Related Link » Innocent Mom or Would-Be Terrorist? Trial for Neuroscientist Nears EndFar be it from me to either question our American justice system, arguably the finest ever created by quite fallible humans. Nor would I presume to judge any case on the basis of a news report by the Associated Press.
“NEW YORK — Jurors heard a U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist portrayed Monday in closing arguments at her attempted murder trial as both a would-be terrorist determined to kill Americans and a fearful woman framed by the government. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher La Vigne cited testimony that Aafia Siddiqui had bomb-making instructions, documents referencing a ‘mass casualty attack’ and a list of New York City landmarks including the Statue of Liberty when she was detained in Afghanistan in 2008. Siddqui was carrying ‘a road map for destruction — documents about attacking the United States’, he said in federal court in Manhattan. During the two-week trial, FBI agents and U.S. soldiers testified that when they went to interrogate Siddiqui at an Afghan police station, she snatched up an unattended assault rifle and shot at them while yelling, ‘Death to Americans’. She was wounded by return fire but recovered and was brought to the United States to face charges [..] In her closing argument, defense attorney Linda Moreno accused the prosecutors of trying to play on the jury's fears. ‘They want to scare you into convicting Aafia Siddiqui’, she said. ‘The defense trusts that you're much smarter than that’.”
— February 01, 2010 (AP)
I do, however, wonder about what was reported by the AP and excerpted by me (above). To judge by the defense attorney's closing remarks, this whole case is just a vast conspiracy by the FBI, a number of U.S. soldiers, and an Assistant U.S. Attorney (perhaps some others, too) to convict an innocent American-trained Pakistani neuroscientist (and a mother, no less).
I dunno. I suppose that could be possible; stranger things have been known to happen, I'm sure. But, it does seem a bit preposterous for my taste. Do the FBI, members of the U.S. military, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and who knows who else, have any stake whatsoever in concocting such a heinous conspiracy against an innocent woman? Really?
Post #1,116 Really?
Actually, yeah, they do. They are minimum being accused of covering up what happened in that room. They are maximum being accused (and there may be a trial for those Pakistanis involved in Lahore) of abducting a woman and her three children, holding the woman for 5 years in incommunicado detention, holding a minor for 4 years in incommunicado detention, killing a 1 year old to intimidate his mother, torture, and the disappearance of a 7 year old girl.
ReplyDeleteWho are the "they" who are being accused of all those horrible acts? The U.S. Attorney and the FBI and the U.S. soldiers?
ReplyDeleteThe U.S.Attorney, the FBI. She was at bare minimum illegally rendered to the U.S. There is building credible evidence that she was in a black site for nearly 5 years. Her son was deposed by the Pakistani investigatory police and credibly presents that he was in a jail in Kabul for multiple years, visited once in 2008 by the ICRC. Her son speaks fluent Dari, not something he would have picked up in Karachi were the U.S. government story correct. Her other two children are missing. The Pakistani Senate body charged with reviewing this is going to hand down charges against former President Musharraf and his Inspector General for kidnapping and illegally rendering her and her children to the Americans in 2003.
ReplyDeleteThe soldiers who testified are only trying to change what happened when they either panicked or decided that shooting her was the best way to avoid confrontation with the Afghan government over whether or not she could be taken by the Americans. The Afghan president was on his way to the location at the time.
I would also point out that it is Ms. Siddiqui who needs a motive under U.S. law, since she, and not the soldiers and FBI agents, is the one given the benefit of the doubt in a trial. The notion that the prosecution witnesses are the ones who must be proven to have a means, motive, and opportunity for their actions is bizarre. If there is any reasonable doubt about their testimony, she should be acquitted. If there is only reasonable doubt about hers, that isn't enough for guilt. At least in America.
So, it is your position that the U.S. Attorney and the FBI are being accused of all those horrible acts you enumerated in your first comment? My post explicitly stated that I am not questioning our legal procedures; I am fully aware that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. I was simply wondering what possible motive would the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and American soldiers have to conspire to convict an innocent woman. You still haven't told me that. You continue to enumerate various allegations concerning her mistreatment by Pakistani factions. I repeat my question: what possible motive would a U.S. Attorney, the FBI, and several American soldiers have in concocting such a heinous conspiracy against an innocent woman? I am not claiming that the defense is required to produce such a motive. I'm just asking out of curiosity. If you don't know or don't care, that's fine, too. Just spare me the harangues, which are not pertinent to my post.
ReplyDelete