Returning to Aafia


Of all the stories about alleged Al Qaeda members, perhaps none has been more peculiar than that of Aafia Siddiqui. Due to its peculiar nature, I would like to go back to where it all began.

Here’s a summary of incidents as they were reported in chronological order, for better understanding:

The US-educated Pakistani neuroscientist first appeared on the news radar in March 2003. According to her family, Aafia left her home on March 30 with her three children in a Metro-Cab to catch a flight to Rawalpindi. She then disappeared, and her family alleges that she was kidnapped by Pakistani agencies and subsequently handed over to American agencies.

Despite the Siddiqui family’s accusations, the FBI continued to deny reports of Aafia’s abduction. Meanwhile, a story in Newsweek described Aafia as “reportedly arrested.” By this time, Aafia had been linked with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Aafia’s family continued to demand attention to her disappearance, For instance, a letter from her uncle published in Dawn in March 2004 provides a chronology of Aafia’s disappearance. Another letter, published in May 2004, states that Aafia’s mother and sister have been put under house arrest and are not being allowed to contact anyone – the arrest was seen as retaliation for the previous letter.

In May 2004, the Interior Minister confirmed speculations regarding Aafia by confirming that she was arrested from Karachi and handed over to the US authorities for allegedly being involved in terrorist activities.

Meanwhile, more information was gathered about these alleged terrorist activities. Reports surfaced that Aafia and her husband purchased night-vision goggles and body armour from an online military store; that she opened a post office box for Majid Khan, a Pakistani who was held at Guantanamo on suspicion that he planned attacks on American gas stations; and, most importantly, that she traveled to Monrovia to buy diamonds which were then used to fund Al Qaeda operations. The authorities were unable to provide evidence for these allegations, which is why Aafia has not faced terror charges.

For the next two years, Aafia’s case remained shrouded in mystery until her name appeared in Amnesty International’s list of  disappeared suspects in the war on terror. More reports poured in suggesting she was detained in a secret US prison. However, it wasn’t until August 2008 that Aafia’s case was brought to the forefront. A crackdown on the media by General Pervez Musharraf’s government caused journalists to take up Aafia’s case as part of a campaign exposing the general’s heinous crimes.

During a press conference in that context, organised by the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf, British journalist Yvonne Ridley claimed that an anonymous woman being tortured at the  Bagram Airbase, a US facility in Afghanistan, and sometimes referred to as “Prisoner 650” may be Aafia. Ridley claimed that she was told that a female prisoner had been held for years and, after sexual abuse and confinement, had deteriorated physically and mentally. Ridley’s speculation that the woman could be Aafia stirred the issue in the media.

That day marked the beginning of the campaign vowing to bring justice to Aafia. She was portrayed as ‘Pakistan’s daughter’ who had been sold to the US for money. As the issue of the missing people of Pakistan reached a turning point, Aafia came to symbolise the atrocities linked to the US-led the war on terror, and her case exposed the collaboration  between Pakistani and US authorities. Aafia also attracted international attention as the first woman to be sought by the FBI in connection with its pursuit of Al Qaeda. Last week, she was found guilty on charges of the attempted murder of US soldiers in Afghanistan.

Aafia’s conviction has provoked many emotional responses that show little regard for the judicial process.

“The jury couldn’t handle the truth because that would have meant that the defendant really had been kidnapped, abused, tortured and held in dark, secret prisons by the US before being shot and put on a rendition flight to New York,” remarked journalist Ridley when I asked her opinion on the verdict. “It would have meant that her three children – two of them US citizens – would also have been kidnapped, abused and tortured by the US. They couldn’t handle the truth; it is as simple as that.”

Arif Rafiq, president of Vizier Consulting, LLC, also raises some valid points regarding the verdict:

Before us, it seems, are two competing narratives.  But I would not rule out other alternatives.  The actual details, of Siddiqui’s arrest — whether it occurred five years ago or two weeks ago — is unclear.  The initial claims made against her years ago are cause for concern.  But it is puzzling as to why, if they were true, there was no legal followup.  Even now, those claims go unmentioned in the present legal action against her. Siddiqui is not being treated as an enemy combatant; rather, she’s being prosecuted in conventional U.S. courts, albeit in a more closed anti-terrorism context. And so Siddiqui’s arrest provides not answers, but more questions.

Indeed, the majority in Pakistan echo the same sentiment of dismay and anger. Aafia’s case highlights the underlying mistrust amongst the Pakistani people for the United States, as many have openly criticised the judgement, and termed it biased. Some claim they never expected a different verdict because US courts can’t be trusted to uphold the truth. Such statements are far more worrying then the verdict itself. The growing rift between the masses in Pakistan and US authorities is distressful.

If anything, Aafia’s case should turn the nation’s attention towards Pakistan’s ‘missing persons’ issue. Aafia’s trial has not been able to yield satisfactory answers about where she was, who picked her up and why, or even who she really is. If anything, her outbursts in court make her appear delusional, depressive and possibly psychotic. The only outcome of Aafia’s verdict has been a surge of even more questions. But her misery has given a face to hundreds of Pakistan’s disappeared victims awaiting justice.


9 thoughts on “Returning to Aafia

  1. I agree with you that, “The growing rift between the masses in Pakistan and US authorities is distressful.”

    Does the Pakistani intellectual class bear any responsibility for this rift?

    Your blog offers zero analysis of Aafia’s conviction (i.e., attempted murder), and instead focuses on her possible illegal detention.

    Illegal detention and torture are inexcusable. But isn’t attempted murder as well? Why focus on one to the exclusion of the other?

    If this commentary (and its omissions) is what a liberal Pakistani produces, one can only imagine what the Pakistani right-wing produces.

    I guess it’s no wonder that the Pakistani masses see her as a hero.

    On the other hand, I would imagine that a harsh critique of Aafia (or even an objective one) could be extremely dangerous in today’s Pakistan.

  2. Dr Afia case is well known with facts and circumstances as Sana wrote well above. Below is the case of Mirza Tahir ;

    Mirza Tahir Hussian is a Pakistani born UK citizen. In Dec.1988, he came Pakistan to visit his village in Chakwal. He hired a taxi from Rawalpindi to Chakwal. On the way, a quarrel took place between Mirza Tahir Hussian and taxi driver Jamshad khan. Mirza Tahir Hussian committed the murder of poor taxi driver Jamshad khan with his pistol.
    District Court awarded Death sentence to Mirza Tahir Hussian in the murder of taxi driver Jamshad khan. Death sentence remained confirmed by by the High Court and Supreme Court as appeals of Mirza Tahir Hussian dismissed. Pity (raham) appeal dismissed by the President of Pakistan. Now Mirza Tahir Hussian had no legal remedy but to wait for his death by Hanging.
    Mushraf era came in. In 2006, Uk madia and family of Mirza Tahir Hussian raised voices in the UK for the conversion of death into life imprisonment. There was pressure on Pakistan Govt. President seeked opinion from Law ministry, who wrote that only legal heirs of Jamshed Khan can waive the murder, President or state has no right to intervene, law of Qisas demands that State can not waive the murder. Mushraf refused the UK as there was no law in Pakistan to rescue Mirza Tahir Hussian from death.
    Govt level moves initiated to settle the Mirza Tahir Hussian family. His family refused the waive the murder instead of many lucrative temptations.
    Oct. 2006 Prince Charles visited Pakistan just to settle Mirza Tahir Hussian issue.
    22 November, 2006 Mirza Tahir Hussian was taken out of the Adilla Jail and sent back to UK on a special charted plane by Govt of Pakistan.

    Mirza Tahir Hussian came back leaving behind restless taxi driver Jamshad khan family, weak Pakistani law.

    Can we have comparison Mirza Tahir Hussain Case with Dr, Afia case?

  3. just assume for a moment that aafia really is related to some kind of terrorists groups..but in which book of law is written to torture or sexually assault a criminal??? USA is a prominent supporter of human rights and stuff like that.. what on earth they think they are promoting?? shame on American govt. LOOSER

  4. I’m not too familiar with Aafia’s case in particular, however, I wrote a research paper several years ago which focused on human rights abuses due to the War ‘of’ Terror, and suffice it to say that there have been gross violations of human rights because of it. Detainees have included teenagers well below the age of majority to several who may have been at least in their 90s!

  5. You mapped out the case well in the light of the facts. What’s startling posterior to the sentence is that some of our so-called intellectuals had the brazen wit to suggest that Pakistan shouldn’t care a damn about ‘just a single woman’ and rather concentrate and expend money on more important affairs. I must say such a utilitarian approach inevitably brings dangerous connotations! For in this case is implicit the future of exploits of the war against terror.
    I’m glad finally to have found some sane thoughts from someone on the issue. Bravo! 🙂

  6. You mapped out the case well in the light of the facts. What’s startling posterior to the sentence is that some of our so-called intellectuals had the brazen wit to suggest that Pakistan shouldn’t care a damn about ‘just a single woman’ and rather concentrate and expend money on more important affairs. I must say such a utilitarian approach inevitably brings dangerous connotations! F
    I’m glad finally to have found some sane thoughts from you on the issue. Bravo! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s