Is Afia Siddiqui's Conviction Just?

[RiazHaq]

A New York jury has convicted Aafia Siddiqui of shooting at American soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan during her arrest in 2008. The judge, the jury and the entire proceedings focused narrowly on shooting charges, and there was no discussion of how the accused ended up in Afghanistan.

The question still remains as to where has Aafia Siddiqui been since her disappearance from Karachi in 2003 till the alleged shooting during her arrest in Afghanistan in 2008?

A Harper magazine story from last November, 2009 issue has a detailed report on Aafia Siddiqui's ordeal from 2003 to the start of her trial in 2009. It has multiple conflicting accounts from many sources including Pakistani officials and Aafia's family.

The Harper reporter Petra Bartosiewicz explains that "The charges against her stem solely from the shooting incident itself, not from any alleged act of terrorism. The prosecutors provide no explanation for how a scientist, mother, and wife came to be charged as a dangerous felon. Nor do they account for her missing years, or her two other children, who still are missing. What is known is that the United States wanted her in 2003, and it wanted her again in 2008, and now no one can explain why."

Haq's Musings: Has Justice Been Served in Afia Siddiqui's Conviction?

Haq's Musings: Is Aafia Siddiqui an Innocent Victim, or Dangerous Terrorist?

 

[TruthSeeker]

I do not believe the verdict was just. At the suggestion of H2O3C4Nitrogen and with some input from him and Asim Aquil, I sent the following e-mail to my two US Senators today. If you are an American citizen who agrees, you might send a note to your Senators expressing your thoughts.
________________________

February 5, 2010
Dear Senator Webb, [Warner]

Please be advised that the recently concluded trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, in New York City, for attempted murder, produced a guilty verdict which, on its face, was unjust and colored by prejudice against a defendant who was labeled as an al Qaeda terrorist in daily New York City press reports throughout the trial. The jury was not sequestered and the trial was replete with innuendo about Dr. Siddiqui’s jihadi motivations. However, the prosecution repeatedly stated she was not on trial for terrorism, but purely for attempted murder of US and Afghan personnel at a police holding location in Ghazni, Afghanistan.

The problem that I have with the trial and its result is that a person was brought to the United States and charged with attempted murder in our Courts without any reasonable crime scene investigations having been performed. The result was that no physical evidence was presented that Dr. Siddiqui ever held a rifle, ever fired a rifle, or ever struck anyone with the rifle. No evidence was presented that the rifle was even loaded. There was no evidence that Dr. Siddiqui has ever in her life fired a rifle, let alone an M-4, the carelessly mislaid weapon which she was alleged to have taken up in the incident.

The eyewitness testimony of the US and Afghan servicemen and FBI agents were surprisingly inconsistent with each other at the trial and inconsistent with the sworn statements that were made by them shortly after the incident. During cross examination Special Agent Eric Negron said a thought had crossed his mind that this could have been a set-up by the Afghan National Police. But, he did not mention this critical thought in any of his subsequent statements. So, clearly exculpatory evidence was omitted from the record from the very beginning. The “gut reaction” of this FBI investigator, on-scene in Afghanistan, had it been pursued, may have led to an entirely different understanding of the event. Just like the US Warrant Officer who shot Dr. Siddiqui, FBI Special Agent Negron was also not able to explain statements he gave earlier regarding the incident which significantly differed from his testimony at trial.

A major inconsistency was noted in the testimony of a Sgt. Williams who clearly remembered a female Medic, Rene Card to be standing outside just steps behind him – not in the room as she had earlier testified. In her testimony Medic Card had contradicted prior witnesses who had placed the M4 rifle and relevant witnesses at differing locations at the scene.

A Sgt. Cook who stood outside the Afghan National Police compound said he heard gun shots from the room on the second floor. He did not see Dr. Siddiqui with the gun or shooting a M4 rifle. He said he went to get the stretcher – but Dr. Siddiqui was already brought outside. This contradicts Medic Card who had testified she brought the stretcher in the room and had placed Dr. Siddiqui on the stretcher in the room.

Dr. Siddiqui denied on the witness stand that she had fired the rifle or even knew how to fire a rifle. She absolutely denied that she had attempted to murder anyone.

I cannot help but conclude had this been a “typical” attempted murder event in the United States, that physical evidence would have been collected immediately, witnesses deposed and the prosecution could have moved forward (or not) with strong, reliable facts for a jury to consider. However, in this case, none of that occurred. It clearly illustrates the problems of justly trying cases brought in from the “battlefield” wherein none of the normal crime scene procedures, and investigative follow up, have been done. The result is injustice. This jury should have had reasonable doubts about the guilt of Dr. Siddiqui, given the lack of physical evidence and the conflicting accounts of the witnesses.

It is obvious that the jury was prejudiced by the very noisy “Lady al Qaeda” publicity that surrounded her and her trial. No evidence was provided in the trial that she is or was affiliated with al Qaeda. Given the intense hatred that Americans feel about anything to do with al Qaeda, the sensationalist linking of Dr. Siddiqui in New York's local press and other media must have been seen and heard by the un-sequestered jury. Hence a set of trial evidence that would have called for an acquittal 99% of the time in a US Court, did not. The verdict was born out of irrational fear. The unfortunate result was unjust for Aafia Siddiqui.

What I would like you to consider about this case, from your position, is to be supportive of finding a way to repatriate Dr. Siddiqui to Pakistan. That is, on humanitarian grounds, and in light of the deeply held beliefs of the Pakistani public and government that this process has produced an unjust result for this troubled woman, let us find a way to let her return to Pakistan to serve her sentence, or to heal with her family under Government supervision. Perhaps there is an American serving in a Pakistani prison for whom a compassionate exchange makes sense.

The swift repatriation of Dr. Siddiqui is the right thing to do, and it would be greatly appreciated by the entire Pakistani Nation. Such an action would decrease the gulf between our two countries who have cooperated with each other for more than half a century. This gesture of friendship and goodwill by the United States could boost our image among the ordinary people of Pakistan during its front line fight against our mutual enemies. I sincerely believe that we could benefit more by repatriating her under appropriate supervision than by continuing to incarcerate her and have her continue to struggle with appeals within our Courts.

Thank you for considering this matter.

Sincerely,

[Truth Seeker]

 

[Bas_tum_Pak]

I can only say for Afia Saddiqui

'A daughter of the Nation sold to wicked enemy by mean Dictator only for money'

It is big big point to think ....

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I think even in old days there used to be compassion against women/children

Now the children still go to gutanamobay and women also stand trial for alleged shooting and specially knowing her two children were missing (still are) how can any women even be in sane conditions ...

When I hear this story some how I just can't resist but have an earge to just puke at disgust at war and nonesense that is going on around the world

 

[RiazHaq]

Aafia Siddiqui’s elderly maternal uncle, Shams ul Hassan Faruqi, a geologist, says almost everyone the reporter spoke to is lying. Faruqi told her an entirely different story. He said Siddiqui showed up at his house unannounced one evening in January 2008, a time when, according to a Pakistani intelligence officer she was supposedly in the hands of the CIA. Her face had been altered, Faruqi said, as if she had undergone plastic surgery, but he knew her by her voice. She said she had been held by the Pakistanis and the Americans and was now running operations for both of them against Al Qaeda. She had slipped away for a few days, though, because she wanted him to smuggle her across the border into Afghanistan so she could seek sanctuary with the Taliban, members of which Faruqi had known from his years of mineral exploration.

Speculation is rife that Siddiqui could have been working as a double agent for at least part of the time she was gone missing. It's possible that she lost trust of her American handlers, which led to her arrest, shooting, and the recent conviction in New York.

Haq's Musings: Has Justice Been Served in Afia Siddiqui's Conviction?

 

[fawwaxs]

Pakistan delegation in US to discuss Aafia Siddiqui



ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's prime minister said Thursday that top officials currently visiting Washington would raise the issue of a female Pakistani scientist found guilty of trying to kill US servicemen.

A US jury last month found Aafia Siddiqui, 37, a mother and neuroscientist trained at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, guilty on all charges and she could face life in prison when sentenced on May 6.

“I myself raised the issues about Doctor Aafia Siddiqui... with various Congress delegations visiting Pakistan,” Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told reporters in Islamabad.

“It is not possible that our delegation will not raise these issues during the talks,” he said in remarks broadcast on local television.

Siddiqui was accused of grabbing a rifle at an Afghan police station where she was being interrogated in July 2008 and trying to shoot US servicemen.

Although she was not charged with terrorism, prosecutors described her as a would-be terrorist who had plotted to bomb New York.

The case provoked outrage in Pakistan, with protests erupting throughout the country after the verdict and Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari ordering his government to provide her with legal assistance in the US.

Gilani said, however, that Pakistan's top priority in this week's talks chaired by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be Pakistan's crippling energy crisis.

The prime minister had on Wednesday hailed “major paradigm shift” in US policy towards his country - notably on Pakistan's efforts to tackle Islamist extremists on its soil - and repeated his desire for cooperation.

“We want regional stability, we want good relations with India and other neighbours - the US also wants regional stability,” he said.

Talks in Washington, billed as a first-of-a-kind “strategic dialogue” will continue for a second day Thursday, after the two sides pledged to build a new spirit of trust after years of mutual recriminations.

 

[DontKhanMe]

did you expect justice from the kufaar.... we get the same justice that the japanese recieve during WWII... detention in the US and 2 nukes on their home soil.

 

[Omar1984]