2nd June:
The finger of responsibility in these recent events often points to a shadowy outfit of the ISI dubbed the S-Wing. A notorious group of operatives, the S-Wing is made up of active ISI officers, recent retirees, and plain-clothes civilians with highly specialized training—all dedicated to protecting and preserving Pakistan’s territorial integrity using any method, at any cost, with no regard for collateral damage. As black-ops units go, it is about as thuggish and ruthless as is possible, without being a criminal organization.
That is why the S-Wing should be declared a sponsor of terrorism under the “Foreign Governmental Organizations” designation by the U.S. State Department. It no longer matters whether the ISI is willfully blind, or explicitly complicit, in the murderous plots attributed to the S-Wing, which the ISI routinely denies any knowledge of or responsibility for. S-Wing must be stopped dead in its tracks before immeasurable harm comes from the missionary zeal of its agents, no matter how misguided their mission may be.
And here is what he wrote about the alleged ‘S-Wing’ on 10th October:
Questions about the ISI’s role in Pakistan have intensified in recent months. The finger of responsibility in many otherwise inexplicable attacks has often pointed to a shadowy outfit of ISI dubbed “S-Wing”, which is said to be dedicated to promoting the dubious agenda of a narrow group of nationalists who believe only they can protect Pakistan’s territorial integrity.
The time has come for the state department to declare the S-Wing a sponsor of terrorism under the designation of “foreign governmental organisations”. Plans by the Obama administration to blacklist the Haqqani network are toothless and will have no material impact on the group’s military support and intelligence logistics; it is S-Wing that allegedly provides all of this in the first place. It no longer matters whether ISI is wilfully blind, complicit or incompetent in the attacks its S-Wing is carrying out. S-Wing must be stopped.
Actually, the point of both pieces is the same – to declare the ISI and its alleged ‘S-Wing’ unit as the world’s terrorists. The only real difference is that in October, Ijaz added the dramatic story of the secret memo. This raises the question of what changed between 2nd June and 10th October that Mansoor Ijaz felt he needed to add an anecdotal story to back up his claims?
Meanwhile, it should also be noted that during the same timeline that Mansoor Ijaz claims he was working with Husain Haqqani to deliver the memo to American officials, Husain Haqqani was very publicly defending Pakistan and the ISI.
“President Obama has answered the question about Pakistan’s role. It wouldn’t have been possible to get Bin Laden without Pakistan’s help. People are piling on this one, but the fact is, it is very plausible for someone to live undetected for long periods of time.”
“What I find incredulous is the notion that somehow, just because there is a private support network in Pakistan, the state, the government and the military of Pakistan shouldn’t be believed.”
On 4th May, Husain Haqqani spoke offered a strong defence of Pakistan’s security services when speaking to Barkha Dutt on NDTV.
And on 8 May, Husain Haqqani appeared on ABC News where he stated that:
If any member of the Pakistani government, the Pakistani military, or the Pakistani intelligence service knew where Osama bin Laden was, we would have taken action. Osama bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan was not to Pakistan’s advantage… As the national security adviser said, a lot more people have been arrested in Pakistan, including Al Qaida people, than in any other country. So Pakistan did not have a policy of protecting these people.
This raises yet another question: If Mansoor Ijaz really was working with Husain Haqqani, his partner in the conspiracy was undermining the credibility of the scheme day by day. How could American officials take seriously the offers made in Mansoor Ijaz’s memo while the Pakistani envoy was in the media defending the very group that Mansoor Ijaz was terming as terrorists?
Here is what we can confirm so far. Mansoor Ijaz is an “ultra-wealthy” and politically connected American businessman who believes that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is made up of terrorists and enemies, and he wants the American military to strike against them. We know that in May he delivered a memo to some American officials, and that the Americans “did not find it at all credible and took no note of it.” In June he wrote an op-ed making his allegations against the ISI public, but it seemed to get little attention. In October, he wrote another op-ed making the same allegations, only this time he added a sensational story about a conspiracy within the Pakistani government, and suddenly his name became front-page news. We also know that several weeks ago he held a secret meeting with DG ISI to discuss his evidence against the civilian officials.
The rest of the story remains pure speculation. Did Mansoor Ijaz and Husain Haqqani talk via email and BBM? Perhaps, but it is also likely that Mansoor Ijaz is not the only wealthy Pakistani-American in the Ambassador’s contacts. It is the job of a diplomat to cultivate relationships with influential and well-connected people. Did President Zardari authorize the memo or its contents? Actually, there has been nothing to suggest that he knew anything about it. And why, if Mansoor Ijaz believes the ISI are terrorists, is he working closely with the ISI to make his case?
Husain Haqqani has requested a full inquiry to clear his name, and has offered to turn over his Blackberry and his computer for a forensic investigation. Hopefully we will have more facts soon. In the meantime, media interviews and talk shows are only fueling speculation and creating more questions than answers.
Earlier this week, Jang Group published a front page story by a mysterious person supposedly named ‘John S Hamilton’ that raised eyebrows as well as many questions. On Wednesday, Jang Group followed up with another story about the memo case that involves another mystery.
