You are on page 1of 11

NVIEWS

DEADLY
HEADLEY
PLEADS GUILTY TO...
I, David Coleman Headley,
PLEAD GUILTY TO...

David Coleman Headley, a U.S. citizen partly of Pakistani
descent, pleaded guilty to a dozen federal terrorism
charges, admitting that he participated in planning the
November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, as well
as later planning to attack a Danish newspaper. In
pleading A guilty
videotostill
all 12 counts
that that were
allegedly brought
shows against
actress Ranjitha and Swami Nityananda indulging in acts of intimacy.
him in December and were repeated in a subsequent
indictment in January, Headley admitted that he attended
training camps in Pakistan operated by Lashkar e Tayyiba,
a designated foreign terrorist organization, on five separate
occasions between 2002 and 2005. In late 2005, Headley
received instructions from three members of Lashkar to
travel to India to conduct surveillance, which he did five
times leading up to the Mumbai attacks three years later
that killed six Americans among approximately 164 people
and wounded hundreds more.
A written plea agreement containing a detailed recitation of
Headley’s participation in the foreign terrorism
conspiracies was presented when Headley, 49, of
Chicago, changed his plea to guilty this afternoon before
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber in Federal Court in
Chicago. In light of Headley’s past cooperation and
expected future cooperation, the Attorney General
of the United States has authorized the United States
Attorney in Chicago not to seek the death penalty against
Headley. When directed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office,
Headley must fully and truthfully participate in any
debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or
national security information, and Headley further agrees
that, when directed by the United States Attorney’s Office,
he will fully and truthfully testify in any foreign judicial
proceedings held in the United States by way
of deposition, video-conferencing or letters rogatory.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

PLEA AGREEMENT
1. This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, and defendant DAVID COLEMAN HEADLEY,
and his attorneys, JOHN T. THEIS and ROBERT SEEDER, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule
11(c)(1)(B), as more fully set forth below. The parties to this Agreement have agreed upon the following:
Charges in This Case
2. The Superseding Indictment in this case charges defendant in twelve counts: Count One, which charges defendant with conspiracy to bomb places of
public use in India, including, but not limited to, the conduct which led to the attacks on places of public use in Mumbai, India, from November 26 to 28,
2008, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332f(a)(2); Count Two, which charges defendant with conspiracy to murder and maim persons in
India, in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Section 956(a)(1); Counts Three through Eight, which charge defendant with aiding and abetting the
murders of six United States nationals in Mumbai, India, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,
Section 2332(a)(1); Count Nine, which charges defendant with conspiracy to provide
material support to terrorism in India, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339A; Count Ten, which charges defendant with conspiracy to
murder and maim persons in Denmark, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 956(a)(1); Count Eleven, which charges defendant with
Important sections of David
conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism in Denmark, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339A; and Count Twelve, which Coleman Headley’s plea
charges defendant with providing material support to Lashkar e Tayyiba in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2339B.
3. agreement in the
Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the Superseding Indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his
attorneys. United States District Court,
4.
Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with which he has been charged. Northern District of Illinois,
Charges to Which Defendant is Pleading Guilty
5. By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of guilty to all counts of the Superseding Indictment, as previously described in Eastern Division
Paragraph 2 above.
Factual Basis
6. Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges contained in Counts One through Twelve of the Superseding Indictment. In Beginning no later than in or
pleading guilty, defendant admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and constitute relevant conduct
pursuant to Guideline §1B1.3:
about late 2005, and
a. With respect to Count One of the Superseding Indictment: continuing through on or about
2 October 3, 2009, at
Beginning no later than in or about late 2005, and continuing through on or about
October 3, 2009, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere within and without the jurisdiction of the United States, Chicago, in the Northern District
defendant conspired with members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, including but not limited to individuals identified herein as Lashkar Members A, B, C and D, and of Illinois, Eastern
others, to deliver, place, discharge and detonate explosives and other lethal devices in, into and against places of public use, state and government Division,andelsewherewithinandw
facilities, public transportation systems, and infrastructure facilities in India, with the intent to cause death and serious bodily injury, and with the intent
to cause extensive destruction of such places and facilities which such destruction would likely result in major economic loss, and defendant was a ithoutthe jurisdiction
national of the United States and was found in the United States. of the United States, defendant
More specifically, in or around late 2005, defendant met with three individuals herein identified as Lashkar Members A, B and D, and received instructions
to travel to India to conduct surveillance of various locations in India, including places of public use, and state and government facilities. Prior to receiving
conspired
these orders, defendant had attended training camps organized and operated by Lashkar e Tayyiba on five separate occasions in or around 2002 through withmembersofLashkareTayyiba,i
2005. Starting in or around February 2002, defendant attended a three-week course and received indoctrination on the merits of waging jihad. Starting in ncludingbutnot
or about August 2002, defendant attended a three-week course and received training in, among other skills, the use of weapons and grenades. Starting in
or about April 2003, defendant attended a three-month course and received training in various skills, including, but not limited to, close
limited to individuals identified
3 herein as Lashkar
combat tactics, the use weapons and grenades, and survival skills. Starting in or around MembersA,B,CandD,andothers,
August 2003, defendant attended a three-week course and received training in, among other skills, counter-surveillance. Starting in or around December
2003, defendant attended an approximately three month course and received combat and tactical training. On multiple occasions, following his to deliver, place,
completion of the above-described training courses, defendant advised co-defendant TAHAWWUR HUSSAIN RANA (“RANA”) of his membership in Lashkar e discharge and detonate
Tayyiba and the training that he had received.
In or around February 2006, in order to facilitate his activities on behalf of Lashkar by portraying himself in India as an American who was neither Muslim
explosives and other lethal
nor Pakistani, defendant changed his name from “Daood Gilani” to “David Coleman Headley” in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, in or around the devices in, into and against
early summer of 2006, defendant met with Lashkar Members A and D, and discussed opening an immigration office in Mumbai, India, as cover for his places of public use, state
surveillance activities. On several occasions prior to this meeting, defendant had advised Lashkar Members A and D of his friendship with codefendant
RANA, and RANA’s ownership and operation of First World Immigration, an immigration services business located in Chicago and other locations.
and government facilities, public
In or around June 2006, defendant traveled to Chicago and met with co-defendant RANA. Defendant advised co-defendant RANA of his assignment in India, transportation systems,
and explained that opening an office for First World Immigration would provide a cover story for his activities. Following defendant’s explanation, RANA andinfrastructure facilities in
agreed to open an immigration office in Mumbai, India, and provide assistance to defendant’s activities. At co-defendant RANA’s
4 India,withtheintenttocausedeatha
direction, an individual associated with First World prepared documents to support ndseriousbodilyinjury,
defendant’s cover story. RANA further advised defendant on how to obtain a visa for his travel to India. In applying for this visa, defendant misrepresented andwith
his birth name, his father’s name and the true purpose of his travel to India.
Surveillance Trips the intent to cause extensive
After receiving RANA’s approval, defendant traveled back to Pakistan and met with Lashkar Members A and D, among others, on several occasions. destruction of such
Defendant advised them that RANA had agreed to the use of First World Immigration as cover for his activities. Defendant also showed them the visa that he
had obtained with RANA’s assistance. During these meetings, defendant received additional instructions regarding his intended travel to India.
places and facilities which such
Defendant thereafter traveled to India in or around September 2006, using the opening and operation of RANA’s immigration business as cover for destruction would
defendant’s travel to and extended stay in Mumbai, India. During this trip, defendant conducted extensive video surveillance of various locations in India, likely result in major economic
including, but not limited to, the Taj Mahal Hotel. After this trip, defendant met in Pakistan with various co-conspirators, including but not limited to
members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, provided them with the video recordings he had made and discussed with the co-conspirators the video and the
loss, and defendant
surveillance he had conducted. Further, defendant received instructions to return to Mumbai and perform additional surveillance. was a national of the United
5 States and was found in
In or around February 2007, defendant returned to Mumbai and conducted video
surveillance of various locations, including, but not limited to, extensive video of the second floor of the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai, India. After this trip, TheUnitedStates.
defendant again met in Pakistan with various co-conspirators, including but not limited to members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, provided them with the video
recordings he had made and discussed with the coconspirators the video and the surveillance he had conducted. More specifically, in or around
In or around June 2007, defendant traveled to Chicago and met with co-defendant RANA. Defendant advised RANA of the surveillance work that he had
performed in Mumbai, including the video taken at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Defendant further advised RANA about his meeting with co-conspirators and their late 2005, defendant
reaction to the surveillance work that defendant had performed. met with three individuals herein
Following defendant’s return to Pakistan, defendant was instructed to return to Mumbai. In or around September 2007, defendant returned to Mumbai and
conducted additional surveillance, as instructed. After returning to Pakistan, defendant again met with various co-conspirators, including but not limited
identified as
to members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, provided them with the video recordings he had made and discussed with the co-conspirators the video and the LashkarMembersA,BandD,andre
surveillance he had conducted. ceived instructions
In or about March 2008, defendant met with co-conspirators in Pakistan and discussed potential landing sites in Mumbai for a team of attackers that
would arrive by sea. Following this discussion, defendant was ordered to return to Mumbai to perform additional surveillance and locate possible landing
to travel to India
sites. In or around April 2008, defendant returned toconductsurveillance of
6 variouslocations,
to Mumbai with a global positioning system (“GPS”) device and performed the surveillance,
including taking boat trips in and around the Mumbai harbor and entering locations in the GPS device. After returning to Pakistan, defendant again met including places of public
with various co-conspirators, and, among other things, advised them of his recommendations as to potential landing sites. During these meetings, use,andstate
defendant learned that attack plans were being delayed, in part, to wait for when the sea was calmer. andgovernmentfacilities.Prior to
At around the end of April 2008, defendant traveled to the United States for about six weeks. Over the course of a few days in or around the end of May 2008,
defendant met with co-defendant RANA in Chicago. Defendant advised RANA about the extensive surveillance that he had conducted in Mumbai and the receiving these orders,
meetings that he had with various co-conspirators. Defendant related to RANA the landing ideas and, in particular, the idea of one coconspirator that the defendant had attended training
team of attackers land in front of the Taj Mahal Hotel. Defendant further told RANA about the boat trips in and around the Mumbai harbor and defendant’s
use of the GPS device. Defendant informed RANA that the attack plans were being delayed, in part, to wait for calmer waters.
camps
organizedandoperatedbyLashkar
eTayyibaonfiveseparate
occasions in or around 2002
through 2005.
Starting in or around February
2002, defendant attendedathree-
weekcourseandreceived
indoctrinationonthemeritsofwagin
gjihad.
During discussions over the course of approximately five days in or around May 2008, defendant also advised RANA of the surveillance that he had Startinginorabout
conducted in other locations in India. Further, defendant informed RANA of the request by one co-conspirator for defendant to conduct additional
surveillance activities in Delhi, and discussed opening an office for First World Immigration in Delhi as cover for such activities.
August 2002, defendant attended
7 a three-week
After returning to Pakistan, defendant met with various co-conspirators and received course and received training in,
instructions to return to Mumbai and conduct surveillance of various locations. In or around July 2008, defendant returned to Mumbai and conducted
extensive video surveillance of various targets, including but not limited to the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberoi Hotel, the Chabad House, the Chhatrapati Shivaji
among other skills,
Terminus train station, the Leopold Café, as well as potential landing sites for the team of attackers. After this trip, defendant again met several times in theuseofweaponsandgrenades.St
Pakistan with various co-conspirators, including but not limited to members of Lashkar e Tayyiba, provided them with the video recordings he had made and artinginorabout
discussed with the co-conspirators the video and the surveillance he had conducted.
In addition to these meetings, defendant met with Lashkar Member A on several occasions and at several locations. Lashkar Member A advised defendant of April2003,defendantattendedathr
a number of details concerning the planned attacks, including that a team of attackers was being trained in a variety of combat skills, the team would be ee-monthcourse
traveling to Mumbai by sea and using the landing site recommended by the defendant, the team would be fighting to the death and would not attempt to and received training in various
escape following the attacks, the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus train station would be one target of the attacks, and the team would be using a GPS device
and remain in telephonic contact with Lashkar Member A during the attacks. skills, including, but
The Mumbai Attacks not limited to, close combat
In late November 2008, ten co-conspirators trained by Lashkar e Tayyiba carried out assaults with firearms, grenades and improvised explosive devices
against multiple targets in Mumbai, India, including attacks on the Taj Mahal hotel; the Oberoi hotel; the Leopold
tactics, the use weapons
8 andgrenades,andsurvivalskills.St
Cafe; the Nariman House and the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus train station, killing artinginoraround
approximately 164 people and wounding hundreds more.
Other Surveillance in India
August 2003, defendant attended
In addition to the surveillance performed on the five separate trips described above, defendant traveled to India in or about March 2009 to conduct a three-week
additional surveillance. Among other locations, defendant conducted surveillance of the National Defense College in Delhi, India, and of Chabad Houses in course and received training in,
several cities in India.
b. With respect to Count Two of the Superseding Indictment: among other skills,
Beginning no later than in or about late 2005, and continuing through on or about October 3, 2009, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern counter-surveillance. Starting in
Division, and elsewhere within and without the jurisdiction of the United States, defendant conspired with Lashkar Members A, B, C, and D, and others, to or around December2003,
commit acts outside the United States that would constitute the offenses of murder and maiming if committed in the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, namely, murder and maiming in connection with attacks carried out by Lashkar e Tayyiba in India. As described in defendantattendedanapproximate
subparagraph (a), defendant agreed to assist members of Lashkar e Tayyiba to prepare for carrying out the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, which killed lythree
approximately 164 persons and wounded hundreds more.
c. With respect to Counts Three through Eight of the Superseding Indictment:
monthcourseandreceivedcombat
9 andtactical training.
On or about the dates listed below, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Onmultipleoccasions,followinghis
Eastern Division, and elsewhere within and without the jurisdiction of the United States, defendant aided and abetted the murders in Mumbai, India of the
following United States nationals: Ben Zion Chroman (November 26, 2008), Gavriel Holtzberg (November 27, 2008), Sandeep Jeswani (November 26, 2008),
completionof
Alan Scherr (November 26, 2008), Naomi Scherr (November 26, 2008) and Aryeh Leibish Teitelbaum (November 27, 2008). As described in subparagraph (a), the above-described training
defendant agreed to assist members of Lashkar e Tayyiba to prepare for carrying out the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, during which the team of courses, defendant advised
Lashkar e Tayyiba attackers killed these six United States nationals.
d. With respect to Count Nine of the Superseding Indictment: co-defendant TAHAWWUR
Beginning no later than in or about late 2005, and continuing through on or about October 3, 2009, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern HUSSAIN
Division, and elsewhere, defendant conspired with co-defendant RANA and others to provide material support or resources, and to conceal and disguise the RANAofhismembershipinLashkar
nature, location, source and ownership of such support and resources, knowing and intending that they were to be used in the preparation for, and in
carrying out, violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332f and 956(a)(1). More specifically, defendant provided personnel, namely himself, when andthetraining
he worked under the direction and control of members of Lashkar e Tayyiba to prepare for carrying out the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, which killed Thathehadreceived.
approximately 164 persons and wounded hundreds more.
e. With respect to Counts Ten and Eleven of the Superseding Indictment:
isactivitiesonbehalfofLashkarbypo
10 rtrayinghimself
In or about early November 2008, defendant met with Lashkar Member A in Karachi, in India
Pakistan, and was instructed to travel to Denmark to conduct surveillance of the Copenhagen and Aarhus offices of the Danish newspaper Morganevisen
Jyllands-Posten (the “Jyllands-Posten”), in preparation for an attack on the newspaper in retaliation for its publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet
asanAmericanwhowasneitherMus
Mohamed. Following this meeting, defendant informed codefendant ABDUR REHMAN HASHIM SYED (“Pasha”) of his assignment. Pasha stated to defendant limnor
words to the effect that if Lashkar did not go through with the attack, Pasha knew someone who would. Although not identified by name at the time, defendant Pakistani,defendantchangedhisn
later learned this individual to be co-defendant ILYAS KASHMIRI. Pasha previously had stated to defendant that he had been working with KASHMIRI and that
KASHMIRI was in direct contact with a senior leader for Al Qaeda. amefrom“Daood
In or around December 2008, defendant met with Lashkar Member A and again discussed an attack on the Jyllands-Posten facility. More specifically, Gilani” to “David Coleman
defendant and Lashkar Member A discussed the scope of the attack. When defendant suggested that they focus on those responsible, referring to killing the Headley” in Philadelphia,
editor and cartoonist identified in the Superseding Indictment as Editor A and Cartoonist A, Lashkar Member A stated that “all Danes are responsible.”
Shortly after this meeting, defendant returned to the United States. Pennsylvania.Thereafter,inorarou
In or around December 2008, defendant met with co-defendant RANA and, over the course of two or three discussions, advised RANA about his assignment to ndtheearly
conduct surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten in Denmark, as well as the statement made by Lashkar Member A. Defendant further advised RANA about his
conversations with Pasha and
summerof
11 2006,defendantmetwithLashkarM
Pasha’s statement that he knew someone who would carry out an attack if Lashkar did not. embersAandD,
In or around late December 2008 and early January 2009, defendant sent emails to, and received emails from, Pasha in order to continue planning for the
attack and coordinate defendant’s travel to Denmark. In or about early January 2009, defendant asked for RANA’s approval and assistance to identify anddiscussedopeninganimmigrati
himself as a representative of First World Immigration, to falsely represent that First World was planning to open an office in Copenhagen, and to gain entry on
to the Jyllands-Posten’s office by falsely expressing an interest in placing an advertisement for First World in the newspaper. RANA approved of the idea and officeinMumbaiascoverforhissurv
agreed to provide assistance. In or around January 2009, defendant and RANA had business cards made to identify defendant as an Immigration Consultant
for the Immigrant Law Center, a business name for First World Immigration. eillanceactivities.
In or about January 2009, defendant traveled from Chicago, Illinois, to Copenhagen, Denmark, to conduct surveillance of the Jylland Posten offices in the Onseveraloccasionsprior to
cities of Copenhagen and Aarhus in Denmark. On or about January 20, 2009, defendant obtained entry to the office in Copenhagen on the pretext that he was
seeking to place an advertisement on behalf of First World Immigration. Defendant also scouted and took extensive video surveillance of the area
thismeeting,defendant
surrounding the Copenhagen office. While in Copenhagen, defendant provided one of the business cards which RANA and the defendant had made to a hadadvisedLashkarMembersAan
Jylland Posten employee. Because this card identified other business addresses for First World in New York and Canada, defendant sent an email to RANA dDof his
asking him to contact those offices to make
12
friendshipwithcodefendantRANA,
sure that if Jylland Posten employees contacted one of those offices, the First World andhisownershipand
employees at those locations would not blow defendant’s cover. operation of First World
On or about January 23, 2009, defendant obtained entry to the Jyllands-Posten office in Aarhus, again on the pretext that he was seeking to place an
advertisement on behalf of First World in the newspaper. Defendant also scouted the area surrounding that office. Immigration, an immigration
In or around late January 2009, defendant met separately with Lashkar Member A and Pasha in Pakistan concerning the planned attack on the newspaper services business
and provided each with videos of his surveillance. At about the same time, Pasha provided to defendant a video produced by the media wing of Al Qaeda in or inChicagoandotherlocations.
around August 2008. The video claimed credit for the June 2008 attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, and called for further attacks against
Danish interests to avenge the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed. In or around June 2006,
In or around February 2009, defendant and Pasha met with co-defendant KASHMIRI in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Defendant discussed with KASHMIRI defendant traveled to
and Pasha the video surveillance that defendant had taken in Copenhagen and ways in which to carry out the attack. KASHMIRI told the defendant that he
(KASHMIRI) could provide manpower for the operation and that the participation of Lashkar was not necessary. After this meeting, in or around March 2009,
Chicago andmetwith co-
Lashkar Member A advised defendant that Lashkar put the plans to attack the Jyllands-Posten on hold due to pressure on Lashkar resulting from the defendantRANA.Defendantadvis
November 2008 attacks in Mumbai. edRANAofhisassignmentinIndia,
13
Thereafter, in or around May 2009, defendant and Pasha again met with KASHMIRI
andexplained
in Waziristan. KASHMIRI told the defendant that he had met with a European contact who could provide the defendant with money, weapons and manpower that opening an office for
for the attack on the newspaper. KASHMIRI directed the defendant to meet with this European contact, and relate KASHMIRI’s instructions that this should be FirstWorld Immigration
a suicide attack and that the attackers should prepare martyrdom videos beforehand. Among other details, KASHMIRI stated that the attackers should
would provide a cover story for
his activities.
RANAagreedtoopenanoffice
inMumbaiandprovideassistanceto
defendant’sactivities.
AtRANA’sdirection,
anindividualassociatedwithFirstW
orldprepareddocumentstosupport
defendant’scoverstory.
RANAfurtheradviseddefen
dantonhowto obtaina
visa for his travel to
India.Inapplying for this
visa,defendant
behead captives and throw their heads out of the newspaper building in order to heighten the response from Danish authorities. KASHMIRI stated misrepresented his birth
that the “elders,” who defendant understood to be Al Qaeda leadership, wanted the attack to happen as soon as possible.
After this meeting, in or around early June 2009, defendant returned to Chicago. Defendant met with RANA on several occasions in or around June name, his father’s
and July 2009. Defendant related what KASHMIRI had stated in the May 2009 meeting, including the details described in the above paragraph. In or nameandthe truepurposeof
around July 2009, defendant also provided to RANA, among other materials, the Al Qaeda video described above.
In or about late July and early August 2009, defendant traveled from Chicago, Illinois, to various places in Europe, including Copenhagen, Denmark,
his travel to India.
to conduct additional surveillance of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper office and surrounding area. In doing so, defendant took approximately 13
surveillance videos. Further, while in another location in Europe, defendant met with, and attempted to gain assistance from, KASHMIRI’s European Surveillance Trips
contacts. When returning to the United States on or about August 5, 2009, defendant falsely
14
After
advised a Customs and Border Patrol inspector at an airport in Atlanta that he had visited receivingRANA’sapproval,d
Europe for business reasons related to First World. efendant traveled
Following his return to Chicago, defendant advised RANA in detail about his surveillance efforts in Copenhagen and his meeting with KASHMIRI’s
European contact. Defendant also spoke with Pasha by telephone and, using code, related some of the details relating to his surveillance and his back to Pakistan and met
meeting with KASHMIRI’s European contact. with Lashkar Members
On multiple dates throughout the remainder of August and September, defendant communicated with RANA and Pasha concerning planning for the
attack on the Jyllands-Posten and media reports that co-defendant KASHMIRI had been killed. On or about October 3, 2009, defendant traveled to
A and D, among others, on
O’Hare Airport intending ultimately to travel to Pakistan in order to meet with Pasha and KASHMIRI and to deliver to them the approximately 13 several occasions.
surveillance videos. Defendant advised them
f. With respect to Count Twelve of the Superseding Indictment:
Beginning no later than in or about late 2005, and continuing to on or about October 3, 2009, defendant knowingly provided material support or
thatRANAhad agreed to
resources to a foreign terrorist organization, namely Lashkar e Tayyiba. More specifically, defendant knew at least as early as 2004, that Lashkar e the use of First World
Tayyiba was designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization. At the same time, defendant knowingly worked under that Immigration as cover for
terrorist organization’s direction and control, as described herein in subparagraph (a).
g. The foregoing facts are set forth solely to assist the Court in determining whether a factual basis exists for defendant's plea of guilty and are not his
intended to be a activities.Duringthesemeeti
15 ngs,defendantreceived
complete or comprehensive statement of all the facts within defendant's personal knowledge
regarding the charged crimes and related conduct. instructions regarding
Maximum Statutory Penalties hisintendedtravel to India.
7. Defendant understands that the charges to which he is pleading guilty carry the following statutory penalties:
a.
Defendantthereaftertravele
Count One carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty because death resulted. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, dtoIndiainoraround
Section 3561, defendant may not be sentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count One also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the September2006, using
gross gain or gross loss resulting from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that with respect to Count One the judge
also may impose a term of supervised release of not more than five years.
theopeningandoperation of
b. RANA’s immigration
Count Two carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not be business as cover. During
sentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count Two also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that with respect to Count Two, the judge also may impose a term of this
supervised release of not more than five years. trip, defendant conducted
c. extensive video
Counts Three through Eight carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
3561 defendant may not be sentenced to a term of probation on these counts. Counts Three through Eight also each carry a maximum fine of surveillance
$250,000. Defendant further understands of various locations in
16
that with respect to Counts Three through Eight the judge also may impose terms of
India, including, but not
supervised release of not more than five years. limited to,the
d. TajMahalHotel.Afterthis
Count Nine carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not be
sentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count Nine also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
trip,defendantmetinPakista
from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further understands that with respect to Count Nine, the judge also may impose a term of n
supervised release of not more than five years. with various co-
e.
Count Ten carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not be conspirators, including
sentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count Ten also carries a maximum fine of $250,000. Defendant further understands that with but not limited to members
respect to Count Ten, the judge also may impose a term of supervised release of not more than five years. ofLashkar, provided
f.
Count Eleven carries a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not be them with the video
sentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count Eleven also carries a maximum fine of $250,000. Defendant further understands that with recordings and discussed
respect to Count Eleven, the judge also may impose a term of supervised release of not more than five years.
g.
with the co-conspirators
Count Twelve carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3561 defendant may not be the video and the
sentenced to a term of probation on this count. Count Twelve also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, surveillancehehadconducte
17
or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from that offense, whichever is greater.
d.
Defendant further understands that with respect to Count Twelve, the judge also may impose a term of supervised release of not more than five Further,defendantreceived
years instructions to return to
h.
In accord with Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013, defendant will be assessed $100 on each count to which he has pled guilty, in addition to Mumbai and perform
any other penalty imposed. additional
i. Surveillance.
Therefore, under the counts to which defendant is pleading guilty, the total maximum sentence is life imprisonment or the death penalty. In
addition, defendant is subject to a total maximum fine of $3,000,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offenses of conviction,
whichever is greater, a period of supervised release, and special assessments totaling $1200. In or around February
The Death Penalty
8. Defendant has been cooperating with the Government since the time of his arrest on October 3, 2009, and to date has provided substantial
2007, defendant returned
assistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value. In addition, as provided for in toMumbaiandconductedvid
Paragraph 12 of this Plea Agreement, the defendant has agreed to fully and truthfully cooperate in further proceedings. In light of defendant’s past eosurveillance of various
cooperation and expected future cooperation, and all the other relevant factors being considered, the Attorney General of the United States has
authorized the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to not seek the death penalty against defendant. Defendant understands
locations, including, but not
that if he should breach this cooperation agreement and if the limited to, extensive
18 videoofthesecondfloorofthe
government, at its sole discretion, voids such agreement, the government will no longer be
bound by its decision not to seek the death penalty. TajMahalHotel.After
Extradition this trip, defendant again
9. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of India, Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the met in Pakistan with
United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, and Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
defendant shall not be extradited to the Republic of India, the Kingdom of Denmark, or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, respectively, for any various
offenses for which he has been convicted in accordance with this plea. The defendant and the United States Attorney’s Office accordingly agree co-conspirators, provided
that, if defendant pleads guilty to and is convicted of all offenses set out in the Superseding Indictment, including Conspiracy to Bomb Places of
Public Use in India (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2332f (a)(2)), Conspiracy to Murder and Maim in India (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §956(a)(1)), Aiding and
them with the video
Abetting Murder (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2332(a)(1) and 2), Conspiracy to Murder and Maim in Denmark (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §956(a)(1)), recordingsanddiscussed
Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorism, in both India and Pakistan (in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2339A), and Conspiracy to Provide Material the surveillance.
In or around June 2007,
defendant traveled to
Chicago and met with
RANA. Defendant advised
RANAof the
surveillanceworkhehadperf
ormedin
Mumbai. Defendant further
advised RANA about
his meeting with co-conspirators
and their reaction
Support to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a foreign terrorist organization (in violation of 18 to his surveillance work.
U.S.C. §2339B), then the defendant shall not be extradited to the Republic of India, the Kingdom of Denmark or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the Following defendant’s
foregoing offenses, returntoPakistan,
19
including conduct within the scope of those offenses for which he has been convicted in defendantwasinstructedtoreturnto
accordance with this plea, so long as he fully discloses all material facts concerning his role with respect to these offenses and abides by all other aspects Mumbai. In or around September
of this agreement.
Sentencing Guidelines Calculations
2007, defendant
10. returned to Mumbai and
Defendant understands that in imposing sentence the Court will be guided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands that the conducted additional surveillance,
Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines in determining a reasonable sentence.
11.
as instructed. After returning to
For purposes of calculating the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties agree on the following points: Pakistan,
a. defendantagainmetwithvarious
Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following statements
regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the November 2009 Guidelines co-conspirators.
Manual. In or about March 2008,
b. Offense Level Calculations.
i.
defendant met with
The base offense level for the charge in Count One of the Superseding Indictment is 43, pursuant to Guideline §2K1.4(c) and §2A1.1. Because the defendant coconspiratorsinPakistananddisc
intentionally selected victims and property of the attacks based on the actual and perceived religion, national origin and ethnicity of persons (e.g. targets ussedpotentiallandingsitesinMum
were selected because they were in India), a 3-point enhancement applies pursuant to §3A1.1. Because some victims were restrained during the offense, a
2 point enhancement is warranted pursuant to
bai
20 forateamof attackersthatwould
§3A1.3. Because the offense is a felony that involved a federal crime of terrorism, a 12 point arrivebysea.Followingthisdiscussi
enhancement applies to defendant’s base offense level pursuant to §3A1.4. Defendant’s use of his specialized training in surveillance warrants a “special
skill” enhancement of 2-point pursuant to §3B1.3. Thus, defendant’s adjusted offense level is level 62; on,defendantwas
ii. The adjusted offense level for Count Two is level 62 for the reasons set forth in subparagraph 11(b)(i) above (see §2A1.5); ordered to return to Mumbai to
iii. The adjusted offense level for Counts Three, Six and Seven is level 60 for the reasons set forth in subparagraph 11(b)(i), except that no enhancement is perform additional
appropriate pursuant to §3A1.3 as the victims in those counts were not physically restrained;
iv. surveillance and locate possible
The adjusted offense levels for Counts Four, Five and Eight is level 62 for the reasons set forth in subparagraph 11(b)(i) (the victims in these counts were landing sites. In or
physically restrained);
v.
around April 2008, defendant
The adjusted offense level for Count Nine is level 62 for the reasons set forth in subparagraph 11(b)(i) (see §2X2.1).; returned to Mumbai
vi. The base offense level for the charge in Count Ten of the Superseding Indictment is 33, pursuant to Guideline §2A1.5. Because the offense is a felony that with a global positioning system
involved a federal crime of terrorism, a 12 point enhancement applies pursuant to §3A1.4. Defendant’s use of his specialized training in surveillance
warrants a “special skill” enhancement pursuant to §3B1.3. Thus, the defendant’s adjusted offense level for Count Ten is level 47;
device and performed
21 the surveillance, including taking
vii. The adjusted offense level for Count Eleven is level 47 for the boat trips
reasons set forth in subparagraph 11(b)(vi) (see §2X2.1);
viii. The adjusted offense level for Count Twelve is level 62 for the reasons set forth in subparagraph 11(b)(i) (see §2X2.1); in and around the Mumbai harbor
ix. and entering
Counts One through Nine and Twelve are grouped pursuant to §3D1.2(a) and the applicable offense level is 62; locationsintheGPSdevice.
x.
Counts Ten and Eleven are grouped pursuant to §3D1.2(a) and the applicable offense level is 47; AfterreturningtoPakistan,
xi. defendant again met various co-
Therefore, the combined offense level for both groups is level
62 pursuant to §3D1.4;
conspirators, and,
xii. amongotherthings,advisedthemof
Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative hisrecommendations
acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and
if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline §3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States
as to potential landing
Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine that may be imposed in this case, sites.Duringthesemeetings,
a two-level reduction in the offense level is appropriate. defendant learned that attack
xiii. In accord with Guideline §3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the
government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline §3E1.1(b), if the plans were being
Court determines the delayed, in part, to wait
22 forwhenthe seawascalmer.
offense level to be 16 or greater prior to determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level
reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the government will move for an additional one-level reduction in the offense level. At around the end of April 2008,
c. defendant traveled
Criminal History Category. With regard to determining defendant's criminal history points and criminal history category, based on the facts now known to
the government and stipulated below, defendant's criminal history points equal 6. Due to the operation of Guideline §3A1.4, however, defendant's criminal
to the United States for about six
history category is VI. weeks. Over
i. the course of a few days in or
In or about 1988, defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of conspiracy to import heroin into the
United States and sentenced on January 5, 1989, to four years’ imprisonment. On or about March 27, 1995, defendant was found to have violated the terms of
around the end ofMay
his supervised release, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Guideline §4A1.2(e)(1) and (k), because defendant was incarcerated 2008, defendant met with co-
for his supervised release violation in 1995, his 1989 conviction is considered to have occurred within 15 years prior to the commencement of the instant defendant RANA in
offense, which began no later than late 2005. Pursuant to Guideline §4A1.1, the defendant is assessed 3 criminal history points for this conviction;
ii. On or about July 18, 1997, defendant was convicted of conspiracy to import and possess heroin with the intent to distribute it in violation of Title 21, United Chicago. Defendant related to
States Code, Sections 963 and 846 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and sentenced on November 7, 1997, to eighteen RANA the landing
months’ ideasand,inparticular,theideaofon
23
imprisonment. Pursuant to Guideline §4A1.1(a), defendant is assessed 3 criminal history eco-conspirator
points for this conviction; that theteamof attackers land in
iii.
Based upon the above, defendant’s total criminal history points are 6.
front of the TajMahal
d. Hotel. Defendant informed RANA
Anticipated Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range. Therefore, based on the facts now known to the government, the anticipated adjusted offense level is that the attack
59, which, when combined with the anticipated criminal history category of VI, results in an anticipated advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of life
imprisonment, in addition to any supervised release, fine, and restitution the Court may impose.
plans were being delayed, in part,
e. to wait for
Defendant and his attorneys and the government acknowledge that the above Guideline calculations are preliminary in nature and based on facts known calmerwaters.
to the parties as of the time of this Plea Agreement. Defendant understands that the Probation Office will conduct its own investigation and that the Court
ultimately determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing, and that the Court's determinations govern the final Guideline calculation. Accordingly, During discussions over the
the validity of this Agreement is not contingent upon the probation officer’s or the Court's concurrence with the above calculations, and defendant shall course of approximately
not have a right to withdraw his plea on the basis of the Court's rejection of these calculations. five days in or around May 2008,
f.
Both parties expressly acknowledge that while none of the Guideline calculations set forth above are binding on the Court or the Probation Office, the defendant
parties have agreed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(B) that certain components of those calculations also advised RANA of the
24
– specifically, those set forth above in subparagraphs a, b and c of this paragraph – are
surveillance that he had
binding on the parties, and it shall be a breach of this Plea Agreement for either party to present or advocate a position inconsistent with the agreed conductedinotherlocations in
calculations set forth in the identified subparagraphs. India.Further,defendant
informedRANAof the request by
one co-conspirator
for defendant to conduct
additional surveillance
activities in Delhi, and discussed
opening an
officeforFirstWorldImmigrationin
Delhiascoverfor
Suchactivities.
After returning to Pakistan,
g. Defendant understands that with the exception of the Guideline provisions identified above as binding on the parties, the Guideline calculations set
defendant met with
forth above are non-binding predictions, upon which neither party is entitled to rely, and are not governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(1)(B). Errors in applying or variousco-
interpreting any of the Sentencing Guidelines (other than those identified above as binding) may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing. The conspiratorsandreceivedinstructi
parties may correct these errors either by stipulation or by a statement to the Probation Office or the Court, setting forth the disagreement regarding the
applicable provisions of the Guidelines. The validity of this Plea Agreement will not be affected by such corrections, and defendant shall not have a right to
onstoreturntoMumbaiandconduct
withdraw his plea, nor the government the right to vacate this Plea Agreement, on the basis of such corrections. surveillanceofvariouslocations.
Cooperation InoraroundJuly2008,defendantret
12. Defendant agrees he will fully and truthfully cooperate in any matter in which he is called upon to cooperate by a representative of the United States
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois. This cooperation shall include providing complete and truthful information in any investigation and urnedto
pre-trial preparation and complete and truthful testimony in any criminal, civil or administrative proceeding in the United States, including any Mumbaiandconductedextensive
proceeding before a military tribunal or commission. Defendant agrees that, when
25
video surveillance
directed by the United States Attorney’s Office, he will fully and truthfully participate in any of various targets,
debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information. Defendant further agrees that, when directed by the United States includingbutnot limitedto theTaj
Attorney’s Office, he will fully and truthfully testify in any foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States by way of deposition, videoconferencing or
letters rogatory. Defendant agrees to the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.
Mahal Hotel, the Oberoi Hotel,
Agreements Relating to Sentencing the Chabad House,
13. the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus
At the time of sentencing, the government shall make known to the sentencing judge the extent of defendant's cooperation. If the government determines
that defendant has continued to provide full and truthful cooperation as required by this plea agreement, then the government shall move the Court, train station, the
pursuant to Guideline §5Kl.l, to depart downward from the applicable Guideline range. Defendant understands that the decision to depart from the Leopold Café, as well as
applicable guidelines range rests solely with the Court. Defendant further understands that the government reserves the right to make whatever potential landing sites for
recommendation it deems appropriate regarding the extent of any downward departure.
14. theteamof attackers.Afterthis
If the government does not move the Court, pursuant to Sentencing Guideline §5K1.1, to depart from the applicable Guideline range, as set forth above, the trip,defendantagain
preceding paragraph of this plea agreement will be inoperative, both parties shall be free to recommend any sentence, and the Court shall impose a
sentence taking into consideration the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) as well as the Sentencing Guidelines without any downward departure for
metseveraltimesinPakistanwithva
cooperation pursuant to §5K1.1. Defendant may not withdraw his plea of riousco-conspirators
26 and provided them with the video
guilty because the government has failed to make a motion pursuant to Sentencing Guideline
§5K1.1.
recordings
15. anddiscussed the
It is understood by the parties that the sentencing judge is neither a party to nor bound by this Plea Agreement and may impose a sentence up to the surveillancehehadconducted.
maximum penalties as set forth above. Defendant further acknowledges that if the Court does not accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties,
defendant will have no right to withdraw his guilty plea. In addition to these meetings,
16. defendant met with
Defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of $1200 at the time of sentencing with a cashier’s check or money order payable to the Clerk of the U.S. LashkarmemberAonseveralocca
District Court.
17. sionsandatseveral
Defendant agrees that the United States may enforce collection of any fine or restitution imposed in this case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, locations.LashkarmemberAadvis
Sections 3572, 3613, and 3664(m), notwithstanding any payment schedule set by the Court.
Acknowledgments and Waivers Regarding Plea of Guilty
eddefendantofa
Nature of Plea Agreement number
27 ofdetailsconcerningtheplannedatt
18. This Plea Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire agreement
between the United States Attorney and defendant regarding defendant's criminal liability in case 09 CR 830.
acks, includingthatateamof
19. This Plea Agreement concerns criminal liability only. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, nothing herein shall constitute a limitation, waiver attackerswasbeingtrainedina
or release by the United States or any of its agencies of any administrative or judicial civil claim, demand or cause of action it may have against defendant varietyofcombatskills,theteamwo
or any other person or entity. The obligations of this Agreement are limited to the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois and
cannot bind any other federal, state or local prosecuting, administrative or regulatory authorities, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. uldbetravelingto
Waiver of Rights Mumbai by sea and using the
20. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he surrenders certain rights, including the following: landing site
a.
Trial rights. Defendant has the right to persist in a plea of not guilty to the charges against him, and if he does, he would have the right to a public and speedy recommendedbythedefendant,
trial. theteamwouldbefighting
i.
The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge sitting without a jury. Defendant has a right to a jury trial. However, in order that the trial be
to
conducted by the judge sitting without a jury, defendant, the government, and the judge all must agree that the trial be conducted by the judge without a thedeathandwouldnotattempttoes
jury. capefollowing
28
ii. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be composed of twelve
the attacks, the Chhatrapati
citizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court remove Shivaji Terminus
prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising would be one target, and the
peremptory challenges.
iii. If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be instructed that defendant is presumed innocent, that the government has the burden of proving defendant team would be using a
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond a GPS device and remain in
reasonable doubt and that it was to consider each count of the Superseding Indictment separately. The jury would have to agree unanimously as to each telephonic contact with
count before it could return a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to that count.
iv. LashkarmemberAduring the
If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering each count attacks.
separately, whether or not the judge was persuaded that the government had established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
v.
TheMumbaiAttacks
At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the government would be required to present its witnesses and other evidence against defendant. Defendant would InlateNovember2008,tenco-
be able to confront those government witnesses and his attorney would be able to cross-examine them. conspiratorstrained
29
vi. At a trial, defendant could present witnesses and other evidence
by Lashkar e Tayyiba carried out
in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would not appear voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the Court. A assaults with
defendant is not required to present any evidence. firearms,grenadesandimprovised
vii.
At a trial, defendant would have a privilege against self-incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn from his explosive devices
refusal to testify. If defendant desired to do so, he could testify in his own behalf. againstmultipletargetsinMumbai,I
b.
Waiver of appellate and collateral rights. Defendant further understands he is waiving all appellate issues that might have been available if he had
ndia,includingattacks
exercised his right to trial. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, afford a on the Taj Mahal hotel; the
defendant the right to appeal his conviction and the sentence imposed. Acknowledging this, if the government makes a motion at sentencing for a Oberoi hotel; the
downward departure pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 5K1.1, defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal his conviction, any pre-trial rulings by the
Court, and any part of the sentence (or the manner in which that sentence was determined), including any term of imprisonment and fine within the
LeopoldCafe;theNarimanHousea
maximums provided by law, and including any order of restitution or forfeiture, in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this Plea ndtheChhatrapati
Agreement. Defendant also waives his right to challenge his conviction and sentence, and the manner in which the sentence was determined, and (in any Shivaji Terminus train station,
case in which the term of imprisonment and fine are within the maximums provided by statute) his attorney's alleged failure or refusal to file a notice of
appeal, in any collateral killing
30 approximately164peopleandwou
attack or future challenge, including but not limited to a motion brought under Title 28, ndinghundredsmore.
United States Code, Section 2255. The waiver in this paragraph does not apply to a claim of involuntariness, or ineffective assistance of counsel, which
relates directly to this waiver or to its negotiation, nor does it prohibit defendant from seeking a reduction of sentence based directly on a change in the law OtherSurveillance in India
that is applicable to defendant and that, prior to the filing of defendant’s request for relief, has been expressly made retroactive by an Act of Congress, the In addition to the surveillance
performed on the
five separate trips described
above, defendant traveledto
India
inoraboutMarch2009toconductad
ditional
surveillance. Among other
locations,
defendantconductedsurveillanc
e
of theNationalDefense
Supreme Court, or the United States Sentencing Commission. CollegeinDelhi,India,andofChab
c. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is waiving all the rights set forth in the prior paragraphs. Defendant's attorneys have explained those adHousesinseveral
rights to him, and the consequences of his waiver of those rights.
21. By entering this plea of guilty, defendant also waives any and all right the defendant may have, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3600, to require DNA testing of any cities in India.
physical evidence in the possession of the Government. Defendant fully understands that, as a result of this waiver, any physical evidence in this case will Beginning no later than in or
not be preserved by the Government and will therefore not be available for DNA testing in the future.
Presentence Investigation Report/Post-Sentence Supervision
about late 2005, and
22. Defendant understands that the United States Attorney's Office in its submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at continuing through on or about
sentencing shall fully apprise the District Court and the Probation Office of the nature, scope and extent of October 3, 2009, at
31
defendant's conduct regarding the charges against him, and related matters. The government
Chicagoandelsewherewithinand
will make known all matters in aggravation and mitigation relevant to sentencing, including the nature and extent of defendant's cooperation. withoutthejurisdiction
23. of the United States, defendant
Defendant agrees to truthfully and completely execute a Financial Statement (with supporting documentation) prior to sentencing, to be provided to and
shared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorney’s Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including his conspired with
recent income tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that providing false or incomplete information, or refusing to Lashkar Members A, B, C, and
provide this information, may be used as a basis for denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to Guideline §3E1.1 and enhancement of D, and others, to
his sentence for obstruction of justice under Guideline §3C1.1, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 or as a
contempt of the Court. commit acts outside the United
24. States that would
For the purpose of monitoring defendant's compliance with his obligations to pay a fine during any term of supervised release to which defendant is
sentenced, defendant further consents to the disclosure by the IRS to the Probation Office and the United States Attorney’s Office of defendant's individual
constitute the offenses of
income tax returns (together with extensions, correspondence, and other tax information) filed subsequent to defendant's sentencing, to and including the murder and maiming if
final year of any period of supervised release to which defendant is sentenced. Defendant also agrees that a certified copy of this Plea Agreement shall be committedinthespecialmaritimea
sufficient evidence of defendant's request to the IRS to disclose the returns and return information, as provided for in Title 26, United States Code, Section
6103(b). ndterritorialjurisdiction
32 of the United States, namely,
Other Terms murder and
25.
Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office in collecting any unpaid fine for which defendant is liable, including providing maiming in connection with
financial statements and supporting records as requested by the United States Attorney’s Office. attacks carried out by
26.
Should defendant engage in additional criminal activity after he has pled guilty but prior to sentencing, defendant shall be considered to have breached
Lashkar in India.
this plea agreement, and the government at its option may void this Plea Agreement. Onoraboutthedateslistedbelow,d
Conclusion efendantaided
27.
Defendant understands that this Plea Agreement will be filed with the Court, will become a matter of public record and may be disclosed to any person.
andabetted
28. themurdersinMumbai,India of
Defendant understands that his compliance with each part of this Plea Agreement extends throughout the period of his sentence, and failure to abide by any the following
term of the Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. Defendant further understands that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at its
option, may move to vacate the Agreement, rendering it null and void, and thereafter prosecute defendant not subject to any of the limits set forth in this United States nationals: Ben
Agreement, or may move to resentence defendant or require defendant’s specific performance of this Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that Zion Chroman
in the event that the Court permits defendant to withdraw from this Agreement, or defendant breaches any of its terms and the government elects to void the (November26,
Agreement and prosecute defendant, any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of this
Agreement may be commenced against defendant in 2008),GavrielHoltzberg(Novem
33 ber
accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of limitations
between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of such prosecutions.
27, 2008), Sandeep Jeswani
29. (November 26, 2008),
Should the judge refuse to accept defendant's plea of guilty, this Plea Agreement shall become null and void and neither party will be bound thereto. Alan Scherr (November 26,
30.
Defendant and his attorneys acknowledge that no threats, promises, or representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set
2008), Naomi Scherr
forth in this Plea Agreement to cause defendant to plead guilty. (November26,2008)andAryehLe
34 ibish Teitelbaum
31.
Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Plea Agreement and carefully reviewed each provision with his attorneys. Defendant further acknowledges (November27, 2008).
that he understands and voluntarily accepts each and every term and condition of this Agreement. Beginning no later than in or
AGREED THIS DATE: _____________________ about late 2005, and
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD DAVID COLEMAN HEADLEY
United States Attorney Defendant continuing throughonor about
October 3, 2009,
defendantconspiredwithRANAa
ndothers
toprovide
materialsupportorresources,and
toconcealanddisguise
the nature, location, source and
ownership of
US has let down India badly such support and resources,
knowing and intending
thattheyweretobeusedintheprep
All governments indulge in spin. One should not, therefore, blame the arationfor,andin
carrying out, violations of Title
government of Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] for indulging in spin in the 18, United States
Code,Section2332fand956(a)(1)
case of David Coleman Headley, of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e- .Morespecifically,
Tayiba [ Images ], and for trying to mislead the hapless Indian public defendantprovidedpersonnel,na
melyhimself,when
with the help of obliging journalists that the plea bargain entered into by he worked under the direction
and control of members
the Federal Bureau of Investigation with Headley was not a setback, but a ofLashkar e Tayyiba to prepare
great triumph for Indian diplomacy. for carrying out
theNovember2008attacks
inMumbai.
We might not have succeeded in getting him extradited in the Mumbai [
Images ] 26/11 case, says Union Home Secretary G K Pillai bravely, but
the option of getting him extradited in other cases is still open. What
other cases?We will keep trying, says Union Home Minister P
Chidambaram [ Images ]. And, in the meanwhile, more Indians will keep
dying at the hands of the terrorists.
The Death Penalty
'Four Reasons Why India is Smiling' says The Times of India [ Images ]. Why DEFENDANT has been cooperating with the
Government since the time of his arrest on
India is smiling according to the whiz kids of the TOI? For the first time LeT's October 3, 2009, and to date has provided
links with the Al Qaeda [ Images ] being underscored in a United States substantial assistance to the criminal
investigation, and also has provided
court. Oh really? The first time a clandestine cell of the LeT was detected in information of significant intelligence value.
the US was in 2003 when George Bush [ Images ] was the President. The FBI In addition, as provided for in Paragraph 12 of
arrested a number of American nationals of Pakistani, Saudi and other this Plea Agreement, the defendant has
agreed to fully and truthfully cooperate
origin and charged them with waging war against India from US territory. in further proceedings. In light of defendant’s
past cooperation and expected future
cooperation, and all the other relevant
What is the second reason for India's smile visible only to the TOI and not to factors being considered, the Attorney
many of us? "The threat of execution will hang over him." Oh really? Under General of the United States has authorized
the US Attorney for the Northern District
the US law once the FBI renounces its right to demand death penalty in a of Illinois to not seek the death penalty
case, it cannot go back on its commitment whatever be the new evidence. against defendant. Defendant understands
that if he should breach this
cooperation agreement and if the
What is the third reason for the smile? India can interrogate Headley even government, at its sole discretion, voids such
if he is not extradited. Another gem from the TOI. Interrogation is done in agreement, the government will no longer be
bound by its decision not to seek the death
your custody. Otherwise, it is meaningless. Yes, under the plea bargain penalty.
Indian investigators can question him in FBI's custody. The FBI officer will
Extradition
decide the relevance of the questions. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty
What is the fourth reason for India's smile so visible to the TOI? India's Between the United States and the Republic
of India, Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty
case against the LeT has become stronger. So what? Will India be able to between
get Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the founder of the LeT, arrested and prosecuted the United States and the Kingdom of
by Pakistan? Will India be able to see that Pakistan dismantles the LeT Denmark, and Article 4 of the Extradition
Treaty between the United States and Islamic
infrastructure in Pakistani territory? Will India be able to prevent another Republic of Pakistan, defendant shall not be
26/11? Then of what use India's case against the LeT becoming stronger? extradited to the Republic of India, the
Kingdom
of Denmark, or the Islamic Republic of
The Hindu, another national other daily, has come out with its own gem. Pakistan, respectively, for any offenses for
"Barring death penalty enthusiasts, no one has any reason to bemoan the which he has been convicted in accordance
with this plea.
plea agreement," it says
But it has got nothing to do with death
penalty. It has got everything to do
with Pakistan's continued use of the
LeT to kill hundreds of innocent
Indians.
Our investigation into 26/11 runs on
two parallel tracks -- the
responsibility of the LeT, which the
Pakistanis project as a non-state
actor with which the state of Pakistan
has nothing to do. What the US has
sought to achieve through the
choreographed plea bargain is that
while India will be able to highlight
the responsibility of the LeT, it will not
be able to establish the responsibility
of the state of Pakistan. The Obama [
Images ] administration wants the
world to perceive 26/11 as the crime
of a non-state actor as claimed by
Pakistan and not the crime of the
state of Pakistan. That is the real
issue here.What did Headley know
according to the FBI's own court
affidavits?
He knew chief operational chief of
Harkat-ul-Jihadi Islami Ilyas Kashmiri
of the 313 Brigade, who is close to Al
Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden [
Images ] and who recently threatened
to attack the Indian Premier League [
Images ] cricket matches and the
Commonwealth Games [ Images ].
Headley had met him in North
Waziristan in the beginning of 2009.
He knew many office-bearers of the
LeT whose identities the FBI has not
revealed.He knew many serving and
retired officers of the Pakistan Army [
Images ].
What he must be knowing?
The identities of the many contacts he
made in India during his repeated
visits.The identities of the sleeper
CRADLE-TO-JAIL SAGA OF HEADLEY cells of the LeT, which have not yet
come to the notice of the Indian
investigators. If the FBI had allowed
SOON after David Coleman Headley was born in the US, his parents moved to Lahore. The marriage us to question Headley in time, we
soured as Sayed Gilani turned a devout Muslim and Serrill Headley refused to submit herself to might have been able to prevent the
Islamic traditions. She left for the US without David and Syedah, her infant daughter. In the early '70s,
Pune blast of February 13 if it had
Serrill worked in offices and dated wealthy men in Philadelphia. One of them lent her money to buy an
old bar. She renovated it, named it Khyber Pass and decorated it with Afghan tents. It served exotic been planned by the LeT or its Indian
beer.In 1977, Serrill visited Pakistan after getting David's custody. She pulled him out of Hasan Abdal associates.The FBI had seen to it that
Cadet College in Islamabad and took him to the US. "After watching American TV, he told his mother in we will not be able to find out all this
his soft Urdu- English that she appears to him asthe Bionic Woman," The Philadelphia Inquirer said
by independently interrogating
about David. The young man rebelled against his mother's heavy drinking and multiple sexual
relationships by following in her footsteps. He started expressing anger at all non-Muslims. An ex- Headley. It is a great tragedy and
employee of his mother's pub said Headley kept talking about a return to the 14th century and that speaks eloquently of the decay of our
Islam would take over the world. In 1985, his mother put him in charge of Khyber Pass, but his poor sense of national self-respect that
management skills led to the pub suffering heavy losses. While his mother married a third time,
instead of having the spine to stand
Headley left for New York and opened two video rental stores in Manhattan. In 1998, he was convicted
of conspiring to smuggle heroin into the US from Pakistan. He provided so much information that he up to the US and protest loud and
got off lightly. In 2005, the LeT advised Headley to travel to India to recce potential targets. In 2006, he clear over the FBI's shutting out
moved with his Pakistani wife and children to Chicago because it had a sizeable Muslim community. access to Headley, we are indulging in
Headley reportedly started working for Tahawwur Hussain Rana's First World Immigration Services.
more spins to project what has
After their arrest, Rana and Headley were initially charged with plotting an attack on Jyllands- Posten,
the Danish newspaper whose cartoons outraged the Muslim world. The FBI also accused Headley of happened as a triumph for Indo-US
plotting the 26/11 Mumbai attack cooperation over which we should
smile and not cry.
The Obama administration has been repeatedly kicking us in the back. It did so in respect of Afghanistan. It has done so in respect of
Headley. Instead of having the courage and intellectual honesty to admit to our people that we have been let down nastily by the US, we
are indulging in more spins to project the kicks as, in fact, bouquets from Obama with love.

Dear Dr Manmohan Singh, Dear Chidambaram, Dear Pillai, and dear journalists of the Hindu and TOI: Some weeks ago Mulla Baradar,
supposedly No 2 in the Afghan Taliban [ Images ], was arrested by the Inter Services Intelligence in Karachi. He is in the ISI's custody. The
US and Afghan intelligence wanted independent access to him for interrogation.
The ISI refused and told them he could be questioned in the ISI's custody. The US insisted on independent access and warned Pakistan of
the likely consequences if it did not agree to it. This week's reports say that Pakistan has been forced to allow independent access to the
Americans.

That is the way a self-respecting nation protects its interests and nationals. For the US, independent interrogation of Baradar was
necessary to hold those responsible for American deaths in the past accountable and to prevent more deaths in future. It insisted on it
and had its way.

India is not the US. The clout which it has over Pakistan we do not have anywhere in the world. At least we could have had the courage to
protest -- loudly and openly -- instead of projecting every stab in the back by Obama as a kiss in the back.