Abdullah-Khan
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2010
- Messages
- 58
- Reaction score
- 0
---------------very sad----------------
Aafia Siddiqui Convicted
- Thread starter BanglaBhoot
- Start date
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Wikileaks:
6. (SBU) During a meeting with DCM and POLOFFs on February 8, a group of moderate Muslim religious leaders expressed very strong feelings about the Siddiqui case and the guilty verdict. The religious leaders were unified in their belief that Siddiqui did not receive a fair trial and called for mercy on the grounds that she was a woman. They claimed that the verdict detracted from President Obama,s efforts to reach out to the Muslim community and that he should step in and release Siddiqui as a show of good faith towards the world,s Muslims. The US Embassy representatives pushed back noting that Siddiqui had receieved a fair trail in the U.S., was given every opportunity to present evidence in her own defense, and was convicted by a jury. Moreover, Siddiqui has the right to appeal her conviction. Nevertheless, the Pakastani participants were assured that their views and concerns would be communicated to Washington.
¶7. (SBU) Comment: The Siddiqui case has from its outset elicited a strong, emotional response among the Pakistani public, and has regularly been raised with us by senior Pakistani officials. Many Pakistanis were undoubtedly taken by surprise by the verdict as one-sided media coverage of the case reported only her defense and not the prosecutions case, leading local observers to conclude her acquital was a near certainty. We expect this issue to persist for some time as a nationalistic cause with the active involvement of the JI who never tire of anti-American agitation.
6. (SBU) During a meeting with DCM and POLOFFs on February 8, a group of moderate Muslim religious leaders expressed very strong feelings about the Siddiqui case and the guilty verdict. The religious leaders were unified in their belief that Siddiqui did not receive a fair trial and called for mercy on the grounds that she was a woman. They claimed that the verdict detracted from President Obama,s efforts to reach out to the Muslim community and that he should step in and release Siddiqui as a show of good faith towards the world,s Muslims. The US Embassy representatives pushed back noting that Siddiqui had receieved a fair trail in the U.S., was given every opportunity to present evidence in her own defense, and was convicted by a jury. Moreover, Siddiqui has the right to appeal her conviction. Nevertheless, the Pakastani participants were assured that their views and concerns would be communicated to Washington.
¶7. (SBU) Comment: The Siddiqui case has from its outset elicited a strong, emotional response among the Pakistani public, and has regularly been raised with us by senior Pakistani officials. Many Pakistanis were undoubtedly taken by surprise by the verdict as one-sided media coverage of the case reported only her defense and not the prosecutions case, leading local observers to conclude her acquital was a near certainty. We expect this issue to persist for some time as a nationalistic cause with the active involvement of the JI who never tire of anti-American agitation.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
An excellent article published today.
Different women
Kamila Hyat
Thursday, September 05, 2013
From Print Edition
The US-educated Pakistani scientist-jailed in the US on terrorist charges - Dr Aafia Siddiqui, is back in the news. In fact she never entirely disappeared from it, with demands continuing to be made for her repatriation, mainly by religious parties and other right-leaning groups.
While there was certainly deception and abuse of human rights involved in the case of Dr Siddiqui, who disappeared from Karachi in March 2003, reappeared in Afghanistan in 2008 and was sentenced to an 86-year jail sentence by a Manhattan court in 2010 during a trial in which her mental health became an issue, there also seems to be little doubt that Dr Siddiqui was involved in militant activities and had links with Al-Qaeda.
The evidence has been independently documented, comes from her ex-husband Amjad Khan, and is tied in to other activities by Aafia such as the opening in late 2002 of a post-box in the US in the name of alleged Al-Qaeda operative Majid Khan and her marriage, possibly in early 2003 to Ammar al-Baluchi, a man believed to have acted as the financier of the 9/11 attacks and a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the man of Kuwaiti origin who acted as the brain behind 9/11 as well as other attacks and in 2006 apparently personally beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl.
Of course, doubts can be raised. There are gaps in the Dr Aafia story, gaps that have never been filled. Her whereabouts between 2003 and 2008 are uncertain, as is the fate of her two younger children. Her youngest son, Suleiman, was merely an infant when she vanished.
The problem is that the story of Dr Aafia Siddiqui has essentially been told in her home country only from a single dimension, one that casts her as a victim. The full details are missing, and for this a large proportion of the responsibility must lie with the media which in the country has too often favoured hype over fact.
And the story continues. Indeed it goes on and on and on, rather like a soap opera like the ones watched by millions on Indian channels. In the latest twist to the tale, the federal cabinet has decided to do all it can to bring Dr Aafia Siddiqui home. International conventions are to be signed for this. There is also speculation that she may be traded for Dr Shakil Afridi, whose 33-year jail sentence, meted out in May last year, was suddenly overturned last week.
Certainly, there can be no opposition to any quest for justice or attempts to improve conditions of detention for a prisoner. But given that much of the lobbying concerning Dr Aafia Siddiqui focused on her gender and her mistreatment in captivity, we must ask why the same forces that raised near hysterical voices for her have not also chosen to speak out for other women such as 23-year-old school teacher Zarina Marri from Kohlu apparently detained illegally in late 2005.
Zarina Marri was reportedly held along with her one-year-old son at a military-run detention centre possibly in Karachi and was allegedly subjected to grotesque torture and abuse. Her story remains hidden in the shadows, far deeper than those surrounding Dr Aafia. We know of it only through accounts from other Baloch detainees who say they came across her and were appalled at her condition.
Baloch groups, including the Balochistan National Party which now forms the government in the province had staged rallies for Zarina Marri and other prisoners in 2009 and 2010. But since then, she appears to have faded away, lost in the mists of uncertainty. We simply do not know what became of her – whether she is dead or alive, or even what the precise truth is. But certainly, the affair needs to be investigated. Why then are we all silent?
Other Baloch women are also reported to be held illegally, along with Baloch men who have been ‘picked up’ by agencies. Why are these women not the subject of the same media attention that Dr Aafia Siddiqui has received? Why are there no demands for them to be freed, or at the least tried fairly? Why do we not talk about their suffering and the injustice involved in locking them away, often in unknown places far from their homes? At least in the case of Dr Siddiqui, her family now knows where she is. Families in Balochistan have no information as to the location of detained women or what they may be suffering in custody.
This dichotomy is something to think about. Atrocities have occurred within our territory. They do not involve a foreign force or any real element of conspiracy. There are many in Balochistan who can give the names and details of the victims. Surely, a priority should be to speak out for them as strongly as we have done for Dr Siddiqui.
In most cases, unlike the neuroscientist who appears to have suffered from at least some element of delusion and paranoia, most held in Balochistan have not been convicted. They have never been brought before court or permitted to tell their side of the story. The federal government too must think why it is willing to stretch itself so far for a woman held in the US but not for others detained at home.
Is it Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s more elite background that makes the difference? Or the powerful lobbies working for her? Is it whatever connections her family has? Or is it the almost blind focus we have developed on depicting the US as an evil force – leaving us unable to logically figure out what is right and what is wrong?
This is a rather dangerous situation to be in. We need to review our own actions, reconsider them and ponder at all levels why there has been such a sharp difference in behaviour when it comes to the cases of various detainees held in places in different parts of the world. We need cries to be heard for those held at home as well, so that they can at least be brought on trial under the law of the land and receive the justice every citizen has a right to.
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor. Email: kamilahyat@hotmail. com
Different women - Kamila Hyat
There is so much fuss about Afia Siddiqui because she has links with terrorists and many in Pakistan have soft spot for terrorism especially if it is in the name of Islam. Regrettable but nevertheless true.
Different women
Kamila Hyat
Thursday, September 05, 2013
From Print Edition
The US-educated Pakistani scientist-jailed in the US on terrorist charges - Dr Aafia Siddiqui, is back in the news. In fact she never entirely disappeared from it, with demands continuing to be made for her repatriation, mainly by religious parties and other right-leaning groups.
While there was certainly deception and abuse of human rights involved in the case of Dr Siddiqui, who disappeared from Karachi in March 2003, reappeared in Afghanistan in 2008 and was sentenced to an 86-year jail sentence by a Manhattan court in 2010 during a trial in which her mental health became an issue, there also seems to be little doubt that Dr Siddiqui was involved in militant activities and had links with Al-Qaeda.
The evidence has been independently documented, comes from her ex-husband Amjad Khan, and is tied in to other activities by Aafia such as the opening in late 2002 of a post-box in the US in the name of alleged Al-Qaeda operative Majid Khan and her marriage, possibly in early 2003 to Ammar al-Baluchi, a man believed to have acted as the financier of the 9/11 attacks and a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the man of Kuwaiti origin who acted as the brain behind 9/11 as well as other attacks and in 2006 apparently personally beheaded journalist Daniel Pearl.
Of course, doubts can be raised. There are gaps in the Dr Aafia story, gaps that have never been filled. Her whereabouts between 2003 and 2008 are uncertain, as is the fate of her two younger children. Her youngest son, Suleiman, was merely an infant when she vanished.
The problem is that the story of Dr Aafia Siddiqui has essentially been told in her home country only from a single dimension, one that casts her as a victim. The full details are missing, and for this a large proportion of the responsibility must lie with the media which in the country has too often favoured hype over fact.
And the story continues. Indeed it goes on and on and on, rather like a soap opera like the ones watched by millions on Indian channels. In the latest twist to the tale, the federal cabinet has decided to do all it can to bring Dr Aafia Siddiqui home. International conventions are to be signed for this. There is also speculation that she may be traded for Dr Shakil Afridi, whose 33-year jail sentence, meted out in May last year, was suddenly overturned last week.
Certainly, there can be no opposition to any quest for justice or attempts to improve conditions of detention for a prisoner. But given that much of the lobbying concerning Dr Aafia Siddiqui focused on her gender and her mistreatment in captivity, we must ask why the same forces that raised near hysterical voices for her have not also chosen to speak out for other women such as 23-year-old school teacher Zarina Marri from Kohlu apparently detained illegally in late 2005.
Zarina Marri was reportedly held along with her one-year-old son at a military-run detention centre possibly in Karachi and was allegedly subjected to grotesque torture and abuse. Her story remains hidden in the shadows, far deeper than those surrounding Dr Aafia. We know of it only through accounts from other Baloch detainees who say they came across her and were appalled at her condition.
Baloch groups, including the Balochistan National Party which now forms the government in the province had staged rallies for Zarina Marri and other prisoners in 2009 and 2010. But since then, she appears to have faded away, lost in the mists of uncertainty. We simply do not know what became of her – whether she is dead or alive, or even what the precise truth is. But certainly, the affair needs to be investigated. Why then are we all silent?
Other Baloch women are also reported to be held illegally, along with Baloch men who have been ‘picked up’ by agencies. Why are these women not the subject of the same media attention that Dr Aafia Siddiqui has received? Why are there no demands for them to be freed, or at the least tried fairly? Why do we not talk about their suffering and the injustice involved in locking them away, often in unknown places far from their homes? At least in the case of Dr Siddiqui, her family now knows where she is. Families in Balochistan have no information as to the location of detained women or what they may be suffering in custody.
This dichotomy is something to think about. Atrocities have occurred within our territory. They do not involve a foreign force or any real element of conspiracy. There are many in Balochistan who can give the names and details of the victims. Surely, a priority should be to speak out for them as strongly as we have done for Dr Siddiqui.
In most cases, unlike the neuroscientist who appears to have suffered from at least some element of delusion and paranoia, most held in Balochistan have not been convicted. They have never been brought before court or permitted to tell their side of the story. The federal government too must think why it is willing to stretch itself so far for a woman held in the US but not for others detained at home.
Is it Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s more elite background that makes the difference? Or the powerful lobbies working for her? Is it whatever connections her family has? Or is it the almost blind focus we have developed on depicting the US as an evil force – leaving us unable to logically figure out what is right and what is wrong?
This is a rather dangerous situation to be in. We need to review our own actions, reconsider them and ponder at all levels why there has been such a sharp difference in behaviour when it comes to the cases of various detainees held in places in different parts of the world. We need cries to be heard for those held at home as well, so that they can at least be brought on trial under the law of the land and receive the justice every citizen has a right to.
The writer is a freelance columnist and former newspaper editor. Email: kamilahyat@hotmail. com
Different women - Kamila Hyat
There is so much fuss about Afia Siddiqui because she has links with terrorists and many in Pakistan have soft spot for terrorism especially if it is in the name of Islam. Regrettable but nevertheless true.
Similar threads
