Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

Here's another question:

Who are best equipped to ask for the decision - whether to ban an org or not - so that the org can be monitored? Armchair critics, or intelligence agencies, who deal with them every day?

The answer is NEITHER!!!!

The decider in this case : the judicial system! 

Mind my word here -- ASK -- not give, but ask. Intelligence agencies are best equipped to ASK for a ban. The judicial system is supposed to take correct decisions. In this case, from the looks of it (as yet), the decision taken by judicial system seems incorrect.

[hastalavistababy]

In this very interesting debate we should ask ourselves also the question : Why should SIMI be banned and not Bajrang Dal ? The simple answer is one has Foreign connections and use bombs and other not. But, just one month after BJP came to power in Karnataka just in one small city (Mangalore) which is known for religious harmony for centuries, a Muslim Dargha, which is revered by all three religions in the city, was desecrated and was attacked with a minor bomb. This can only provide more fuel to the fire. Why should we get surprised when SIMI does something similar soon?

Can you please give us the url where it is repoted  that " Bajrang Dal " did it .

[prfsr]

Here's another question:

Who are best equipped to ask for the decision - whether to ban an org or not - so that the org can be monitored? Armchair critics, or intelligence agencies, who deal with them every day?

The answer is NEITHER!!!!

The decider in this case : the judicial system! 

Mind my word here -- ASK -- not give, but ask. Intelligence agencies are best equipped to ASK for a ban. The judicial system is supposed to take correct decisions. In this case, from the looks of it (as yet), the decision taken by judicial system seems incorrect.

Sorry missed that part. The answer is that realistically no armchair critic can ask for anything seriously - because they do not have access to the evidence. So I am not sure what you are asking. The govt is equipped to ask; they seem to have not done their homework. They will, I am sure, ask again. Either they will make a better case and get it, or not. I still do not see anything to get alarmed about.

[prfsr]

So clearly you support doing useless things and paying people for it. If not, tell me one thing your scheme achieves and how you are going to stop my scheme. And yes I am strongly against Intelligence agencies wasting their time. By the way, what is the watertight distinction between law enforcement and domestic intelligence? Do you know that FBI does both?

These things become "useless" why? Because you say so? 

No.

Here is what I said in a previous post

"As often seen in cricketing issues, we seem to get bogged down with the most unimportant of issues. It has been seen OVER AND OVER that banning organizations does zilch; nada; shunya; nothing (thanks CP!) They change their name and it is business as usual. How many falovrs of Laskar have there been in Kashmir? Laskar-e-kesar, Laskar-e-kulfi,Laskar-e-falooda is coming.

Has anything changed because some flavors have been outlawed? Why not go after individuals rather than organizations? How lazy does a law-enforcement system have to be to say "we cannot be bothered with law enforcement or intelligence -- just name some organization illegal and we will nab whoever goes to their meetings...."
"

To evaluate your scheme, I need to know it first. Tell me what your scheme is. I have already explained my scheme - Go after the individuals and the orgs that support them. Individuals can commit crime and run off to other countries. However, if there is not organizational support system in place, to help them carry out their acts, it becomes that much more difficult for them to act. That's my scheme. What's yours?

Again, from a previous post:

"There is a very simple way to play this game. Every day they will open 50 new organizations each with the same 5 members. Let the police now keep arguing in court to ban every one of those 50. That's a nice way to spend resources.

What deterrant is banning an organization going to provide? As I said Laskar-e-Kulfi is banned, so the bad guy calls himself Laskar-e-Imli. Do you seriously believe he is shaking in his boots saying "Oh no, Kulfi is banned, what will happen to me?"
"

Are we talking about USA or India? In India, domestic intelligence gathering is mainly done by Intelligence bureau and foreign intelligence gathering is done by RAW. CBI also works on cases, but it is mainly an investigating agency. In the process of it's investigations, it gathers intelligence too. But it's main objective is to investigate those cases that police or CID can't handle.

And these bodies cooperate. Hence my grouping all of them as "law enforcement".

[hastalavistababy]

Here's another question:

Who are best equipped to ask for the decision - whether to ban an org or not - so that the org can be monitored? Armchair critics, or intelligence agencies, who deal with them every day?

The answer is NEITHER!!!!

The decider in this case : the judicial system! 

Mind my word here -- ASK -- not give, but ask. Intelligence agencies are best equipped to ASK for a ban. The judicial system is supposed to take correct decisions. In this case, from the looks of it (as yet), the decision taken by judicial system seems incorrect.

Never mind , it is the habit of pseudo secular (actually they are the communal force) to draw a parallel between (SIMMI , other terrorist Islamic group)  and  (RSS  and other). So that they can neutralize (SIMMI , other terrorist Islamic group)'s activities.

[prfsr]

here's the real question though if you are in law enforcement:

do you let an organization that on surface is supposed to have no criminal tendencies by charter reamin legit, so atleast you can keep some semblance of a watch

or do you push it underground and spend time trying to first trace them and then keep an eye on them?

Excellent question from the Leftist  

My sense is that the people we really want to go after operate in small groups. The small fry (including college students) organize in these widely announced bodies. Given the modus operandi of this group, there is no great organized structure. Whatever organization there is is certainly not a regustered group that one can ban -- I still do not understand why this is so hard to see.

Govt: So these criminals are calling them L-e-xyz? Let's ban them.
Criminal: Let's call ourselves L-e-abc now. We will explain to our group at the next meeting.
How many criminals there would say "Count me out. I signed up for the famous xyz, I cannot be seen under some stupid abc label! "  

[prfsr]

Simi lawyers say that there is no new evidence presented (since the last ban), to show that Simi still deals with terrorists. So the ban should be lifted. Govt says it presented evidence as recent as 2006 Malegaon blast, to show that Simi still deals in terror. It also presented deposition of 77 witnesses. However, the good judge refused to accept it, and said that Simi has existed since 1977 (I can't see any connection between year of existence and Malegaon blast). Hence the question - why did the judge refuse to admit the Malegaon blast evidence, or the depositions?

And my answer: I do not have the slightest idea!

So, reference to Bush, SG and myself notwithstanding, while the govt lawyer could be paid off by the govt (ridiculous, isn't it?) to say that he presented evidence but this particular judge rejected it, can it not happen that the judge was paid off by SIMI and therefore passed this judgment?

Of course! It could be that you are Dawood. It could be I am Elvis!

Nevertheless, I would take the word of the judge over the lawyers, until it is proved that she was paid by SIMI. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? I am talking about some suspected terrorists here but a judge, for crying out loud!

If tomorrow the SC rules that she was wrong I would believe them and not accuse them of being paid off by the govt. 

PS: a govt lawyer, a person on the payroll of the govt, saying things in support of the govt's case. Unexpected? You equate that with a judge being bought off. Why?

[flute]

Simi lawyers say that there is no new evidence presented (since the last ban), to show that Simi still deals with terrorists. So the ban should be lifted. Govt says it presented evidence as recent as 2006 Malegaon blast, to show that Simi still deals in terror. It also presented deposition of 77 witnesses. However, the good judge refused to accept it, and said that Simi has existed since 1977 (I can't see any connection between year of existence and Malegaon blast). Hence the question - why did the judge refuse to admit the Malegaon blast evidence, or the depositions?

And my answer: I do not have the slightest idea!

So, reference to Bush, SG and myself notwithstanding, while the govt lawyer could be paid off by the govt (ridiculous, isn't it?) to say that he presented evidence but this particular judge rejected it, can it not happen that the judge was paid off by SIMI and therefore passed this judgment?

Of course! It could be that you are Dawood. It could be I am Elvis!

Nevertheless, I would take the word of the judge over the lawyers, until it is proved that she was paid by SIMI. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? I am talking about some suspected terrorists here but a judge, for crying out loud!

If tomorrow the SC rules that she was wrong I would believe them and not accuse them of being paid off by the govt. 

PS: a govt lawyer, a person on the payroll of the govt, saying things in support of the govt's case. Unexpected? You equate that with a judge being bought off. Why?

prfsr, one advise, don't fall into this trap of defending the judge. That will distract us from the issue at hand. The point is not about how competent Geeta Mittal is. It is nobody's case she is a perfect judge. Myself or prsfr never said she is correct in making that judgement. The point is, the fact that she lifted the ban on SIMI doesn't automatically mean that she is incompetent. In fact, on the contrary, she might be one of best. We don't know. All depends on how the case was presented by the govt. and how Geeta evaluated the case.

We can't run a parallel trial here and see if all the claims of the govt. lawyer are correct or not. It is for supreme court to decide after reevaluating it.

[ruchir]

This will probably also answer your points in reply # 83.

here's the real question though if you are in law enforcement:

do you let an organization that on surface is supposed to have no criminal tendencies by charter reamin legit, so atleast you can keep some semblance of a watch

or do you push it underground and spend time trying to first trace them and then keep an eye on them?

Excellent question from the Leftist  

My sense is that the people we really want to go after operate in small groups. The small fry (including college students) organize in these widely announced bodies. Given the modus operandi of this group, there is no great organized structure. Whatever organization there is is certainly not a regustered group that one can ban -- I still do not understand why this is so hard to see.

Govt: So these criminals are calling them L-e-xyz? Let's ban them.
Criminal: Let's call ourselves L-e-abc now. We will explain to our group at the next meeting.
How many criminals there would say "Count me out. I signed up for the famous xyz, I cannot be seen under some stupid abc label! "  

So, you say that if we ban ABC today, they will open XYZ org tomorrow and start doing the same thing they were doing. So, now how many orgs will our agencies track.

The question is, how many organizations do you know, that are opened like this? It is easy to say it, but have you seen it happening in practical?

According to you, there is no point in banning an org. So let us say agencies come up with a concrete proof that SIMI (as an org) has terror links. What would you want to do about it? Not ban SIMI? Of course, police would be trying to catch the individuals who commit terror acts (as you want them to). But what about the org? SIMI the terror org will continue to exist, it will continue to receive foreign money (from PAK, Saudi etc.) and it will continue to have the capabilities of supporting those who want to spread terror in India.

Police will find it hard to prove that chairman, treasurer, secretary etc. of this org have links with terror groups as they may not contact them directly. This is where banning them will help. If agencies find that a good number of SIMI members are involved in terror activities, they can ask for the org to be banned so that it is not able to spread it's tentacles in India.

Again, the main idea behind banning such orgs is that they don't find a foothold in the country. If such orgs continue to operate, they continue to register members, continue to posses assets where they give radical teachings to it's members and brainwash them. They can brainwash people without an org too, but why give such people a legal way to spread their hatred and venom?

Just because a way is time consuming and tedious does not mean you have to reject it. Let me ask - if your child needs help in Math and you find it very tedious to help him/her because you have forgotten the stuff you are being asked about, would you give up on the help or would you first study to see what the topic is and then try to help? Same thing about monitoring terror orgs. Sure, the work is tedious, but agencies find it helpful. That's why they do it. Who said that enforcing law and order was an easy job?

Nevertheless, I would take the word of the judge over the lawyers, until it is proved that she was paid by SIMI. Ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? I am talking about some suspected terrorists here but a judge, for crying out loud!

Every heard of innocent until proven guilty? The lawyer too is innocent until proven guilty, but you seem too hasty to say that he is paid off!!! How come?

If tomorrow the SC rules that she was wrong I would believe them and not accuse them of being paid off by the govt. 

And yet you are accusing the lawyer to have received money to say what he said!!! Wow.....

PS: a govt lawyer, a person on the payroll of the govt, saying things in support of the govt's case. Unexpected? You equate that with a judge being bought off. Why?

Why do you think a person receiving salary from govt will lie for it? Huh? Now, you are directly attacking the integrity of this lawyer, while you are extremely protective of the judge? How come? Do you know the judge personally to have that opinion?

[prfsr]

Ruchir,

1. Believing lawyers:
I am speechless. Do you know what (criminal) trial lawyers do? Tell me, the white Christian lawyers that are defending Gitmo terrorists, or the govt assigned lawyers that defend serial killers, are they liars?

They will shout from whatever soapbox they can, that their client is innocent or their case is watertight. That is their JOB. They get paid for it LEGALLY. When I say I would not believe the lawyer's statement, I am NOT questioning his integrity!! I am only assuming  that he is doing his job.

Again, if I believe one lawyer who says the accused is guilty, why not the other one that says the accused is innocent? I do not know any of them personally, after all.

You tell me why you choose to believe that the defendant's lawyer is guilty of lying, since you think I believe the govt lawyer is lying (which again I do not!!).

2. Naming issue: I do not see the benefit of them naming their organization *other* than for the sake of attributing credit. Are they really stupid enough to open accounts in the name of the organization and have people write checks? I do not know. In my view the reality is possibly small groups who are loosely tied (if at all) to a name -- while they may use the name when announcing "XYZ did this" they would not really register themselves as a club or association or union.

Also, you seem more interested in going after organizations as if the organization is a separate entity. I prefer to go after individuals. You prefer top talk about metaphoric tentacles, I think of people coming and recruiting, propa*izing, sermonizing and so on. To give you an American example -- a lot of people viewed Rev Wright's sermons as anti-American. Did you see anyone ask for the church to be closed? or banned?

You say

Police will find it hard to prove that chairman, treasurer, secretary etc. of this org have links with terror groups as they may not contact them directly. This is where banning them will help.

How??? Those guys will just go on under a different name. I am not making this up - read the news from Kashmir! They change names very frequently, and new organizations come up daily.
Search through rediff. This was exactly what happened when L-e-T was banned. Unless you arrest the PEOPLE involved, banning does nothing to stop them from business as usual.

[ruchir]

1. Believing lawyers:
I am speechless. Do you know what (criminal) trial lawyers do? Tell me, the white Christian lawyers that are defending Gitmo terrorists, or the govt assigned lawyers that defend serial killers, are they liars?

They will shout from whatever soapbox they can, that their client is innocent or their case is watertight. That is their JOB. They get paid for it LEGALLY. When I say I would not believe the lawyer's statement, I am NOT questioning his integrity!! I am only assuming  that he is doing his job.

Again, if I believe one lawyer who says the accused is guilty, why not the other one that says the accused is innocent? I do not know any of them personally, after all.

You tell me why you choose to believe that the defendant's lawyer is guilty of lying, since you think I believe the govt lawyer is lying (which again I do not!!).

Were we talking about trial lawyers or the prosecution side? You confused me there. A lawyer presenting govt case can never be a trial lawyer. Your argument is correct. Any lawyer will try to present his client's side to be true. I never even uttered one word about the lawyer representing SIMI, did I? So why say I think he is lying? He is doing his job. Govt lawyer is doing his job - presenting evidence in front of the judge. Judge is doing her job - parsing evidence and making judgment. My beef is that the judge seem to have made an error when she chose to disregard the evidence submitted by the prosecution lawyer. The kind of evidence presented (in Rediff article) is the reason why I feel judge made an error.

2. Naming issue: I do not see the benefit of them naming their organization *other* than for the sake of attributing credit. Are they really stupid enough to open accounts in the name of the organization and have people write checks? I do not know. In my view the reality is possibly small groups who are loosely tied (if at all) to a name -- while they may use the name when announcing "XYZ did this" they would not really register themselves as a club or association or union.

Do you know for sure (what you are writing) or you think that's how they would operate? From all the news I have heard, I have seen that most terror orgs operate under a name of a so-called social org. You remember how many bank accounts Indian govt (and others) has frozen over the years, based on info provided by agencies? Apparently people do write checks!!

Also, you seem more interested in going after organizations as if the organization is a separate entity. I prefer to go after individuals. You prefer top talk about metaphoric tentacles, I think of people coming and recruiting, propa*izing, sermonizing and so on. To give you an American example -- a lot of people viewed Rev Wright's sermons as anti-American. Did you see anyone ask for the church to be closed? or banned?

There is a difference between anti-American and terror supporting. This is a distinction you seem not to make. Talking about black theology is protected under freedom of speech. Even being a racist is not a crime!! But helping terrorists definitely is.

Go after the individuals, I agree with you. But remember that it is very difficult to catch individuals. That is so because they receive help from orgs like SIMI in disappearing. Individuals commit the acts (like blasts) and then flee to neighboring country. This is where orgs like SIMI come into play. They provide help to such individuals by arranging money for them, arranging materials for them, by arranging logistics for them, and by arranging escape routes for them. Individuals don't operate on their own. This is something you seem to completely disregard. To plan a act like 15 blasts in a city, individuals need huge amount of establishment support, which orgs like SIMI provide.

So while you can run behind individuals all you like (I support you there), unless you crack down in the orgs supporting them, you will never get a handle on the situation.

You say

Police will find it hard to prove that chairman, treasurer, secretary etc. of this org have links with terror groups as they may not contact them directly. This is where banning them will help.

How??? Those guys will just go on under a different name. I am not making this up - read the news from Kashmir! They change names very frequently, and new organizations come up daily.
Search through rediff. This was exactly what happened when L-e-T was banned. Unless you arrest the PEOPLE involved, banning does nothing to stop them from business as usual.

As I said, I am all for arresting the PEOPLE. But with that, you have to shut down every org that opens up to help the PEOPLE in carrying out the acts. The operators of these orgs are usually not directly related to any act of terror, but agencies always find a link of someone in the org helping the PEOPLE who carry out the acts. So, you have to keep shutting them down, as and when they open.

What do you do to protect your PC from virus? Do you wait for a virus to attack you PC and then clean it or do you periodically scan your PC for ALL known viruses? Taking precaution is always a better option. Being pro-active is better than being reactive. You don't only run behind individuals after they have done their act. You always keep on the lookout for them and anyone helping them.