Follow Us
Behind the conviction of Pakistani scientist Aafia Siddiqui
By: Anne Gamboni
U.S. government, military–the real terrorists
One of the vile byproducts of the “global war on terror,” now in its ninth year, has been the “commodification” of intelligence gathering. Information is needed, President Obama stated in a major policy speech in May 2009, not just to prosecute those who commit attacks but to prevent attacks before they happen. Such a war on terror has no physical boundaries and the demand for information no limits. A system of secret and known prisons and spy agencies like the CIA and its lackeys around the globe are needed to run this dirty business.
 Protest in Pakistan protesting conviction of Dr Aafia Siddiqui |
It does not matter how the information is obtained or if any of it is true. Nothing illustrates the depraved nature of this industry more than the bizarre and convoluted case of the recently convicted Pakistani citizen Aafia Siddiqui.
On Wednesday, Feb. 3, a New York jury convicted the U.S.-educated neuroscientist of attempted murder for shooting at U.S. forces while in custody in Afghanistan in 2008.
Siddiqui was picked up in July 2008 for “loitering” and “acting suspiciously” in a square in Ghazni, Afghanistan, in the company of a boy who turned out to be her son. She supposedly had in her possession chemical substances and instructions for creating biological weapons. However, she was never tried for terrorism or espionage, but rather for attempted murder of the U.S. agents who were holding her in jail in Afghanistan after she was picked up. And while no Americans were injured, Siddiqui herself was shot and wounded.
The jury in her case reached a unanimous verdict, finding Siddiqui guilty of attempted murder, armed assault and using and carrying a firearm. She faces a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Defense lawyers argued there was no physical evidence that Siddiqui had touched the rifle that was fired. There were no fingerprints on the gun or bullet holes in the walls. Furthermore, the witness testimony was conflicting. There were no casings on the floor. On the other hand, there was plenty of evidence that Siddiqui had been shot. For instance, the casings from the revolver that shot her were found on the scene.
There were many odd circumstances surrounding her arrest and trial, including the fact that while she allegedly committed her crime in Afghanistan, her trial took place in New York. The jury was told that she was brought to the United States to face charges because she opened fire on U.S. soldiers. However, the jury did not get to hear her whole story, that she had been missing for five years and that she was a suspected al-Qaeda operative. Yet, she was never charged with that in this case.
After living in the United States for 11 years, Siddiqui moved back to Pakistan with her husband and children after 9/11. Then, in 2003, Siddiqui mysteriously vanished from her hometown in Pakistan. She disappeared along with all three of her children, two of whom were born in the United States and are American citizens. Her two younger children are still missing.
It is still unclear why she was kidnapped in 2003 and re-arrested in 2008.
Human rights groups have long alleged that Siddiqui was forcibly disappeared by Pakistani authorities in 2003 and interrogated and tortured at the behest of the United States. During the course of her trial, Siddiqui claimed to have been held in a secret prison by the Americans.
As part of the “intelligence industry,” the U.S. intelligence community relies heavily on the Pakistani intelligence community. In the case of Dr. Siddiqui, it is believed that she was picked up by the Pakistanis. Although the Pakistanis might have control over their prisoners physically, U.S. intelligence has access to question them. (Harper’s, November 2009)
A vicious cycle
It is a vicious cycle inherent in the “intelligence industry.” Intelligence is produced by detainees by any and all means. There is evidence of secret prisons, interrogations and torture. It means a lot of false intelligence is being generated. That leads to more people being detained. If you are associated with someone in detention, you yourself get on the radar. And the cycle goes on.
The irony is, there are relatively few terrorists in the world, and even fewer plots against the United States. If the U.S. capitalist ruling class was truly interested in solving the issue of terrorist threats against this country, they would immediately withdraw from the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and stop supporting the Israeli military. And give reparations so these nations can rebuild their infrastructures and jump start their economies.
This they will not do, however, because the “war on terror” is nothing but a pretext for achieving geo-strategic domination of the Middle East, Afghanistan and other key regions.
The sentencing of Aafia Siddiqui will not take place for several months. In the meantime, much of the Pakistani media and citizenry are extremely upset. They feel her conviction is a travesty of justice, which it is. Instead of being a terrorist, Dr. Siddiqui is a torture victim, a symbol for the hundreds if not thousands of people who have disappeared as part of the U.S.-led war on terror.
SOURCE : Pslweb.org
We know that Aafia Siddiqui and her three children were disappeared by Pakistani Security forces in 2003 and that after some time she was handed over too the Americans who kept her in a prison in Afghanistan. The critical piece of information without which Dr Aafiqua could not be defended effectively is exactly when did the Americans let go of her and under what conditions did they do so.
My guess is that the US “released” her in Ghazni with no means to go anywhere she wanted to be just a few hours before she was picked up by the Afghan police for suspicious loitering and that they generously provided her with much terrorist material that they had thoughtfully forced her to transcribe in her own writing while under threat of torture in the secret prison. It was obviously a transparent attempt to set her up for a terrorism charge which would result in her imprisonment incommunicado and her inability to tell of her and her children’s experiences under her kidnappers. The New York kangaroo court was careful to exclude from consideration how she came to be on that street corner with such convenient incriminating evidence. If this had been allowed in she could have demonstrated the US’s malice towards her represented by the fabrication of evidence which would have suggested that the unanimous testimony of US personnel from the police station might also be the result of such malice rather than fact.
Possibly the US troops shot her in panic and the need to cover up their mistake forced the US to mount a different prosecution to that originally intended. The terrorism prosecution had to go on the back burner while the US troops culpable stupidity was defended and explained. However it is also possible that the shooting was intentional, the error being made by the medical staff who saved her from wounds which were meant to kill. She was meant to die and all questions of her disappearance could have been covered up with the fig leaf of the terrorist materials she was carrying.
Another possibility is that someone had second thoughts on the terrorist prosecution and thought a straight out attempted murder charge would be more effective, she was shot mainly to provide evidence that she attacked the Americans. It may have been intended that she die and her death finish the question or they may have wounded her more severely than they wanted to.