I previously analyzed the rumors, centered around the Indian press, that David Headley had penetrated Lashkar-e-Taiba as a CIA asset. These rumors generally hold that Headley then "went rogue" and become committed to LeT's mission before his involvement in the Mumbai attacks. Although I argued that these rumors should not be regarded as credible, the Indian media is now accepting Headley's continued work for the US government as proven fact. (He is known to have worked for the DEA in Pakistan in 1999, but there is no concrete proof that he worked for any other US government agency thereafter.)

Further, claims about Headley grow more outlandish by the day. By far the most bizarre is that Headley was part of an FBI team that quizzed Sabahuddin Ahmed in the wake of the Mumbai attacks. The Indian Express claims:

Sabahuddin Ahmed, one of the three arrested accused in the 26/11 terror attack case, has claimed that alleged Lashkar operative David Headley had interrogated him while he was in the custody of the Mumbai Police. According to Ahmed, Headley was part of an FBI team that had interrogated him while he was in police custody. He is also likely to move a plea before the Esplanade court seeking appropriate action against Headley.

It goes without saying that I do not find this latest claim credible. The fact that Ahmed waited until Dec. 15 (i.e. after the conspiratorial rumors were already flying) to air this claim even though Headley and Tahawwur Rana were both arrested in October is indicative of the falseness of his claims.

But what is going on overall? Is the Headley reporting a simple case of bad reporting by the Indian press?

In fact, an Indian journalist has confirmed to me that the country's home secretary told reporters on deep background that he thinks Headley was a CIA double agent. There are also other indications that the Indian government is actively propagating dubious claims about Headley's work for the US government. I suspect that this is part of a ham-handed attempt on the Indian government's part to pressure the US to turn Headley over to them. Moving forward, it is best to regard Indian press reporting on Headley with caution given the Indian government's endorsement of some questionable rumors (although the Indian press has had some legitimate scoops, such as Headley's presence in the LeT "control room").

The reasons that India would like to have Headley in its custody are entirely understandable; but equally understandable is the fact that such tactics are exceedingly unlikely to succeed.