Dr Aafia's case

[falconer]

The case of the scientist, Aafia Siddiqui, 38, had attracted wide attention, particularly in Pakistan, where she was widely portrayed as a heroine.
In Karachi, Peshawar and Lahore, word of the sentence prompted protests from religious parties, which announced plans for nationwide demonstrations on Friday. Outside Ms. Siddiqui’s house in Karachi, dozens of protesters chanted anti-American slogans.
Ms. Siddiqui’s lawyers had requested a sentence of 12 years; federal prosecutors had pressed for life imprisonment.
The judge, Richard M. Berman, said “significant incarceration” was called for, and he expressed concern about the likelihood of recidivism and difficulty of rehabilitation for the defendant.
In 2004, she was described by Robert S. Mueller III, the director of the F.B.I., as “an Al Qaeda operative and facilitator.” And an indictment charged that when she was arrested in 2008, she was carrying instructions on making explosives and a list of New York landmarks, including the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building.
But it was her assault on a team of American officers and agents who went to question her after her arrest that led to her conviction in February on charges that included attempting to kill American officers and employees. She had been taken into custody in Ghazni, Afghanistan, after the local authorities became suspicious of her loitering outside the provincial governor’s compound.
In his finding that Ms. Siddiqui acted with premeditation, Judge Berman cited the testimony of witnesses who said she had picked up an M-4 rifle that one officer had placed on the ground and had begun firing at the Americans.
“As she did this,” the judge said, she uttered, “in the same impeccable English that she has demonstrated here in the courtroom, anti-American sentiments” like “ ‘I want to kill Americans’ ” and “ ‘Death to America.’ ”
Ms. Siddiqui missed her targets, Judge Berman noted, and one officer shot her in the abdomen, while Ahmed Gul, whom the judge described as “a brave Afghan interpreter,” charged at Ms. Siddiqui and helped restrain her.
Ms. Siddiqui, who has degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University, had punctuated her trial with numerous outbursts, resulting in ejections from the courtroom.
At her sentencing, she rolled her eyes and made dismissive motions when one of her lawyers argued on her behalf. Her legal team, with which she has not cooperated, has maintained she was mentally ill, but prosecutors and the judge — and Ms. Siddiqui — disagreed.
In long and rambling statements on Thursday, Ms. Siddiqui, whose head was covered with a scarf, denied suffering from mental illness and said that she forgave the soldier who had shot her, and the judge.
“I am a Muslim, but I do love America, too,” she said. “I do not want any bloodshed,” she added. “I really want to make peace and end the wars.”
Her lawyer, Dawn M. Cardi, argued that the attack was not premeditated, and that Ms. Siddiqui was trying to escape from custody because she was “petrified and frightened about being tortured, about being sent to Guantánamo.”
Ms. Cardi cited a five-year period, starting in 2003, when Ms. Siddiqui’s whereabouts were unknown; her supporters have claimed she was taken by American forces and tortured in Afghanistan, an accusation that is widely accepted in Pakistan, but is rejected by American officials. Ms. Cardi also suggested the government was trying to create an atmosphere of fear to obtain a longer sentence.
But a prosecutor, Christopher L. LaVigne, said any fear that was “injected in this courtroom” had come from witnesses like Capt. Robert Snyder of the United States Army testifying about “looking down the barrel of a loaded gun” and believing he would die.
“The bottom line,” Mr. LaVigne said, “is she saw her chance and she took it.”
At times during the hearing, Judge Berman seemed to be speaking to an audience beyond the courtroom, an apparent attempt to address widespread speculation about Ms. Siddiqui and her case.
For example, referring to the five-year period of Ms. Siddiqui’s disappearance and claims of torture, he said, “I am aware of no evidence in the record to substantiate these allegations or to establish them as fact.”
He added: “There is no credible evidence in the record that the United States officials and/or agencies detained Dr. Siddiqui” before her 2008 arrest.
He also asked Mr. LaVigne for his office’s position on the issue. “That is our understanding as well,” the prosecutor said.
As the hearing ended, Judge Berman told Ms. Siddiqui that she had the right to file an appeal, but she seemed uninterested. “I appeal to God,” she said. “And he hears me.”

[falconer]

NEW YORK: A US Federal Judge Richard Berman who awarded sentence of 86 years to Dr Aafia Siddiqui says in his detailed judgment that “this is most certainly a situation where the defendant’s political beliefs and perspectives blur the line between mental health issues and political advocacy.”
In the 111 pages transcript of sentencing judgment, Mr Berman says he wrestled with the facts of the case as well as the law and “the history and characteristics of the defendant”.

Judge Berman refused to accept many of the widely held opinions about the Aafia case in Pakistan. “There is insufficient evidence in the record conclusively to confirm Dr Siddiqui’s whereabouts between 2003 and 2008,” he said adding that no evidence had been provided by Aafia’s family of their version of events that she had been held by the US authorities. Judge Berman similarly says there is no evidence that Aafia was picked up or detained by Pakistani intelligence services.

Berman’s detailed judgment indicates that the defence lawyers retained by the Pakistan government, as well as court appointed lawyers, raised all types of arguments to defend Aafia but presented no evidence. There is also no indication that the government of Pakistan provided any document or statement during the trial. In the end, however, he felt that like the jury that found her guilty he could not just accept a version of events that was unsupported by evidence.

The judgment suggests that if Aafia’s family and political supporters in Pakistan had made some effort to provide evidence of the popular version of Aafia’s case the case could have been decided differently. Aafia Siddiqui’s own testimony and outbursts in court also went against her and convinced the judge that she was using the trial for political advocacy and deserved a strong sentence, Berman’s judgment shows.

He noted Aafia Siddiqui’s complex political views that were her deep beliefs. According to him, “She complained that a Zionist conspiracy existed and would prevent her from getting a fair trial. Indeed, during the course of the proceedings she said all I did say was that Israel was behind 9/11. She also wrote to me, it should be noted, and these letters are in the record that, and this is a quote, “I am not inherently against Israelis or Israel or any other country or people for that matter. I have studied and lived in facilities owned or run by Israeli-Americans for years. I have never said or did anything negative about Israel or Israelis and certainly not about Jewish people or Judaism.”

The US federal judge said in his verdict that Aafia Siddiqui “acknowledged that she went into hiding in 2003 shortly after a man named Majid Khan was arrested, allegedly a man she offered to help him by setting up a mail box on his behalf in Baltimore, Maryland. Khan is also one of the persons currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. She stayed for some time with the family of Ammar Al Baluchi whom, as I said I understand she subsequently married and, to my understanding but unsubstantiated, is still married. After Al Baluchi’s arrest by the Pakistani intelligence, Dr Siddiqui apparently moved to Karachi.”

According to the Judge Berman, Aafia “had claimed that a short time after moving there a man named Abu Lababa issued a Fatwa for her to do biological research in order to develop defenses for her country should Pakistan be attacked by an enemy. And she did this for approximately six months. She then apparently moved to Nazimabad and presumably made trips from there to Afghanistan in search of Al Baluchi.”

The judgment says that “Dr. Siddiqui’s son has reportedly said they were living with Dr. Siddiqui’s mother and, quote, he also intimated that Dr. Siddiqui met with what appeared to be jihadists and that he believed they were on a suicide mission in Ghazni before the incident which is the subject of this case. Dr. Siddiqui’s son is said to have made some more recent statements which are at odds” with the earlier statement. According to Berman, “During this five-year period Dr. Siddiqui’s first husband, Mohammed Amjad Khan, allegedly claims to have seen Dr. Siddiqui on several occasions including in 2003 and 2005, riding in a taxi in Karachi, Pakistan. None of these five-year references is referred to here as a fact in evidence in this case.”

The judgment noted that, “There are defense allegations going back to the assertions made first by Dr. Siddiqui’s counsel Ms. Fink that Dr. Siddiqui was intercepted while in a taxi in Pakistan on her way to the airport with her children and taken into custody and thereafter tortured. And that is alleged to have occurred sometime in or around 2003 or thereafter. There are defense allegations also that she was detained by Pakistanis and later by Americans. And it apparently has recently been reported, that is to say in August of this year, that Dr. Siddiqui’s son said that he and his mother were detained and mistreated by American soldiers and people speaking Urdu and Pashto. I am aware of no evidence in the record to these allegations or to establish them as fact.”

Berman states, “Indeed, there is no credible evidence in the record that the United States officials and/or agencies detained Dr. Siddiqui prior to her arrest in July of 2008 after the incident alleged — the shooting incident alleged in this case.”

The Judge said that even though Aafia Siddiqui expressed lack of faith in every lawyer and made outbursts in court she had the opportunity to be part of the trial and could have presented evidence of her assertions. “Every day of the trial Dr. Siddiqui was given the opportunity to be here in the courtroom and conduct herself appropriately, which she clearly knew how to do. There was never a single moment when Dr. Siddiqui was denied the opportunity to confront her accusers and when she did not have the opportunity to participate in her defense or in a public trial. And she availed herself of that opportunity.

Judge Berman also complained of Aafia’s refusal to cooperate with lawyers who were defending her and with psychiatrists who tried to help her claim mental illness. He said, “For whatever reason and I will acknowledge that she has her reasons, Dr. Siddiqui has never cooperated with any mental health physicians or her attorneys for that matter. And that’s her right. You know, no one is forcing her to do anything and she doesn’t have to cooperate.”

The sentencing judgment transcript quotes Aafia Siddiqui’s lawyer Dawn Cardi as saying, “I respectfully disagree with some of the fact-finding that your Honor has just related. I do know one thing — we don’t know what happened to Dr. Siddiqui. We don’t know what happened to her between 2003 and 2008. And while it is true that there are no facts before this Court to corroborate or to aid us in knowledge, the government of the United States knows