Somehow, the ISI and the CIA are the two that are most demonized.

The turmoil in Pakistan’s past has led to censure of the ISI. A visible feature of the ISI’s history that has done great damage to its reputation is the continual deterioration of civilian institutions due to multiple military coups. Despite some improvements in civil-military relations in recent years, the army remains a dominant actor in Pakistan’s political makeup.

Previous abuses of power should put intelligence reform at the top of the agenda for change. Before Pakistan can continue its democratic transition, these changes must be addressed. It seems some corrections to the system have already been made; ISI has recently demonstrated a previously unseen forthrightness with both local and international media.

However, the international community continues to blame the country’s problems on the ISI, but still maintains working relations with the agency. Often, these relations undermine the democratic government and vindicate the very intelligence actors that need to be controlled. This double standard can be avoided by direct involvement with the Pakistani government, rather than going through intelligence services.

Additionally, the integration of former ISI agents into other civilian bodies, particularly the IB, should be limited or stopped. Cross-recruitment prevents organizations from becoming independent.

Pakistan also needs to strengthen the police force. A better-trained and better-equipped police force can do a better job of counter terrorism, which work is currently used by the intelligence agencies to legitimize control over politics in Pakistan.

US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano says that the US government is prepared to help develop Pakistan’s law enforcement infrastructure. From training police to setting up point-of-entries at Pakistan-Afghanistan borders, the US can help Pakistan using its experience regulating the US-Mexico border.

Ignoring the need to establish supremacy over the intelligence community would be a grave mistake on the part of Pakistan’s civilian government. Reducing the role of the military in the intelligence sector will allow the government to consolidate itself domestically, so it should be a top priority. In addition, government control over military and intelligence will cast a positive light on the state of Pakistan’s emerging democracy, and will improve international opinions of Pakistan.

Although reform to intelligence agencies will be difficult, the good news is that with patience, resolve, and international assistance, Pakistan’s government can indeed reassert civilian control over the intelligence community. Luckily for Pakistan, there are predecessors to take notes from. Indonesia and Chile have both undergone transformations in the intelligence arena and have plenty to offer Pakistan by way of example.

Intelligence agencies reform in Indonesia and Chile became a reality after media began exposing the atrocities and, people had the courage to reject authoritarianism. Reform of the murky Indonesian intelligence service, Badan Intelijen Negara (BIN), were spurred by revelations that emerged in the trial of the alleged killer of the country’s top human right activist.

Munir Said Thalib, died from arsenic poisoning while on a flight on Garuda, Indonesia’s national airline, from Jakarta to Amsterdam via Singapore on Sept. 7, 2004. Indonesian media exposed the hands behind Munir’s murder.

Extensive exposure by the mass media of the massive human rights violations and power abuse by the Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI), led to the abrupt breakdown in its public image. And, the abolition of “Dwifungsi ABRI” (the dual-function of the military) became a major demand of the pro-democracy movement.

In this same sense, the Pakistani media’s role is necessary to question the functioning of ISI. To cite but one example, there has been no follow-up on Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s accusations of ISI agents, kidnapping her.

In saying all this, though, we must remember not to throw out the baby with the bath water. Like any other state, Pakistan needs a strong defense system. Calling for military and intelligence reform should not be confused with anti-nationalism; we must always remember the sacrifices of those foot soldiers that valiantly put their lives on the line for their nation’s security.

This article was first published here: http://tribune.com.pk/story/19739/transform-muscle-flexing-isi-into-civil-intelligence/

Of course terrorist don’t celebrate mothers day because “others” have no mothers. Where is the mother of Faisal Shazhad? Where is the mother of his children? We will never see or hear from them. They must be kept invisible less we get the impression that he may actually be a human being, birthed by a female of our very own species.

Likewise the American media will never show the images of Aafia Siddiqui’s mother crying as she recalls the last day she saw her daughter. They will never show the images of the children who were deprived of their mother for seven long years. And, we will never be allowed to hear from the mother herself, to explain why she could not recognize her own son.

Motherhood is indeed problematic for the War on Terror. Aafia Siddiqui was completely stripped of her motherhood during her early depiction as Al Qaeda’s number three. When news finally begin to emerge not only of her disappearance but that of her three small children she was suddenly recast from the evil scientist to “terror mom” whose job now was to “have lots of babies” and “raise lots of little jihadis”.

I have no doubt that many would argue; what about the terrorists attempts to take innocent lives depriving our mothers of their children and our children of their mothers? But all the more reason to hear from the mothers of alleged terrorists. Perhaps they can spare us the endless speculation on how and why their kids became terrorists. After all, they raised them?

It’s not just the mother’s of alleged terrorists who disappear, but all the mothers who are victims of the War on Terror often described as Wars of terror. Never in the American media does one see or hear the mothers of children killed or wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Never does one see or hear mothers of any of the U.S. soldiers killed or wounded. The only American mother who tries with monumental will to overcome this silencing, Cindy Sheehan, is marginalized by the mainstream media, as a bereft nut.

And when news of children being hurt or killed does inadvertently makes it’s way to the American media it is again blamed on the cold-hearted terrorists for “using their children as human shields”. In fact U.S. soldiers were shown on a recently leaked video indiscriminately firing on a van filled with unarmed civilians including several children. When the soldiers who were shooting realized that the children had been hit they laughed about it and said “well its their fault for bringing their kids into a battle”.

But this Mother’s Day, 9 years into the War on Terror, is the day to remember all those mothers who have been disappeared. It is also the time to demand to know the whereabouts of the latest mother to disappear the mother of Faisal Shazad’s two children, Huma Mian. Given the allegations of both the ISI as well as CIA’s involvement in the abduction of Aafia Siddiqui and her children; given the U.S. DOD’s own internal reports admitting its willingness to use family members including children in the interrogation of terror suspects; it is urgent that the public, Human Rights Watch, The Red Cross, and Amnesty International verify that Huma Mian and her children are safe and protected.

Motherhood is more than just problematic for the War on terror, it is fundamentally irreconcilable with it. You cannot celebrate mothers day if you tolerate war. Motherhood is about giving life, and war is about taking life.

Judge Richard Berman, by ordering additional security measures for this trial, underscored the ideological profiling of a religious minority that has suffered immense public devaluation and disparagement since the 9/11 attacks.

I must admit that I do not completely understand the complex and diverse reasons for the foregrounding of religion in identities of Muslims in America. But I feel that the post 9/11 policies of the US government, fear mongering by conservative media, have led to increased in-group solidarity and identification on the basis of religion.

I have always argued that identify is fluid and contextual. I am a Pakistani when someone in New York asks me ‘where are your from?’ When the same question is posed in Lahore, I am from Karachi. I am a ‘man’ when around women- I am a ‘straight man’ around gays and an ‘old man’ around young kids.

But here is the sticky point – whether I practice religion or not, I am a Muslim because of my name, place of origin, and possibly because of clothes that I wear.

Faced with ideological profiling, discrimination, devaluation,and disparagement, religious identity has become the key marker for young Muslim men and women. I met several young Pakistani women who were born and raised in New York who not only cover their faces in hijab completely but also do not show picture IDs to male security guards.

I asked a young woman behind veil where she was from – she said “Brooklyn.” No, she didn’t say Pakistan. She was born in Coney Island Hospital to parents from Pakistan. Her father who used to be a lecturer in Pakistan has driven a cab for the past twenty years on the streets of New York. She has lived on the intersection of Coney Island Avenue and Newkirk Avenue all her life. From Kindergarten to college – she attended the public education system.

Let me not exaggerate- even among Muslims in America she is an anomaly. The majority of Muslim women dress modestly, some wear scarves, and plenty dress in ways that are consistent with their American peers.

But my sweet little Pakistani-Americans with faces covered in hijab are growing in numbers. I completely respect their right to cover themselves – and also understand the anxieties of those who fear what maybe behind the veil.

I can see how religious discourse can play a vital role in negotiating and resisting parental and community restrictions. A family friend recently told me that she knows several young Pakistani girls who cover themselves so they don’t have to worry about what clothes they must wear to school – or whether they have a boy friend or not. “It simply relieves them of all sorts of peer pressure,” our friend said. And, yes it is plausible.

But I feel it is more than not having brand name jeans with matching socks and bra-straps that force these bright and immensely intelligent women to wear hijab. For many it is a sign of dissent- a sign of courage- a sign of protest and yes of course for many it is their religious duty. These young women use the discourse of religion and identity for personal empowerment.

And, of course there were some young Muslim men at the trial with beards flying all over their faces and prayer beads in hand. There was one who had a ‘miswak’ (a piece of dried stem used 1400 years ago to brush teeth). The Marshal who had searched his bag was puzzled to see this ‘miswak’ and asked what do you do with it?

And, yes this young man was born in Queens. He has lived in New York – studied in several American schools and colleges. Like thousands of other young Muslim American, he also feels his religious identity provides a positive role model, compared to his parents’ under-employment and as an alternative to the street and drug cultures in his neighborhoods.

Parents of these young men and women are ecstatic that their off-spring are following religious and cultural values and are “keeping away from danger”. But the search for identity makes these impressionable young men and women vulnerable to radicalization as well.

The search for identity is part of the process of defining one’s relationship with the world that usually takes place without necessarily leading to ‘radicalization’. One would argue that ‘radicalization’ requires an interpersonal interaction with other actors who stimulate and influence the process. And, this is where the rub lies. Devaluation, disparagement and ideological profiling, lack of equal opportunities for career advancement and integration with mainstream society are those factors that can stimulate and influence the process of radicalization.

By ordering additional security for Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s trial Judge Richard Berman inadvertently became that external actor.

Let’s face it – Muslims today are facing a crisis that has few parallels in history. They are caught between the forces of extremism from within and the crushing onslaught of the West. Many Muslims find previous explanations of injustices (rich and poor) class based economic systems inadequate to explain their current experience. For Muslims living in the US this experience is compounded by religious discrimination, ideological profiling, and a lack of confidence in the government.

These young men and women I met during the trial simply seek to construct a sense of what it means to be Muslim in the US today. However, they are in danger of radicalization because traditional Islamic institutions are failing to connect with them to address their challenges. Many young men and women who grew up on the streets of New York and have found Islam empowering are not in a position
to objectively evaluate whether extremist interpretations represent an accurate understanding of Islam.

I found a young Pakistani-American who was born in Harlem Hospital and grew up in Bronx recently argue that Islam abolished slavery and that is why there are more blacks embracing Islam than whites. And, there was a young Pakistani girl who argued Islam emancipated women because before the advent of Islam girls were buried as soon as they were born. She got agitated when I suggested that it was1400 years ago and asked what progress has been made to further emancipate women. “Quran is final,” she said and no progress, changes can be expected in the lives of pious Muslim men and women.

I can’t blame Judge Richard Berman for a less than rational worldview of these young men and women. But more ideological profiling will create more disenfranchised, alienated, marginalized and angry individuals.

But, those of us who cherish the secular tradition of the US have a responsibility. We need to define what Islam means to our children born and raised in this society. We must define what it means to practice religion in a secular country. We must open doors for young men and women to integrate religion with local traditions. We must encourage them to allow American influences into their lives and ideology. We must encourage them to fully participate in the society and political system. We must encourage public service.

Simply put- it is our responsibility and only we can defeat Islamic extremism; not soldiers with M4 rifles, not pilotless drones and robots. And, we can do that by accepting and acknowledging the ground realities- we should be able to explain that context will not erode the core of Islam. That Islam will potentially benefit from some localization.

Following guilty verdict several popular TV Talk Show hosts in Pakistan also questioned ISI’s role in her alleged abduction in 2003. Common sentiments were that the ‘daughter of the nation’ was arrested and handed over to the Americans.

Mention of ISI evokes several conflicting emotions – and fear for Pakistanis. Just as mentioning CIA occasionally evokes images of global conspiracy and the KGB calls gulags to mind, the ISI has come to represent political deceit in Pakistan. And, during General Pervez Musharraf’s rule as more and more Pakistanis started to disappear in thin air, ISI became more enigmatic.

But current sentiments in Pakistan are an excellent opportunity for the democratic government to restructure ISI. The turmoil in Pakistan’s past has led to censure of the ISI.

A visible feature of the ISI’s history that has done great damage to its reputation is the continual deterioration of civilian institutions due to multiple military coups. Despite some improvements in civil-military relations in recent years, the army remains a dominant actor in Pakistan’s political makeup.

Disappearance of hundreds and previous abuses of power has stigmatized ISI to point that business as usual means leading the country into absolute abyss.

Although reforming ISI will be difficult, the good news is that with patience, resolve, and international assistance, Pakistan’s government can indeed reassert civilian control over the intelligence community.

Luckily for Pakistan, there are predecessors to take notes from. Indonesia and Chile have both undergone transformations in the intelligence arena and have plenty to offer Pakistan by way of example.

Pakistan’s government must reinforce the separation between civilian and military intelligence agencies. The integration of former ISI agents into other civilian bodies, particularly the IB, should be limited or stopped. Cross-recruitment prevents organizations from becoming independent.

Pakistan also needs to strengthen the police force. A better-trained and better-equipped police force can do a better job of counterterrorism, which work is currently exploited by the intelligence agencies to legitimize their control over politics in Pakistan.

Ignoring the urgent need to establish supremacy over the intelligence community would be a grave mistake on the part of Pakistan’s civilian government. Reducing the role of the military in the intelligence sector will allow the government to consolidate itself domestically, so it should be a top priority.

In addition, government control over military and intelligence will cast a positive light on the state of Pakistan’s emerging democracy, and will improve international opinion of Pakistan.

If Pakistanis honestly consider Dr. Aafia Siddiqui “daughter of the nation,” they must demand structural changes in how ISI operates and demand their government to demonstrate political will to trace all the disappeared.

With an independent judiciary and a democratic government, Pakistan has opportunity that does not come too often. It is encouraging that the Supreme Court has resumed hearings of disappearance cases but the democratically elected government has the responsibility to immediately reveal details hundreds of missing people, and hold to account those responsible — including the country’s security and intelligence agencies.

According to the Defense of Human Rights, a Pakistani organization that campaigns on behalf of the relatives of the disappeared, out of 416 enforced disappearance cases filed in the Supreme Court since 2005, 195 cases remain pending since 3 November 2007.

It is not sufficient to vent anger against the United States alone- Pakistan must clean house first. All those responsible for selling men, women, and children like slaves must be exposed. Otherwise, this outburst of anger, national pride and bravado – statements like “we will go bring the daughter of nation back,” are meaningless, insincere and belong only on soap operas or lollywood movies.

And, the international community has a vital role to play here too. On one hand they blame Pakistan’s problems on the ISI, but still maintain close relations with the agency. Often, these relations undermine the democratic government and vindicate the very intelligence actors that need to be controlled.

This double standard must be avoided by direct involvement with the Pakistani government, rather than going through intelligence services.

With allegations of being an Al-Qaeda operative headlining nearly every report in the American media and allegations that she was held in a secret prison and tortured for the 5 years before her capture dominating reports in the Pakistani media, the only way to get close to a “common sense” perspective is to take a look at what we actually do know and don’t know about this case.

We do know that in March of 2003 Aafia Siddiqui was a mother of 3 children who disappeared in Karachi, Pakistan as she was on her way to the airport, along with her three children.

We do know that in 2003 the children were Suleman under-6 months, Maryam-Age 3, and Ahmed-Age 7

We do know that in March 2003 she was named by the FBI as a “person of interest”.

We do know that early in March 2003 Khalid Sheik Mohammed was captured by Pakistanis, turned over to Americans, and interrogated in which he named Aafia Siddiqui as an Al Qaeda “fixer”

We do know that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was water boarded almost 100 times during his interrogation.

We do know that a little later in March 2003 Aafia Siddiqui’s ex-husband, Amjad Khan, was questioned by FBI officials and released.

We do know that at the time the couple had gone through a bitter divorce.

We do know that in 2002 Aafia Siddiqui’s husband, Amjad Khan, was questioned by the FBI for purchasing “night vision goggles” and “military manuals” over the internet and that Aafia was questioned incidentally as his wife.

We do know that Amjad Khan admitted to purchasing the equipment but said that it was for big gaming hunting for a relative and was not detained by the FBI.

We do know that the couple were having marital problems at the time which included allegations of domestic abuse.

We do know that the Siddiqui’s familiy’s claims that Aafia was a victim of domestic abuse was corroborated by friends and colleagues of Siddiqui from Brandeis

We do know that in April and May 2003 there were reports in the American media that Dr. Siddiqui was being “detained” for questioning by Pakistani authorities regarding her alleged ties to Al-Qaeda. “U.S. intelligence officials are reportedly interrogating a Pakistani woman alleged to have moved funds and assisted with logistics planning for al-Qaeda.” The NBC report makes clear that she is “not considered a member of Al-Qaeda” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xwCHha5ITM

http://web.archive.org/web/20070416115222/http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/04/03/19137-1.html

We do know that she was considered a “person of interest” by the FBI in 2003 and wanted for questioning.

We do know that there were reports in 2003 in some Pakistani newspapers as well, that Siddiqui and her children were picked up by both Pakistani and American intelligence.

We do know that in 2004 the FBI gave a press conference in which they labeled her as one of seven most wanted “terrorist”. At that time they denied having her in their custody.

We do know that shortly after that press conference in 2004 numerous media reports accused Siddiqui of transferring diamonds to Liberia for Al Qaeda in mid June 2001, 3 months before 9/11

We do know, however, that in mid-June 2001 Aafia Siddiqui was with her husband and kids in Boston running a play group.

We do know that in 2005 former detainees at Bagram began alleging that there was a female prisoner being held at the prison who was from Pakistan.

We do know that the U.S. Government at the time denied having any women at Bagram.

We do know that in 2006 Amnesty International Reported Aafia Siddiqui as a “missing person” believed to be in U.S. Custody.

We do know that in 2007 Human Rights Watch named Aafia Siddiqui as a “missing person” possibly held in U.S. custody.

We do know that in June 2008 journalist, Yvonne Ridley, alleged that Aafia Siddiqui was prisoner 650 held for the past 5 years at a Secret Prison in Bagram

We do know that shortly after Ridley’s report in June 2008 Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the ICRC began demanding the U.S. for access to prisoner 650.

We do know that the following month in July 2008, 5 years after her initial disappearance, Aafia Siddiqui was seen on TV at a press conference in Ghazni Afghanistan with only her oldest son, in which it was reported that she was found with a terrorist’s handbag.

We do know that the handbag she was found with contained fantastically incriminating evidence including plans for “mass casualty” attacks and “how to make a dirty bomb”, along with pictures of New York Landmarks.

We do know that the next day she was shot in the abdomen by U.S. Soldiers.

We do know that when she disappeared she was a slightly heavy woman.

We do know that when she was shown in the press conference she was substantially thinner than when she disappeared.

We do know that in her arrest photograph taken by the Afghan National Police she looked beaten. Her nose was altered and her teeth were missing.

We do not know why she was considered a “person of interest” by the FBI; why she was labeled a “wanted terrorist”; or why she was alleged to be a “Al Qaeda facilitator”, by the FBI

We do know that the U.S. Government did not prosecute her with attempting to commit acts of terrorism or any connections to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

We do know that the U.S. government has chosen to keep crucial information about her case classified.

We do not know where the two younger missing children are.

We do know that during the trial all the New York newspapers had nearly daily headlines labeling Siddiqui a member of Al-Qaeda.

We do know that FBI officials and ISI officials had been meeting with reporters privately to allege that she was an a member of Al-Qaeda but they could charge her without “compromising their sources”.

We do know that this jury was not sequestered.

We do know that airport style security was ordered outside the courtroom because of possible threats from the gallery.

We do know that this was unprecedented in judicial proceedings

This is a work in progress. I will be updating.

Covering Dr. Aafia Siddiqui’s trial for past two weeks I realized there is a problem with this statement.

It was abundantly clear that the “us” and “them” categories were not structures of the past but realities of my surroundings. And, I can’t believe I say this: for Muslims these categories are much clearer and sharper than they have ever been.

Two aspects of America that I have always admired are the justice system and the abundance of ‘trust’ in the marketplace. I continue to admire the justice system- the fact that 12 ordinary men and women from New York City could hold the power to ajudicate is something to be respected. I may disagree with the verdict – as we often do, but the jury system is absolutely the best mechanism to dispense justice.

The fact that these twelve men and women – a black woman, a dark color Hispanic woman, a fair color Hispanic woman and nine Caucasian men and women handed down this verdict in New York City speaks volume to the Orientalist categories Edward Said taught us about. My point of departure, however, is that Prof. Said considered this to be part of history and I experience it today in the worlds most cosmopolitan city – the most diverse city, and my favorite, New York City.

No physical evidence whatsoever – but how can they not trust American soldiers – even when there were glaring inconsistencies in what they said. Even when there was no proof that an M4 rifle was ever fired a Pakistani woman was convicted because she was the crazy “other.”

“Us” and “them” was also abundantly clear in the press gallery where white journalists failed to restrain their glee. With their faces beaming with happiness – as if a spirited game of Yankees vs Red Sox had just finished they were bumbling around in front of the Federal Court of Southern District of New York.

The New York Post and Daily News reporters sat through the entire proceedings but only reported her outbursts. Despite categorical statements by the government that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was not on trial for allegations of terrorism, the New York Post regularly referred to her as “Terror Ma”; and Daily News in every story called her “al-Qaeda lady”.

These are both tabloids of New York from which I expect a certain level of sensationalism and yellow journalism.

But, I was surprised how a Boston Globe reporter who had spent time in Pakistan and Afghanistan had come with her story already written. “I have my story already typed,” she told other women (a writer who had traveled from Cape Cod to cover this trial) saying if the jury doesn’t return a verdict she may need a stringer.

The Boston Globe goes to cover a trial with stories already typed? This is not surprising. Because the subject of this narrative is a woman from a subjugated part of the world (other) and the American media had already presumed her guilt.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui comes from a part of the world that is “despotic and clannish.” The subtext of these conversations does not need much digging. When I talked about democracy in Pakistan, I was reminded of corruption and when I mentioned how Pakistan has been aligned with American policy for past 60 years I was told how ISI played a double game.

In simple words: Pakistanis are despotic when placed in positions of power, and sly and obsequious when in subservient positions.

These American reporters who acted like cheerleaders for the government when reporting WMDs in Iraq still blindly trust their establishment.

But not always – when reporting on issues that impact their own lives, healthcare, the financial debacle, stimulus packages, gay marriages these reporters leave no stone un-turned and they don’t take the establishment’s word as a gospel.

When a Pakistani is on trial – her statements to FBI when she was tied to a gurney, drugged and had bullet wounds in her belly – they believe those statements should be sufficient to impeach her.

Talking to the media one of he defense attorneys – someone Dr. Aafia Siddiqui seems to trust and has had most candid conversations with – Ms. Elaine Sharp pleaded to the American reporters “what crimes have her children committed.”

She was of course talking about abduction of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and her three kids from the streets of Karachi in 2003. They were kidnapped by the ‘sly and obsequious’ Pakistani ISI under the leadership of a dictator General Pervez Musharaff. I was shocked to see the expressions on the faces of American reporters as if these kids have no ‘value’ whatsoever.

As Pramilla Srivastava has written in her piece: “Shortly after the trial began as a government eyewitness described the documents that were allegedly found in her possession, including hand written notes on how to make a dirty bomb, she shouted out “it’s a lie…I was told to copy from a magazine…if you were held in a secret prison and your children were tortured”; at which point she was whisked away by U.S. Marshalls.”

But American journalists who roam around the world teaching the subjugated how to report- how they must not be emotionally attached to the story – how they must remain unbiased can’t follow what they preach. When it comes to reporting events that surround lives of weird looking men with prayer beads, and women covered in veils our good old white reporters can’t keep emotions behind their poker faces.

And, of course this column – part one of many to come may sound like a rant to my good American friends – and they may be thinking these people even after living in this country for such a long time are “impossible to trust.”

Despite all the bravado of Pakistani officials implying that Dr. Siddiqui would be released, this verdict ensures that she will spend a few more decades in U.S. custody.

Sharp told reporters that her client, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was picked up by ISI on March 29, 2003 in Karachi. They arrived in two black cars and placed Siddiqui in one car and the children in another car.

Dr. Siddiqui says that she was immediately hooded and drugged and when she woke up she was tied to a gurney in a place that could not have been Karachi because the air was very dry.

Sharp also discussed the issue of the missing children. She said that the baby was reported killed during the arrest, but Dr. Siddiqui does not know if the girl, Maryam, who would now be 11 years old, is alive or not.

Dr. Siddiqui was shown a picture of her baby laying in a pool of blood.

American reporters continued to find Dr.Siddiqui’s claims incredulous and questioned Sharp on the plausibility. Do you really believe her?, a reporter asked Sharp. “Yes!”, she replied categorically.

Sharp said that a gag order was placed on the family by the Government of Pakistan, who made this a pre-condition for the release of the oldest child Ahmed. This is why no one from the family has been able to talk openly about what may have happened to her and her children for 5 years.

Many reporters have also said that a Pakistani official who frequented the proceedings and told them “off the record” that Dr. Siddiqui was actually part of an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell.

Many legal observers have questioned if there was a conflict of interest in the Government of Pakistan paying for the defense when they themselves are implicated in her kidnapping.

Dr. Siddiqui, according to her attorney, requested all her supporters not to engage in any violence in protest against the verdict.

Her defense attorney’s have already been preparing an appeal which they said they will be filing expeditiously.

Judge Richard Berman has scheduled sentencing on May 6th, 2010.

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was charged in seven counts allegedly based on events that occurred at an Afghan National Police Compound in Ghazni, Afghanistan on July 17 and 18, 2008:

(1) attempting to kill United States nationals in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2332(b) (Count One);
(2) attempting to kill United States officers and employees in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1114 (Count Two);
(3) armed assault of United States officers and employees in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(b) (Count Three);
(4) discharging a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(c) (Count Four);
and (5) assaulting United States officers and employees in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 111(a) (Counts Five through Seven).

Government’s position:

“The charges stem from the defendant’s apprehension on July 17, 2008 by the ANP in Ghazni, Afghanistan. Upon being arrested, the ANP recovered a number of items from the defendant, certain of which were provided to the United States military. These items included a number of handwritten and pre-printed documents, women’s personal effects, various chemicals (certain of which tested positive for sodium cyanide), and a computer thumb drive which contained various electronic documents. Based in part on its review of these items, the United States military contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to assist in interviewing and identifying the individual whom the ANP had detained (later determined to be the defendant).”

“The following day, a team of United States military personnel and FBI agents (the “Interview Team”) traveled to the ANP Compound at which the defendant was held, in order to interview and identify her. Eventually the Interview Team was directed to a second floor room
at the ANP Compound. Unbeknownst to the Interview Team, the defendant was left unsecured in the room, behind a curtain that partitioned it. After the Interview Team entered the room, the
defendant grabbed one of the Team member’s (the “Warrant Officer”) M-4 rifle, and attempted to fire, and fired, it at members of the Interview Team. In response, the Warrant Officer shot the defendant, and she was subsequently subdued. During and immediately after this shooting, the defendant repeatedly screamed anti-American statements, including her desire to kill Americans. The Interview Team then brought the defendant to a military base, where her wounds were treated. The same day, two members of the Interview Team brought the defendant to another military base for medical treatment, and then to Bagram Airbase, where she remained until August 4, when she was transferred to this District.”

Jury returned a verdict saying it was not premeditated murder, however, it was an attempted murder. This will reduce maximum sentence from 40 years to 30 years.

Tina Foster, spokesperson for the family issued the following statement:
“Today marks the close of another sad chapter in the life of our
sister, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. Today she was unjustly found guilty.
Though she was not charged with any terrorism-related offense, Judge
Berman permitted the prosecution’s witnesses to characterize our
sister as a terrorist — which, based on copious evidence, she clearly
is not. Today’s verdict is the result of many legal errors that
allowed the prosecution to build a case against our sister based on
hate, rather than fact. We believe that as a result, she was denied a
fair trial, and today’s verdict must be overturned on appeal.”

Shortly after the trial began as a government eyewitness described the documents that were allegedly found in her possession, including hand written notes on how to make a dirty bomb, she shouted out “it’s a lie…I was told to copy from a magazine…if you were held in a secret prison and your children were tortured”; at which point she was whisked away by U.S. Marshalls.

The court then took a recess and when the trial resumed, prosecutors requested that it be stricken from the record. But in closing remarks, defense attorney reminded everyone that the prosecution never challenged that assertion. Something terrible happened to Dr. Siddiqui, Moreno said. But without more information, it would be hard for any juror who is not an avid consumer of non-mainstream or foreign media, to be able to even imagine what that horror may have been.

In the morning before the closing remarks, the last government witness, FBI Special Agent, Angela Sercer testified. Sercer monitored Siddiqui for 12 hours a day over a two week period while she was at a hospital in Bagram. She tried to rebut Aafia Siddiqui’s testimony, by saying that Siddiqui told her she was in “hiding” for the last five years and further that she “married” someone to change her name.

However under cross examination, Sercer admitted that while at the hospital Siddiqui expressed fear of “being tortured”. Sercer also admitted that Siddiqui expressed concern about the “welfare of the boy” and asked about him “every day”. Moreover, that Siddiqui only agreed to talk to her upon promises that the boy would be safe. According to the testimony Siddiqui said that the Afghans had “beaten her”; that her “husband had beaten her and her children”; and that she was “afraid of coming into physical harm”.

When Sercer was further questioned about what Siddiqui said about her children during that two week period, she admitted that Siddiqui expressed concern about the “safety and welfare of her children”, but felt that the “kids had been killed or tortured in a secret prison”. “She said that they were dead, didn’t she” asked Defense attorney, Elaine Sharpe; reluctantly Sercer answered, “Yes”.

Siddiqui herself may not know whether the children are alive or not. In a psychiatric report she told an interviewer “my baby is flying but he does not grow”, “maybe it’s because I’m not nursing him”. Nonetheless, it is surprising that the testimony presented at her trial did not prompt an immediate state department investigation. After all, at least one of the children, Maryum, who would now be 10 years old, is a U.S. Citizen.

If it is true that the kids have been killed, then, the question arises, who will be charged with “attempting to murder a U.S. National”, for that crime.

The male juror seemed to be showing the female juror how easy it might be to release the safety mechanism and fire, showing an apparent familiarity with rifles. It is reported that there is an active debate underway as the jury enters its second day of deliberations.

For the jury to reach a verdict the decision must be unanimous by all 12 jurors composed of 8 women and 4 men. There will be intense pressure on those in the minority to be swayed to the opinion of the majority.

UPDATE:
Two state department officials are in the courtroom today to observe the verdict. This is the first time that the state department has come to the court to observe a trial of a Pakistani. This reflects the importance of the case to Pak-U.S. relations.

Despite promises of good news from Interior Minister Rehman Malik in the case of Dr. Siddiqui, the prosecution has left no stone unturned to ensure that she is convicted. In their closing remarks they described her as a terrorist who knows how to “lie” to manipulate the jury. They availed of every opportunity to refer to the documents allegedly found in her possession indicating her “intent” to “kill Americans”. They also indicted the Afghan National Police accusing them of hiding the evidence to explain the lack of any forensic evidence found in the room where the shooting is alleged to have occurred.

If she is found guilty, many legal experts say that her only chance for justice is for the Pakistani Government to disclose once and for all any information they have on her possible abduction and transfer to the custody of American intelligence officials. Meanwhile, the whereabouts of the two missing children remain unknown.