Recently, I had a discussion on Twitter with a young Pakistani man who bought into the propaganda that since Aafia was serving time in a U.S. prison, having been tried and convicted, she must certainly be guilty.
Here is my response to him:
What exactly do you know of Dr. Siddiqui's case? Some of us were in the New York courtroom where she was prosecuted. Her trial was presided over by a Zionist judge, Richard Berman.
Berman did not allow any discussion of what happened to Siddiqui during 2003-2008. That's the entire period leading up to her appearance before a New York court for trial. That means (if one accepts the Judge's rationale), her alleged crime occurred in a vacuum. It also means that the manner in which Siddiqui, a conservative Pakistani woman, suddenly landed in a foreign country, Afghanistan, to (ostensibly) assault 4 - 6 U.S. soldiers, is irrelevant.As independent investigations have revealed, Siddiqui was abducted, illegally detained, tortured, and raped (most likely at the U.S. base in Baghram) during that time period. So why would a judge not allow discussion of that period, except for bias and possibly malevolence?
If Berman had the integrity to allow such a discussion, it would have exposed the Pakistani authorities' part in hideous crimes against a Muslim woman, a mother of three, whose PhD research centered on child development.
Dr. Siddiqui was not the only one rendered during the period following the September 11 attacks. Hundreds of other innocents were similarly handed over to the U.S., simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, because someone decided they wanted the bounty (offered by the U.S. at the time) associated with handing over certain population groups, or because a prisoner under torture falsely named them.
All of this started under Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He is a war criminal, and ought to have been brought before the International Criminal Court. May Allah's lanaat (curse) be on him.
Given the state of the U.S. Justice System, it's never a good idea to assume that guilty verdicts equal guilt, This is particularly true in the "War on Terror" era cases, where the defendant is a Muslim and the odds are stacked against him or her, with biased judges, hand picked juries, and a climate of fear-mongering, and Islamophobia.
If Berman had the integrity to allow such a discussion, it would have exposed the Pakistani authorities' part in hideous crimes against a Muslim woman, a mother of three, whose PhD research centered on child development.
Dr. Siddiqui was not the only one rendered during the period following the September 11 attacks. Hundreds of other innocents were similarly handed over to the U.S., simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, because someone decided they wanted the bounty (offered by the U.S. at the time) associated with handing over certain population groups, or because a prisoner under torture falsely named them.
All of this started under Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He is a war criminal, and ought to have been brought before the International Criminal Court. May Allah's lanaat (curse) be on him.
Given the state of the U.S. Justice System, it's never a good idea to assume that guilty verdicts equal guilt, This is particularly true in the "War on Terror" era cases, where the defendant is a Muslim and the odds are stacked against him or her, with biased judges, hand picked juries, and a climate of fear-mongering, and Islamophobia.
