Pakistani Americans Question Coverage of Dr. Aafia’s Trial
By Salim Akhtar and Shelby Minister
Pakistan American Democratic Front
Washington, DC
It is exceedingly important to understand three interrelated facts about Dr. Aafia’s case: In the 9-page official indictment document there is no allegation of any link to Al-Qaeda, Taliban or any other terrorist group, 2) no terrorism charge has been filed against her, and 3) the entire case has been limited to, as defense attorney Charles Swift describes it, to three minutes of an alleged shooting incident for which the prosecution has not been able to present even a spec of forensic evidence.
Although NO exculpatory evidence was found or presented, yet the mainstream media continues to allege and insinuate terrorist links, PPP spokesperson continues to muddy the waters; Pakistan’s ambassador to the Unites States continues to exclude Dr. Aafia’s family members from speaking on her behalf; and all pro-establishment Pakistani-American organizations continue to hide behind thick walls of indifference and silence.
In her piece, “A Pakistani on Trial — With No Pakistani Reporters,” TIME magazine’s New York correspondent Petra Bartosiewicz acknowledges a major in the media coverage:
“If we were able to file a transcript of the proceedings they’d probably print it,” Iftikhar Ali, a reporter with the Associated Press of Pakistan, said of the Siddiqui trial. “That’s how much interest there is in this case.” But Ali, like many other reporters from overseas, has been hampered in gaining access to the live proceedings. Journalists from Pakistan on assignment in New York have been largely excluded from the courtroom.”
But then Ms. Bartosiewicz goes on to state: “Aafia Siddiqui may be a minor light in the constellation of alleged al-Qaeda operatives, but her New York City trial may be a test case for the way justice is meted out to one of the major figures accused of running the terror organization. Siddiqui is a U.S.-trained, Pakistani neuroscientist charged with attempted murder for allegedly firing an M-4 automatic rifle at a group of U.S. soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1956197,00.html#ixzz0eL1SbJdH
Even when she herself states that “Siddiqui is a U.S.-trained, Pakistani neuroscientist charged with attempted murder for allegedly firing an M-4 automatic rifle at a group of U.S. soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan,” then why, one is obliged to ask, does she go on to describe Dr. Aafia as “a minor light in the constellation of alleged al-Qaeda operatives” when NO such charge is contained in the official indictment?
Could it be part of a larger disinformation and vilification campaign?
Similarly one cannot help but ask why Ms. Fauzia Wahab, PPP’s official spokesperson, continues to inaccurately describe Dr. Aafia Siddiqui as a “nuclear scientist” as opposed to her actual professional training as a “neuroscientist.” Even the openly-hostile Western media has shied away from such a deliberate distortion.
While it is hard to believe that the ruling party’s spokesperson does not know the difference between “neuroscientist” and “nuclear scientist”, it is utterly forgivable that Ms. Fauzia Wahab tried to insinuate further doubt in the minds of an already confused Pakistani public by slyly asking at the very end of a brief exchange with Dr. Aafia’s Octogenarian mother, who paid for Aafia’s education.
Didn’t the “uninformed” Secretary of “information” know that Dr. Aafia had funded her education mostly through scholarships she had won?
Yet last week all of that was swept in one go when Dr. Aafia testified on her behalf. One blogger has aptly described that until that moment she was “missing person with a name” And a number, Prisoner # 650, one might add.
Dr. Aafia finally had the chance to let her voice be heard, as she gave her heart wrenching testimony at her trial last Thursday. Despite the hesitation of Aafia’s defense lawyers and her own brother to let her testify, she responded by saying she would make istiqara, and later decided she would take the stand.
Aafia began her testimony by stating that when she awoke in a hospital she had tubes everywhere and was in a heavily drugged state. She had her hands and feet secured to the bed uncomfortably apart and said that the FBI agents who came to see her never identified themselves as FBI, except for a “Mr. Hurley.” She remained fearful and sleep deprived due to a certain agent named Bruce Kamerman, who would come in the middle of the night when he wasn’t supposed to be there, and would act immodestly in her presence.
She stated how she was tortured in a secret prison and was in constant pain due to gunshot wounds and a debilitating back condition (a result from being thrown on the floor after being shot.) The gunshots she received was the work of an American soldier who was startled when she had peaked through a curtain after she had heard that the Americans wanted to take her away again to another secret prison. The American soldier had shot her in the stomach after thinking that she was escaping, and later a second gunman had shot her again in the side. Aafia later rejected the prosecution’s telling of the incident that she had attempted to kill an American soldier with his own weapon. She rebutted by saying she could hardly believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
Dr. Aafia proved to be a very credible witness, and may have been the key to winning her own trial. She surprised everyone in the room that day by remaining calm and giving answers that left the prosecution frustrated. The case against her is rapidly unraveling due to lack of evidence and contradictory testimonies from witnesses.
Noted activist Mauri’ Saalakhan has perceptively observed that by testifying on her behalf Dr. Aafia has humanized herself and exposed the entire cabal of her accusers.
So far Pakistan American Democratic Forum, Pak-USA Freedom Forum, and Tehreek-e-Insaf, along with a small number of other groups have been demanding a fair trial for Dr. Aafia as well as fighting the vilification campaign. But her testimony, regardless of the outcome of the trial, will inspire many more to stand up for what they believe is just.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
