Why 26/11 Accused David Headley Remains Untouched in US?

David Headley’s extradition to India is blocked by a US plea deal, intelligence ties, and strategic interests. His cooperation spared him the death penalty, and the US fears extradition could expose sensitive intelligence operations and his role as an informant.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Why 26/11 Accused David Headley Remains Untouched in US?

Senior intelligence officers have informed CNN-News18 that India’s probe into the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks cannot be deemed complete without interrogating David Headley, but his extradition from the US is still beyond reach. The reason, they explain, is a mix of legal protections, diplomatic niceties, and strategic imperatives that make it impossible for the US to extradite him.

Headley’s US Deal

Headley, a Pakistani-American terrorist informant, negotiated a plea agreement with US officials in 2010 that protects him from extradition to India, Pakistan, or Denmark. “This is a binding legal agreement and was negotiated in return for his cooperation,” sources said. In exchange for cooperating against co-conspirators such as Tahawwur Rana, Headley escaped the death penalty and emerged as a key witness.

Headley’s disclosure of his connection to Pakistan’s ISI and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) brought him to the forefront in US counterterror activities. “The US views him as an intelligence asset, and extraditing him would complicate current investigations and intelligence collection,” a source explained.

There’s also a layer beneath Headley’s profile his earlier links with American agencies such as the DEA and FBI. He was said to have worked as an informant, and this could have provided him with some level of protection. There are some reports leaked out saying that US agencies knew about the 26/11 plot but did nothing about it, and extraditing Headley to India could reveal information about these sensitive operations.

“America’s refusal to extradite him is for strategic intelligence interests and legal obligations,” an official explained. Headley’s arrangement was to be protected from capital punishment, a demand that is contradictory to India’s hard line on terrorism, as evidenced by the execution of Ajmal Kasab.

In the meantime, the difference between Headley’s immunity and Tahawwur Rana’s outstanding extradition highlights the intricacy of such global legal manoeuvres. “Rana’s extradition indicates how far India has travelled diplomatically, but Headley is still off the table,” sources concluded.