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.

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.

Although she is not charged with terrorism, the Prosecution was able to make that claim the underpinning of its entire case, due in large part to Judge Richard Berman’s decision to allow into evidence documents found in Dr. Siddiqui’s possession which include handwritten notes about “how to make a dirty bomb” and plans to cause “mass casualties” in the United States. The defense Attorney, Charles Swift said it was a legally “flawed” decision and will be the basis on an appeal if Dr. Siddiqui is not acquitted.

In their closing remarks the prosecution was able to spin the jury’s decision from a verdict on the guilt or innocence of Dr. Siddiqui, to the guilt or innocence of the 9 government eyewitnesses who say they heard or saw an M4 rifle shot on July 18, 2008 by Dr. Siddiqui. ‘For you to find Aafia Siddiqui not-guilty. That means you believe that the 9 Government witnesses who testified under oath stared you in the face and lied, men and women of the armed forces.’, they said.

The Prosecution then characterized Siddiqui as a highly intelligent yet shrewd and cunning manipulator who carefully “planned her defense”. He described how she “ducked” and “dodged” questions referring to her answers about the year she was born and her son who was found with her. During her testimony Dr. Siddiqui was asked if she was born in 1972. Her response was “If you say so” , then she went on to ask how can anyone recall when they were born. Later, she was asked by Jenna Dabbs if the boy she was with was her son. She again couldn’t answer directly claiming that she only saw pictures of him so she didn’t know for sure. Though many legal observers found her answers quite logical, it would be difficult for the jury to understand this without being informed of her claims of being in held in a secret prison for 5 years.

The prosecution then addressed the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies as analogous to a car accident, in which different people would have different accounts of what happened prior to the accident as their “focus” would be on different things, but during the accident everyone’s focus would then “shift” to the sight of action and then perspectives would converge.

Later during the rebuttal phase of the closing, the prosecution argued that the inconsistencies were proof that the accounts were truthful. “They didn’t get together” and make sure their stories matched. “There was no grand conspiracy to convict this woman.” If they wanted to do that “why didn’t they simply plant some evidence” at the crime scene, they argued.

The Prosecution was responding to the closing remarks made by the defense in which Linda Moreno argued that the ‘bond” between soldiers on the battlefield who must “protect each other” to survive , influenced the testimonies of the government witnesses. She pointed out that their testimonies not only conflicted with each other’s but with their own earlier signed statements.

Moreno tried to get the jury to focus on the science and the forensic evidence. “there’s only one witness who’s impartial” and who “doesn’t have a dog in this fight”, and that is the room she said, the 26 X 12 ft room, 300 square feet with 10-20 people. She reminded the jury of the complete lack of physical evidence, no bullets, casings, bullet holes, gun shot residue. No one else was hurt except Aafia Siddiqui in this small crowded room where the M4 rifle allegedly went off. She responded to the government claim that the Afghans took the evidence, by pointing out that they (the Afghans) were the ones who alerted the Americans to her presence in the first place.

The defense was also able to dismiss the only piece of physical evidence submitted by the prosecution. This was the picture of the two holes in the wall which they claimed were caused by the firing of the M4 rifle by Siddiqui. Moreno then replayed a video submitted into evidence last week that showed a press conference held before the U.S. soldiers arrived, in the same room where the incident allegedly occurred, displaying the same two holes that the prosecution argued were certainly bullet holes. Moreno then took the jury back to science and the defense expert, a former NASA scientist, who testified “with scientific certainity” that they were in fact not bullet holes as the prosecution alleged.

In response to the argument that Linda Moreno made that “science” is the only imprtial witness in a case, the prosecution retorted that “science doesn’t have all the answers” and its “not where you need to look”. They then once again went back to the documents allegedly found in her possession as proof of her “intent” to “kill Americans”. In fact, the Prosecution’s closing remarks had more references to the “documents” describing terrorist acts against Americans, than throughout the entire trial. Moreno responded to this by saying, “they’re trying to scare you. But that “Fear has no place in this trial. Fear has no place in America”

During instructions the Judge once again advised the jury that Dr. Siddiqui, like all other criminal defendants, must be presumed innocent, and can only be found guilty if they decide that the government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

When cross examining FBI Forensic expert, Aafia Siddiqui’s defense attorney established that evidence arrived for analysis approximately fifteen days after she was shot in Afghanistan.

FBI’s fingerprinting expert had earlier testified that he did not find any finger prints on the M4 rifle, but that in his 6 year experience in the field there is only a 10% chance of obtaining fingerprints from a firearm due to its “non-porous” surface.

When asked how many guns he has analyzed, FBI expert conceded that his experience was limited around 10 to 20 weapons that he has analyzed. When asked why did he not take pictures of areas where finger prints could have been visible, FBI expert said it was of ‘no value.’

Another FBI agent who was tasked to collect evidence told government’s attorney that he left behind parts of M4 rifle because there was a shortage of equipment. He also said that he went back to the crime scene with the Chief Warrant Officer who is suspected of shooting Dr. Aafia Siddiqui in the belly.

Today even the jurors and journalists had to go through the metal detector. A person present at the hearing suggested that metal detectors are creating an impression as if “Aafia Siddiqui is very dangerous or the people who are coming to support her are potential threat.”

Dr. Aafia Siddiqui sat next to her lawyers and did not say a word. Her brother sat four benches behind her.

Defense attornies are expected to cross examine FBI Agent who collected the evidence after lunch break.