Aafia Siddiqui

Either I have suffered from a serious inability to pay attention, or there hasn't been much coverage of the Aafia Siddiqui trial, at least not outside of New York City. The last information I noted was back in November. Since then, Ms. Siddiqui's trial has gone forward and is now in the hands of the jury.

Ms. Siddiqui, who has been characterized as a very dangerous member of Al Qaeda by our government, is not on trial for any terrorist related activities but rather for attempted murder. She stands accused of firing on soldiers and FBI agents with one of the soldier's own rifle. That certainly is at the very least quite suspicious.

This article in the Los Angeles Times reports on some of the information on the trial. We learn, for instance, that apparently Ms. Siddiqui settled down and actually cooperated in her defense. She testified that she did not grab a rifle and begin shooting. She admitted that she tried to escape from the jail in which she was being held and interrogated. She claims that it was during her attempted escape that she was shot in the abdomen.

The article also notes some of the mysteries still surrounding her case: no one knows where two of her children are; no one knows where she was for three years (detained at Bagram? in training with Al Qaeda?); and no one will explain why she was not hit with any terrorist charges (although the article does indicate that she was designated as an Al Qaeda operative by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed while he was being questioned in 2003).

What the article makes clear, however, is that a lot of people in Pakistan are watching the trial proceedings carefully:

In Pakistan, however, Siddiqui is a victim and a hero, a courageous patriot who has withstood years of torture at the U.S. detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan. Pakistanis insist that the charges are fabricated and the U.S. has only one option for righting the wrongs it's committed: Send their beloved Aafia home. ...

Siddiqui's case, however, has given Pakistanis a face to rally around. Demonstrations on her behalf have been attended by thousands, from Lahore to Karachi to Islamabad. Activists have sought intervention by the Pakistani government, which has agreed to pay for Siddiqui's defense team and has pushed the U.S. to repatriate her to Pakistan.

This does add an interesting element to the mix. The US depends on Pakistan a great deal in its war in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government has cooperated, albeit grudgingly, with US forces, even putting up with intrusions into Pakisan by missile- firing drones and special forces. What happens if Ms. Siddiqui is convicted of attempted murder? Will the notably weak government lose what little control it has over large portions of its nation? Will the US find itself at war with yet another nation?

And what happens if the jury doesn't buy the government's story about the circumstances surrounding her detention and interrogation and acquits her? Will President Obama find that she is too dangerous to set free even after acquittal and order her indefinite detention? And if he does that, what will that do to our system of laws?

I know, I know. I'm still posing questions for which there are no immediate answers. What worries me is that some of those questions will never be answered, even though they could be.

I do know this, however, from start to finish, even under the "official" story of Ms. Siddiqui's case, this story stinks of illegality. And I am ashamed of my country for that.

UPDATE:

The above was written last night before the verdict hit the wires: Ms. Siddiqui has been found guilty. Sentencing is set for May.

More Questions, No Answers

On Saturday, I mentioned Aafia Siddiqui as one of the possible detainees at the Bagram Special Ops "black" prison. I've posted on her unusual case in the past, the first time (on August 18, 2008) here, where I noted the unusual lack of coverage of the story in the US:

And, as far as I can tell, that's the last of the coverage of Dr. Siddiqui's case in the NY Times or any other news outlet. One would think that the unusual circumstances of a woman terrorist, trained in the US, alleged to have close ties with the very organization blamed for 9/11 would have launched an avalanche of stories, you know, like the avalanche of stories on Dr. Ivins, the presumed anthrax terrorist. Instead ... crickets.

One month later, I posted again on this unusual story, and noted that very little hard information was available:

We still have no idea on where Ms. Siddiqui has been since she disappeared in 2003, nor where her children are. The answer to that question will probably have to wait until trial, assuming the case goes that direction.

That was over a year ago, and I don't recall reading or even spotting any updates from New York where surely there had been at least one hearing. It's as if Ms. Siddiqui's story never existed. I admit there are several possible reasons for that. The first is the notorious short attention span of Americans which I believe is fostered by the media. The second is the ongoing attempt to keep anything having to do with the Global War on Terror classified as "So Secret We'll Have To Kill You If You Find Out." I suspect a combination of the two is at work here, but I still was haunted by that story, so I did a little research. I got lucky.

An article written by Declan Walsh for the UK's Guardian on November 24, 2009, provides an update on the legal process, but raises a lot of the same questions for which there are still no adequate answers.

Mr. Walsh begins by giving the prosecution's version of the shooting which is the only charge Ms. Siddiqui is facing, and notes that version is flatly denied by her:

Whether this extraordinary scene is fiction or reality will soon be decided thousands of miles from Ghazni in a Manhattan courtroom. The woman is Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three. The description of the shooting, in July 2008, comes from the prosecution case, which Siddiqui disputes. What isn't in doubt is that there was an incident, and that she was shot, after which she was helicoptered to Bagram air field where medics cut her open from breastplate to bellybutton, searching for bullets. Medical records show she barely survived. Seventeen days later, still recovering, she was bundled on to an FBI jet and flown to New York where she now faces seven counts of assault and attempted murder. If convicted, the maximum sentence is life in prison.

The prosecution is but the latest twist in one of the most intriguing episodes of America's "war on terror". At its heart is the MIT-educated Siddiqui, once declared the world's most wanted woman. In 2003 she mysteriously vanished for five years, during which time she was variously dubbed the "Mata Hari of al-Qaida" or the "Grey Lady of Bagram", an iconic victim of American brutality. ...

Yet only the narrow circumstances of her capture – did she open fire on the US soldier? – are at issue in the New York court case. Fragile-looking, and often clad in a dark robe and white headscarf, Siddiqui initially pleaded not guilty, insisting she never touched the soldier's gun. Her lawyers say the prosecution's dramatic version of the shooting is untrue. Now, after months of pre-trial hearings, she appears bent on scuppering the entire process.

Ms. Siddiqui is certainly not cooperating in her own defense, which, given the possible history of the case would certainly make sense. It is that history which Mr. Walsh makes every effort to clarify by speaking to US officials and to Ms. Siddiqui's family and supporters. The contrasts are stark indeed.

But Siddiqui's family and supporters tell a different story. Instead of plotting attacks, they say, Siddiqui spent the missing five years at the dreaded Bagram detention centre, north of Kabul, where she suffered unspeakable horrors. Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist turned Muslim campaigner, insists she is the "Grey Lady of Bagram" – a ghostly female detainee who kept prisoners awake "with her haunting sobs and piercing screams". In 2005 male prisoners were so agitated by her plight, she says, that they went on hunger strike for six days.

For campaigners such as Ridley, Siddiqui has become emblematic of dark American practices such as abduction, rendition and torture. "Aafia has iconic status in the Muslim world. People are angry with American imperialism and domination," she told me.

But every major security agency of the US government – army, FBI, CIA – denies having held her. Last year the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, went even further. She stated that Siddiqui was not in US custody "at any time" prior to July 2008. Her language was unusually categoric.

Still no answers, but at least someone looked into the matter. Frankly, I am beginning to come down on the side of Ms. Siddiqui's family and their version. If Ms. Siddiqui was believed by US officials to be part of the web of those who continue to plot against America, then why is the shooting incident the only charge she faces? Is it because the evidence of her active participation just isn't there, or is it because it was obtained in ways so foul and unacceptable to decent human beings that it can't face the light of judicial scrutiny?

And if Ms. Siddiqui is not the "Gray Lady of Bagram," than who was? There seems to be no doubt that some woman was held and tortured for an awfully long time in that black hole. Too many prisoners have related consistent accounts of what they heard.

Unfortunately, no one in the US media seems to be too concerned about Ms. Siddiqui nor about the freedom-destroying secrecy surrounding her and her case. That is just as dispiriting as the case itself.

Aafia Siddiqui's Son

The case of Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani woman currently being held on attempted murder charges in a New York federal prison, keeps getting curiouser and curiouser. Today's Washington Post contains an article which answers one question, but leaves many other questions still hanging out there. The one hard answer has to do with the location of Ms. Siddiqui's son, who was with her when she was picked up by the US in Afghanistan.

The 12-year-old son of an American-educated Pakistani woman whom U.S. authorities have linked to al-Qaeda has been handed over to Pakistani authorities in Afghanistan and is soon to be reunited with family in Pakistan, Afghan and Pakistani officials said Monday.

The boy was detained in Afghanistan along with his mother, Aafia Siddiqui, in July, and his fate since then has been one of the many unanswered questions about his mother's case. Siddiqui is now in New York facing federal charges.

It appears that the boy was adopted by Aafia Siddiqui after his own parents were killed in a Pakistani earthquake. Because he was born in the US, he holds dual US-Pakistani citizenship, a fact which apparently flummoxed Afghani and US officials when it came to what to do with the boy. As a result, the boy has remained in Afghani custody since she was picked up by US authorities. Where, and under what conditions, is still not clear, but in early US press accounts of this whole affair it was made clear that Ms. Siddiqui was understandably frantic about his well-being.

We still haven't been told where Ms. Siddiqui was for the three years she disappeared (many believe she is the "Gray Lady of Bagram", held by the US and tortured during that time), and there still is no information on the whereabouts of her other two children who went missing with her.

I suspect that the US authorities who arrested her and who have charged her do know, and if they didn't know by the time they picked her up in July, they surely must know by now. Here's the clue which lit my suspicion:

After their detention, the boy remained in Afghan custody while Siddiqui was flown to the United States. U.S. officials visited the boy in late August to check on his welfare and ascertain that he is a U.S. citizen, according to a State Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

I have absolutely no doubt that the US officials asked him at that time, if the Afghan officials detaining him hadn't already. I also imagine that it wasn't a very pleasant experience for the child. After all, the US is holding children who were his age or close to it when picked up and shipped to Guantanamo Bay.

We still, however, are left with more questions than answers, and I don't think we will get those answers any sooner than Ms. Siddiqui's trial, if then.

Aafia Siddiqui: An Update

Last month I posted on the Pakistani woman who was arrested and then charged by the FBI for attempted murder (here and here). In each post I pointed out that there were a number of serious questions about her arrest and the charges against her that were simply not answered in the news accounts available.

An AP article, which I will not be quoting very much of for obvious reasons, does shed a little light, but not much, on the unusual proceedings.

The federal indictment has been unsealed, and the documents agents found in her handbag when she was arrested in Afghanistan are more specifically described than they were in this NY Times article which referred only to "documents describing the creation of explosives." According to the AP report, those documents were actually notes of some targets to be attacked in the US, including some famous sites in New York City:

Aafia Siddiqui had notes ''that referred to a 'mass casualty attack''' and to ''the construction of dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons and other explosives,'' the indictment said. ''These notes also discussed the mortality rates associated with certain of these weapons and explosives.''

Sounds like pretty serious stuff to me, but the disconnect between this evidence and the charges against her (attempted murder of the FBI and soldiers present at her arrest and interrogation) is still a puzzlement. Why no terrorist charges?

The answer to that question is buried in the article towards the end: those notes, assuming they exist, were not substantial enough to suggest any kind of credible plot. There was no way the federal prosecutors were going to be able to prove up any terrorist charges based just on those notes, and apparently they don't have anything else. I guess they've finally learned their lesson on over-charging.

We still have no idea on where Ms. Siddiqui has been since she disappeared in 2003, nor where her children are. The answer to that question will probably have to wait until trial, assuming the case goes that direction.

A Response

On August 17, 2008, I posted on the arraignment of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in a federal district court in New York. In that post I referred to an op-ed piece in the UAE's publication Khaleej Times Online which provided one possible scenario on Dr. Siddiqui's whereabouts for the past four years after she disappeared in Pakistan in 2007 and I also commented on the fact that few, if any, US news outlets picked up on some of the inconsistencies in the government's version of Dr. Siddiqui's capture and subsequent charges for assault on federal officials.

I wasn't the only American blogger who felt uncomfortable with the official version. If you do a simple google on Aafia Siddiqui, you'll see what I mean. You'll also see that the foreign press, especially in the Middle East and most especially among Arab journals also ran with the story. Well, our government must also know how to google. An "official" response showed up in Pakistan's Daily Times on August 16, 2007. I got that link via this source. I am quoting the entire letter to the editor written by the US Ambassador to Pakistan out of fairness.

We at the US Embassy Islamabad have read with increasing concern a number of erroneous and irresponsible media reports regarding the arrest of Ms Aafia Siddiqui.

We commend the majority of Pakistani journalists for their accurate and balanced reporting and overall professionalism. Sadly, however, a few have allowed rumour, innuendo, and grossly unsubstantiated allegations to dominate their coverage.

Unfortunately, there are some who have an interest in simply distorting the facts in an effort to manipulate and inflame public opinion. The truth is never served by sensationalism; we believe your readers, as fair-minded and critical thinkers, deserve better.

Therefore, it’s high time that we set the record straight.

Allegations that Ms Siddiqui has been in custody at the Bagram Theatre Internment Facility in Afghanistan are completely erroneous. Ms Siddiqui was not in the custody of the United States — either at Afghanistan’s Bagram Air Base or anywhere else — at any time prior to her detention by Afghan police on July 17, 2008. The United States did not have knowledge of her whereabouts until she was detained by Afghan police on July 17, 2008.

Ms Siddiqui is accused of seizing a weapon and firing — unprovoked — on US personnel during questioning. She sustained non-life threatening injuries, received prompt medical attention, and is expected to fully recover. At no time was Ms Siddiqui mistreated or abused in any manner whatsoever.

There was absolutely no reward or “bounty” paid by the United States for the capture of Ms Siddiqui.

The United States has no definitive knowledge as to the whereabouts of Ms. Siddiqui’s children.

While in the custody of the United States, consular authorities of the Government of Pakistan have standard consular access to her under the terms of the Vienna Convention. Pakistani Embassy officials visited Ms Siddiqui on August 9.

Upon her arrival in the United States, a criminal action was initiated against Ms Siddiqui. She is charged in a criminal complaint filed in the Southern District of New York with one count of attempting to kill United States officers and employees and one count of assaulting United States officers and employees. If convicted, Ms Siddiqui faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on each charge.

The US justice system is based on the abiding principle that defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. Ms Siddiqui will receive a fair and public trial and will be afforded every opportunity to present her defence.

We would encourage your readers to remain open-minded but sceptical of these current — and any future — sensational allegations that have no basis in fact.

ANNE W PATTERSON

US Ambassador to Pakistan

Embassy of the United States of America

Now, in my original post I commented on how I felt the US press had really walked away from some really puzzling questions raised in their own articles. That's bad enough. Now, however, we have an official US response to some of the allegations raised by various people, and I have yet to see any substantive US press response to either the controversy or the response. Apparently it's just not newsworthy.

And as to the response from Ambassodor Patterson? Well, I have this absolutely lovely bridge I am willing to part with at great sacrifice if anyone's in the market.

A New Low

On August 5, US newspapers carried the story of the capture of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani woman who was trained in neuroscience here in the United States. Typical of the stories was this one in the NY Times. The report was fairly neutral, but there were some gaps in the coverage which seemed a little puzzling. Dr. Siddiqui was brought back to the US and charged in a New York federal district court for the crime of shooting at FBI agents. There was no other terrorism related charge, yet she was identified as someone who worked closely with Al Qaeda. Rather curious, don't you think?

Yesterday, during my usual visit to Watching America, I came across this opinion column written by Aijaz Zaka Syed for the United Arab Emirates' Khaleej Times Online. It raises similar questions and suggests some possible answers.

JUST when you think Uncle Sam's war has no more surprises to spring on an unsuspecting world, he comes up with yet another gem.

Take the case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist who grew up in the US and went to top universities including the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The woman who had been a star student and a topper throughout a remarkable career had to leave the US when the authorities began harassing her and her husband for their charity activities in the wake of September 11 upheavals.

The family settled down in Karachi and was never involved in any illegal activities. One day in March 2003, this talented young woman went missing with her three children when she was on her way to Karachi airport.

Dr Siddiqui resurfaced this week after five years in a New York court as a 'top Al Qaeda terrorist'. She was barely able to walk and speak, which was not surprising given the fact she had been recently involved in a "gun fight with FBI agents" in Afghanistan. The US authorities claim Dr Siddiqui was captured near the governor's offices in Ghazni, Afghanistan last month with a bag full of "suspicious liquids in tubes."

If you think this is an incredible yarn, here's some more food for thought. We are told Siddiqui assaulted a team of US troops and FBI officials with a highly sophisticated weapon when they went to quiz her in Afghanistan. ...

There are some basic questions that an ordinary mind like mine just can't seem to figure out.

First, where was Aafia Siddiqui hiding or hidden all these years - since she went missing in Karachi in March 2003? How did she turn up in the remote Ghazni province in Afghanistan, of all the God-forsaken places? And what happened to her three children?

Second, if the MIT-educated neuroscientist was indeed an Al Qaeda mastermind, why wasn't she presented in a court of law all this while? Even today when she is facing the US law, she is not being tried on terrorism charges but for allegedly assaulting the US officials. So what's her original crime, if she has indeed committed a crime?

Third, why wasn't the Pakistani government informed about her detention in Afghanistan and her subsequent deportation to the US? Or are Pakistan's Enlightened and Moderate leaders also involved in this international enterprise against a 31-year old mom of three? ...

The question is why has she been reinvented now? It is quite possible that Siddiqui has been FOUND now because of a relentless campaign by British journalist Yvonne Ridley. Ridley herself had been a prisoner of the Taleban regime for 11 days just before the US invasion in 2001 and converted to Islam after her strange experience in Afghanistan.

Ridley has been running a campaign called Cage Prisoner for the release of a mysterious female prisoner who has been held at the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan in total isolation and regularly tortured for five years.

The unknown female prisoner, known as the Prisoner No. 650 or the Grey Lady of Bagram, was brought to the world attention after Ridley read about the woman in a book by fellow Briton Moazzam Begg, a former Gitmo and Bagram prisoner. In his book, Enemy Combatant, Beg talks of a woman's endless screams for help as she was tortured. Beg first thought he was imagining his wife's screams.

"We now know the screams came from a woman who has been held in Bagram for some years. And she is Prisoner No. 650," Ridley disclosed at a recent Press conference in Pakistan.

And I strongly suspect that Prisoner No. 650 is none other than Dr Aafia Siddiqui. It is quite possible that her captors decided to end her isolation after the Pakistani Press and activists like Yvonne Ridley began increasingly talking about the Prisoner No. 650 and how she was tortured and abused physically, mentally and sexually for the past four years.

Pure speculation by Yvonne Ridley and Aijaz Zaka Syed? Perhaps. Anti-American rhetoric by a disgruntled Arab? It's certainly possible. Ten years ago I would have dismissed this report out of hand. After all, surely no civilized government would behave in such a fashion, and, if it did, surely our free press would have gone through walls to uncover the behavior.

That was ten years ago. Now, I'm not so sure.

Let's go back to that NY Times article:

The lawyer, Elizabeth M. Fink, told the judge that the allegation that her client, who the lawyer said weighed 90 pounds, had picked up the rifle and attacked the Americans, was “patently absurd.” [Emphasis added]

The article also mentions the disappearance of Dr. Siddiqui in 2003 and the contention by her lawyers that she was held by the Americans. The article states only that US authorities denied the detention.

And, as far as I can tell, that's the last of the coverage of Dr. Siddiqui's case in the NY Times or any other news outlet. One would think that the unusual circumstances of a woman terrorist, trained in the US, alleged to have close ties with the very organization blamed for 9/11 would have launched an avalanche of stories, you know, like the avalanche of stories on Dr. Ivins, the presumed anthrax terrorist. Instead ... crickets.

I don't claim to know if the Khaleej Times article is accurate or mere speculation. I do know, however, if even one part of it is true, our descent into a barbaric hell is complete. Mr. Syed's column concludes with the following:

This war has turned the whole world into a big gulag where there are no borders, no rule of law, no courts, no justice and no rights whatsoever. But, the neocons reassure us, all this is necessary to promote Democracy and Human Freedom of course.

Whatever happened to the America of Jefferson and Lincoln, the country that we all loved once and turned to for inspiration?

I don't know, Mr. Syed. But apparently the country no longer exists.