close
Friday March 29, 2024

Will Ehsanullah be punished for his sins or pardoned?

By Sabir Shah
April 30, 2017

In 1999 US President Clinton granted clemency to 16 convicted terrorists despite hue and cry raised by FBI, police, US Senate and House of Representatives, etc;

in 2001, on his last day in office, Clinton accepted mercy petitions of three women terrorists given long jail terms

LAHORE: Following the surrender and widely-televised video confession of former Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan, who revealed about Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan’s eyebrow-raising nexus with Indian and Afghan spy agencies, one can hear a few audible whispers in the national media about the possible fate of the militant. 

Despite having spent many years with the people who have been spilling innocent blood in the streets of Pakistan, Ehsanullah Ehsan (real name: Liaquat Ali) now says he entered into a dispute with the Tehreek-e-Taliban leadership for accepting Indian assistance against Pakistan. 

It is imperative to note that on April 17, 2017, a prestigious Doha-based state-funded broadcaster Al-Jazeera had quoted ISPR Director General Major General Asif Ghafoor as asserting: “If a person who is doing the wrong thing feels that they are on the wrong side and that they should come back towards good, then I don’t think there can be a bigger success of the state than this”. 

The Al-Jazeera had further quoted Major General Asif Ghafoor as saying that since the launch of a countrywide counter-terrorism operation in February last; Pakistan Army has killed at least 108 suspected fighters and has arrested at least 4,510, while the offensive

It goes without saying that in case Ehsanullah Ehsan is awarded his due punishment, no other militant will ever turn himself on to the country’s security forces. 

And if he is granted clemency, a vociferous criticism will greet the incumbent government and the army leadership and critics will condemn the pardon and call it deplorable, as was the case in August 1999 when President Clinton had decided to commute the sentences of 16 members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN, a Spanish acronym for the “Armed Forces of National Liberation”. 

This Puerto Rican clandestine organisation had advocated complete independence for Puerto Rico, a Caribbean island and unincorporated American territory.

The mercy was granted to the 16 convicts by Clinton under the condition that they would renounce any kind of violent manifestation. 

This Clinton decision, which was known as the “Pardon Gate”, drew criticism towards his administration from the Office of the US Attorney, the FBI, police, former victims of FALN’s terrorist activities and the American Congress etc. 

FALN was also responsible for the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bomb attack, which had claimed four lives. 

Fraunces Tavern is a landmark museum and restaurant in New York City. The FALN had orchestrated and carried out over 120 bombings between 1974 and 1983, largely in New York and Chicago. 

There were convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery, bomb-making and sedition, as well as firearms and explosives violations. 

The 16 were convicted of conspiracy and sedition and sentenced with terms ranging from 35 to 105 years in prison. 

Clinton’s move had set off a firestorm at the time, leading the first lady (Hillary); then running for the US Senate in New York, to distance herself from her husband. 

The US Congress had condemned this action by President Clinton with votes of 95–2 in the Senate and 311–41 in the House of Representatives. 

The US House Committee on Government Reform had gone on to hold an investigation into the matter, but the Justice Department prevented FBI officials from testifying. 

President Clinton had cited “Executive Privilege” for his refusal to turn over some documents to Congress related to his decision to offer clemency to members of the FALN terrorist group. 

Nevertheless, these FALN members, with the exception of a couple who had refused to accept the presidential pardon, were freed soon afterward to return to their homes in Chicago and Puerto Rico. 

The “Executive Clemency Privilege” is a power granted by the American Constitution to all sitting United States presidents. They are allowed to forgive anyone at will. 

While most US presidents grant pardons throughout their terms, Clinton had chosen to make 140 of them on January 20, 2001, his last day in office. 

Clinton had pardoned 450 people as compared with his immediate predecessor George Bush Senior, who had only pardoned 75. 

Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter had pardoned 406 and 566 people respectively. (References: Time magazine, the New York Times, the CNN, the US Department of Justice – Office of the Pardon Attorney, the United States House of Representatives: Committee on Government Reform, the Congressional Record of the US Government Printing Office and the Associated Press etc. 

In 2001, President Bill Clinton had also commuted the sentences of Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg, who were members of a radical underground group. Both women terrorists were sentenced for weapons and explosives charges. 

India had pardoned David Headley after he had offered to become an approver in the November 26, 2008 Mumbai terrorism case:

According to a ZEE TV report of December 11, 2015, a Mumbai court had pardoned David Headley (Syed Daood Gilani) after he had offered to become approver in the 26/11 case. 

The Indian public had followed Headley’s story closely, considering him to be their equivalent of Osama bin Laden!

The February 8, 2016 edition of the Hindustan Times had stated: An Indian court has pardoned Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative David Coleman Headley on the condition that he will reveal “every fact” regarding the conspiracy behind the brazen 2008 Mumbai attacks. This has led to expectations that Headley’s deposition from the US via video link will throw up fresh revelations about the role of LeT leaders and a Pakistani agency in planning and executing the strike that killed 166 people. 

In 2013, Headley was sentenced to 35 years in prison for his role in helping Pakistani terrorists plan the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. 

The Telegraph had then written: David Coleman Headley, 52, had pleaded guilty to carrying out spying missions in downtown Mumbai for the Pakistani terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba that was behind the attacks. He was sentenced on 12 counts in a Chicago jail but had struck a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid the death penalty or extradition to India. 

The day after the sentence was imposed; the Indian government had announced it would continue to seek Headley’s extradition to India. The esteemed British newspaper had further maintained: Headley, a Pakistani- American from Chicago, visited India five times between 2006 and 2008, and created maps and took video footage and GPS coordinates of several of the attack sites, including the Taj Mahal Hotel, Oberoi Hotel and Nariman House Jewish centre. 

The trend of pardoning terrorists has also been seen in Sri Lanka, which was accused in the past of killing Tamil Tiger members after they had surrendered in May 2009. 

In January 2016, Sri Lankan President, Maithripala Sirisena, had forgiven a Tamil Tiger rebel convicted of plotting to murder him a decade ago. 

As the Times of India had reported, the Sri Lankan president had pardoned a militant, Sivarajah Jeneevan, who was sentenced in January 2015 to 10 years in jail. 

The Sri Lankan president had welcomed Jeneevan onto the stage where he shook hands with the former rebel and had even blessed him by touching him on his head. 

President Sirisena’s opponents had, however, accused him of weakening national security with the release of a convicted terrorist. 

Remember, the Tamil Tigers, who had assassinated former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and former Sri Lankan president Ranasinghe Premadasa in 1993, had fought the state for secession for more than 25 years until their defeat in 2009. 

On a contrasting note, Sri Lanka had also shot down surrendering Tamil rebels in May 2009:

In May 2009, as The Guardian had reported, three Tamil Tiger rebel leaders who tried to surrender during the bloody climax of Sri Lanka’s civil war were allegedly shot and killed on the orders of the country’s defence minister and a senior adviser to President Mahinda Rajapaksa —despite being in contact with the United Nations, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom and United States etc. This event is known as the “White Flag incident”. However, the claims of The Guardian were denied by the Sri Lankan government. 

On the other hand, the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner’s Office Investigation on Sri Lanka had claimed that the country’s civil and military leadership of had full knowledge of the envisaged surrender of Tamil Tiger leaders. 

Gen Sarath Fonseka, who helped direct the final offensive against the Tigers but later broke with the government and was then running for president in the 2009 Sir Lankan elections, said he had been personally unaware of the Tamils’ attempts to give themselves up. 

Gen Fonseka, after he was faced by government denials and threats of legal action, was quoted as saying: They (army soldiers) never committed any criminal act. There was no attempt at surrender on May 17, 18 and 19, 2009. I would take full responsibility for any human rights violations during the final stages of the war. (References: The Independent, the Australian and the Telegraph etc)

It is noteworthy that the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner’s Office Investigation on Sri Lanka report had documented in detail the sequence of events in which several rebel Tamil leaders, who surrendered with white flags according to pre- arranged terms of surrender, were summarily executed. Among the victims of this particular incident of extra-judicial executions were the Tamil Tigers’ political wing chief, Nadesan and wife Vineetha, the head of the militant outfit’s Peace Secretariat, Pulidevan, and the Tamil Tigers’ police chief Ramesh.