The worst story of injustice in the name of justice

Thrilling report based on a book brought to the world for the first time in the US court against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

Thrilling report based on a book brought to the world for the first time in the US court against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

News Time

The disappearance of Dr Aafia Siddiqui and then 86 years of imprisonment in a US court case is undoubtedly one of Pakistan’s most sensitive issues. She is the only woman affiliated with al-Qaeda in the war on terror and their story is so controversial that the Pakistani nation is divided over it. Some people call him a terrorist while some people refer to him as the daughter of the Muslim Ummah. Those talking about their return through prisoner exchanges also include extremist organizations such as ISIS. And according to British journalist Yvonne Ridley, the Afghan Taliban has also tried to free them by exchanging prisoners in the past. His disappearance in 2003, re-injured in 2008, in the Ghazni province of Afghanistan, many questions have been raised during the 86-year prison sentence in the US court. To which no one could answer, including his family. Much has been written about his disappearance since 2003, and his image has appeared in print, electronic and social media so much. It may be that Benazir Bhutto’s media coverage of Pakistan’s two-time ministry failed to counter him. But all this writing and media coverage also failed to answer many of the most important questions.

One of the main reasons for this is that most of their media coverage is not based on authentic references, which has led to further confusion. Also, the whole press coverage seemed to be lacking it was Aafia Siddiqui’s own stand on all the situations that have never appeared in the media. But in 2019, Barrister Dawood Ghaznavi, a Pakistani teenager from Sialkot, for the first time in New York with legal documents and media coverage of the Aafia case, found many aspects of this story in his book AAFIA UNHEARD: UNCOVERING THE PERSONER AND LEGAL MYST. SURROUNDING FBIS WANTED MOST WANTED WOMAN has succeeded in bringing the world to the fore. This is undoubtedly the first detailed book on the case of Aafia Siddiqui, her personality and mysterious events of her life. The confidence in the young Dawood Ghaznavi’s tone, but the humility and thinking in the behavior, seems to have been much better. In an exclusive interview, he says Aafia’s return is crucial to ending terrorism in the region, because terrorist organizations are using Aafia for their ulterior motives.

The book was released October 24 this year at the University of Houston, where Dr. Aafia began his studies in the United States. One of Dawood Gaznavi’s successes is that he is the deputy director of the Wilson Center for Asia program, one of America’s leading think tanks in Washington. And Michael Kugelman, a senior associate at South Asia, has been successful in not only delivering the book but also receiving positive comments from the book. Michael Kugelman says Aafia UNHEARD is the first serious attempt to tell the most complex and mysterious story of Aafia Siddiqui. British journalist Yvonne Ridley says the most important factor in bringing Aafia’s case to the world it has been a great pleasure for them after working on the Aafia case for 15 years that they are getting a chance to read a book on this topic. He also says that the beauty of the writing is that Dawood Gaznavi leaves the reader with the information to decide the crime or innocence of Aafia. Dawood Gaznavi has not only collected legal documents but also information through press coverage from 2003 to 2010 that the reader finds the answers to all the important questions about Aafia’s life. For example, Aafia’s citizenship is Pakistani or US? Dawood Gaznavi brings his case before the Regional FIR, which says Aafia is a Pakistani citizen. Although this is not a secret, very few people in Pakistan know that the US court has not declared Aafia a terrorist. Yet a large number of people in the world as well as in Pakistan still consider Aafia as a terrorist. This is the point on which public opinion is still widely distributed. Dawood Gaznavi himself copied the records of the proceedings without giving any comment, which revealed the fact to the reader. Not only was Aafia not prosecuted in the US court for terrorism, the anti-Aafia prosecutor’s lawyer initially made it clear to the court that he did not want any debate in this regard.

Opposition Aafia’s lawyers did not even discuss the question of where Aafia was from 2003 to 2008. According to court records, the US government’s stand was that Aafia was not in a secret prison in the United States. And the US government is unaware of where Aafia was. Remember that in 2006 before the trial, President Bush admitted that the CIA was operating secret prisons in various countries outside the United States. Where torture is used to convict prisoners of crime, which is also wrong with US law. Aafia’s stand on this was that he was kept in a secret prison from 2003 to 2008 and tortured by the detainees. In the verdict, the judge said there was no evidence that Aafia was in secret prison. Aafia’s lawyers, on the other hand, say that the US government refuses to share FBR classified information with Aafia’s lawyer which could provide evidence of where Aafia was in that period. According to a BBC report in 2010, after Aafia’s decision, her lawyer said that forbidding access to records in such a high-profile case is against the principle of transparency in US law.

Remember that Moazzam Baig, a British citizen who was released from Guantanamo in 2006 and who wrote a book on his traumatic experience, first brought this fact to the world. There was also a female prisoner in Afghanistan’s infamous Bagram prison, also known as Guantanamo’s twin prison, whose screams were a cause of great annoyance to the rest of the prisoners. After his book became public, Yvonne Ridley began searching for Bagram’s female prisoner. Yvonne Ridley interviews various prisoners released from Guantanamo about Bagram prisoner so more than one, looking at Aafia’s photo, confirmed that this is Bagram prisoner number 650. Yvonne Ridley then held a press conference with Imran Khan in Pakistan in July 2008 this brought the case to a standstill and protests against the imprisonment of Aafia in different cities of Pakistan. Just two weeks after this press conference, Aafia suddenly reappeared in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, and the alleged shooting took place. In which Aafia himself was injured and he was shifted to the United States after treatment at Bagram Hospital.

Remember that the official name of this case is the US government vs Aafia Siddiqui. The case was filed by the US government against Aafia, and in seven different sections, Aafia was accused of trying to kill US citizens, US government officials take up arms, attack Americans. The 7th charges are about the same incident, but in all of them, Aafia has been sentenced to separate prison sentences totaling 86 years.

It is worth mentioning here that Aafia, in her judicial statement, denied the firing of US personnel at the Afghan police station. It is also noteworthy that forensic report at Ghazni police station dismissed the possibility of firing an M4 for rifle on the walls. But the judge nevertheless ruled on the presence of holes in the wall, the testimony of US Army and FBI personnel. One of the bullets injured Aafia. About the events leading up to the shooting, Aafia said she was unconscious in court. When their eyes opened, they heard the voice of an officer, our job was to go. According to the court proceedings, Aafia’s lawyer requested that when the case started, Aafia’s mental condition was not correct and she was not eligible to participate in the trial. However, the US government’s stand was that Aafia was pretending to avoid the case. At which the judge ordered to receive medical reports about Aafia’s mental state. According to psychologist reports in the book, psychologists’ views on Aafia’s mental state were divided however, one of his psychologists said in his detailed report that Aafia’s behavior is quite the opposite of those who pretend or pretend. Nevertheless, the court ordered the trial to continue. It is also in the court records mentioned in the book that Aafia himself denied this several times. They are mentally unconventional, but Aafia’s lawyers say Aafia was not normal. Their conversations during court proceedings showed that they were sometimes normal but sometimes lost their balance by talking, resorting to irrelevant things. According to reports, psychologists also asked Aafia whether he felt suicidal or wanted to die. Aafia’s response was that suicide in her religion is forbidden.

According to Judge Berman’s final speech, several times Aafia was forced to watch her decision on a TV in the courtroom because of interference with the judicial process. It turns out that Aafia was not really mentally normal and it would be no surprise if she was actually a victim of violence in Bagram prison. Aafia herself acknowledged that she may have a post-traumatic stress disorder. This psychiatric illness is common in those who go through traumatic or traumatic experiences in life. According to Dawood Ghaznavi, Aafia’s mental condition was such that she did not trust anyone. He had a mantle disorder that he once saw a dog in his room. According to the court proceedings mentioned in the book, Aafia Siddiqui has shown distrust of his lawyers many times. And made it clear that he was not my lawyer and requested to change lawyers, but the judge rejected his request, saying that he did not have a replacement lawyer. Aafia said she should be given some time to arrange a replacement lawyer, but the judge refused to give her time. After the verdict in the court proceedings, Aafia has a long speech in which she says she has forgiven everyone, including Judge Berman. He also said that it is wrong in the Muslim world that I am being tortured in America. He said that I was tortured in a secret prison in Afghanistan, but there is nothing like this in US prisons.

He appealed to the Muslim world to quote a verse from Surah Al-Hujurat that no violence should be done in his name. He also said that the Muslim world would be surprised at this, but he loved America and did not hate anyone. Dawood Ghaznavi says Aafia’s attitude was different from that of the terrorists. In this speech, Aafia narrated her dream that Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) visited his room in jail, where many American soldiers are being held prisoners of war. Aafia says he does not remember the words, but Hazrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) comforts the prisoners. Aafia says she dreamed this dream and gave her a lot of peace in prison.

During the trial there were some strange events that Judge Berman mentioned in the verdict. He said a man in court pointed a finger at two members of the jury, which he had to remove from the panel on the advice of two jury members. In addition, the meeting with Judge Berman before the decision of the then US ambassador to the US, Hussein Haqqani was also highly questionable. According to David, Aafia’s lawyer objected to this, and Aafia himself said that this led to the judge’s neutrality being suspicious. The judge said the meeting was based on mere seconds.

According to the book, during 2002 Aafia’s US residence, the FBI contacted her and her ex-husband to investigate. And there was also a question-and-answer session with the FBI through a regular attorney but according to a US government lawyer, Aafia fled to Pakistan to escape the investigation. In this regard, Aafia’s position in the court was that her father was ill and she was six months pregnant. If she had not gone to Pakistan at that time, the airline would have stopped her from traveling and she would not have met her father, who died shortly afterwards. Aafia categorically denied in court that the FBI investigation had anything to do with his decision to move to Pakistan. According to her statement, the FBI had asked her husband if you had ever met Osama bin Laden, which her ex-husband replied in the negative. Aafia was asked by the FBI about funding Islamic organizations, which according to Aafia’s statement, she replied that it was my duty and I would continue to do so.

Surprisingly, according to the court proceedings mentioned in Dawood Ghaznavi’s book, the US government’s lawyers themselves refused to speak on the allegations. But at the time of the verdict, the judge reiterated that Aafia was amused by Ammar al-Baluchi and had traveled to Afghanistan behind. While the fact is that it was neither discussed in the court nor presented with any evidence (global and American) and according to Islamic law, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. And it is up to the accuser to blame him, but in the war on terror, the situation was something like that. That the accused was responsible for his own innocence but that he and his lawyer were not provided the required resources. The same thing happened in Aafia’s case; Aafia’s lawyer was denied access to this information despite so many allegations. Instead of deciding whether the allegations were true or false, during the prosecution, Aafia tried to talk about torture over her in secret prison. Dawood Ghaznavi has repudiated the judicial proceedings rather than commenting on himself.

There is also a question that Aafia’s marriage to Ammar al-Baluchi, whose allegations of opening a post box for al-Qaeda have been repeatedly repeated. But it is neither discussed in the court nor is any evidence provided in favor of these allegations. Nor is it known the source from which these allegations emerge. What is the status of these allegations? We leave it to the reader and the law-makers to decide. Even though it was not debated in court, the judge mentioned it in a speech after the verdict. The allegations continued to circulate in the Pakistani and international media, but journalists did not cite the source for violating journalistic principles. Some journalists claim they had access to FBI records. The question that arises here is why if lawyers were given access to FBI records, why could not lawyers be given? And why not bring the evidence that led to Aafia being called a member of al-Qaeda.

Another important point that Aafia has mentioned in his statement is that when he came to him in 2008, he had to travel to the governor’s house in Ghazni, carrying maps and bomb-making chemicals from America’s main buildings. Aafia had told the court that she was released there by the detainees in secret prison and was told that if she cooperated and did as she was told, her children would be returned to her. Aafia says he was asked to duplicate parts of a magazine and did what he was compelled to do. Accusations against Aafia A confusion also found that Aafia’s ex-husband testified against her and there was a quarrel between them being extremists and raising children in extremist ways. Dawood Ghaznavi says that throughout the entire case proceedings, they did not find any statement from her husband.

The book contains 272 references, including documents from New York court proceedings, reports by medical experts on Aafia’s mental state, at the police station in Ghazni where Aafia is accused of opening fire on US officials. Forensic report on the presence of substances, from 2003 to 2019, print and electronic media coverage of Pakistan and international media, including the US governments de-classified cables. In the interview, Dawood Ghaznavi says that he used no oral source other than the previously published electronic and written coverage to prevent the book from being controversial because it would complicate the narrative.

It is also worth mentioning and appreciating that all the sources used in the book are extremely authentic. The writing in this regard is of global quality in academic and research context. Their links are not working anywhere but they are found on Google Media reports. In addition, a number of references to a book written by Aafia and a Somalvi American woman named Hirsi Ali are available. It would have been better if Dawood had used the source of this book instead of the book itself. Research references have repeatedly used various reference standards that can give a Western reader a negative impression.

The book is divided into 10 chapters. The first chapter covers the life of Aafia until 2002 and the second and third relates to the disappearance of Aafia. In an attempt to answer the question from the most authoritative sources, where was Aafia from 2003 to 2008? And what statement about his disappearance is correct, and what efforts has the US court made to find answers to his disappearance and what is the position of Aafia himself? The fourth chapter seeks to answer this question with the help of forensic expert reports based on forensic expert testimony of Aafia Siddiqui, prosecution of Aafia Siddiqui in chapter 5th. Did Aafia try to shoot US personnel with an M4 rifle? Chapter 6th examines the reports of psychologists appointed by the US government to assess whether Aafia was mentally competent to participate in court proceedings and cooperate with her lawyers. Chapter 7th contains a long discussion about Aafia’s distrust of her lawyers and the judge’s refusal to allow her to change her attorney, Chapter 8th and 9th also contain facts about the judicial process of the decision and Aafia’s decision not to appeal in the ninth. It contains Aafia’s long speech after the verdict. In Chapter 10th, Dawood writes very carefully about the facts contained in the book.

Get Word:

One very important point is that Dawood has presented the facts regarding the disappearance of Aafia through important and authoritative sources and the important events leading up to the case. But refrain from even giving your opinion or comment. In a high profile case like the Aafia case, it would have been a difficult task for a Pakistani youth to meet the requirements of non-emotional journalism. The book contains technical reports from experts and long details of judicial proceedings sometimes bore the reader, whose important parts could be summarized in their own words but Dawood says it was important to meet the impartiality requirement so that people can decide for themselves which statement is correct. It is important to read the book to find out which questions related to the Dawood Aafia story have been answered. For a researcher, there could be many aspects to the facts of Aafia’s life, and Dawood has done her part as a lawyer. This is the first detailed book on the mysterious events of Aafia’s life, but many aspects of Aafia’s story are still starved and the Investigation Gateway is waiting for the attention of journalists. We hope that this series of authentic research from different facets will not hold in order to bring the truth to the fore.

How can Dr Aafia be brought back?

Dawood clarifies his position in an exclusive telephonic interview for Express Sunday Magazine in response to his comments from Aafia’s first lawyer, Charles Swift, he came to the conclusion that the only legal way to bring Aafia back to Pakistan was to file a petition to the US Attorney General on humanitarian grounds for his mental state and illness. Have to do or the Pakistani government has to appeal directly to the US government. They also say that the issue of Aafia is a very sensitive issue for Pakistan and the Muslim world. Political and religious organizations have been raising voice in favor of Aafia and doing politics in his name. The issue is so sensitive that the manifesto of Pakistan’s current Prime Minister Imran Khan’s party includes claims of Aafia’s release. In his name, extremist organizations such as ISIS are recruiting innocent citizens from outside Pakistan and Pakistan for terrorism. Aafia’s imprisonment in the United States is increasing extremism throughout the Muslim world, which is detrimental to the United States as well. Dawood is very optimistic that if the Pakistani military and Imran Khan’s government take this issue seriously with the US government, then the US will not object to Aafia’s transfer to Pakistan. US law is intended to release prisoners on humanitarian grounds.

Two alternative statements of the Aafia case:

There are two different statements against each other regarding the Aafia case, which is divided, despite intense interest by Pakistani and international public opinion. A statement is one that has appeared on various occasions in the US government, world media against Aafia. According to Aafia, during her student days in the United States, she became a victim of extremism and became associated with terrorist organization Al Qaeda. When the FBI launched an investigation against them after 9/11, she returned to Pakistan with her husband and children while pregnant. After the baby was born, they separated from their husbands for unknown reasons and they returned to the United States and opened a post box for al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh’s colleague Amjad Khan, who was aiding al-Qaeda. He is also accused of smuggling diamonds to fund al-Qaeda. The statement also talks about his marriage to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh’s nephew Ammar al-Baluchi. And it is said that they left Afghanistan with or behind it, from where he was arrested in 2008 to a 12-year-old boy in suspicious circumstances outside the Governor’s House in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan. He later proved to be his son through DNA tests and recovered some dangerous chemicals and bombs from his possession. At the Afghan police station, they opened fire on US personnel with an M-4 machine gun, and in response to the firing that US troops fired at them, they were injured. He was later transferred to the United States after treatment in Afghanistan, where he was tried, convicted.

But at the same time, there is an alternative statement that belongs to Aafia’s family and their supporters, which states that the mother of three children and the holder of the leading American institutions, the pain of heartbreaking Muslims and the poor are innocent. They are not affiliated with any terrorist network, but they are just like many other innocent prisoners of the post-9/11 World War II war. Many of whom were released from Guantanamo Bay on no conviction. In 2003, it was handed over to the US by Pakistani intelligence agencies.

He spent five torturous years in the notorious American jailbreak in Afghanistan, after which he was arrested again in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, under a plot, and was transported to the United States with injuries and nearly half dead and the US court sentenced to 86 years in prison. Today, he is serving his sentence at a FMC carousel in Texas. Remember that inmates are mentally retarded or incarcerated.


No comments.

Leave a Reply