Aafia Siddiqui CONVICTED: Pakistani Scientist Convicted Of Trying To Kill Americans

TOM HAYS   02/ 3/10 06:10 PM ET   AP

Aafia Siddiqui Convicted

NEW YORK — A U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist was convicted Wednesday of charges that she tried to kill Americans while detained in Afghanistan in 2008, shouting with raised arm as jurors left the courtroom: "This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America."

A jury deliberated three days in federal court in Manhattan before finding Aafia Siddiqui guilty in the third week of her attempted murder trial, which she often interrupted with rambling courtroom outbursts.

After declaring the verdict came from Israel, she turned toward spectators in the packed courtroom and said: "Your anger should be directed where it belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof."

Siddiqui, 37, was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, though the jury found the crime wasn't premeditated. She was also convicted of armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and assault of U.S. officers and employees.

Advised afterward by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman to work on post-verdict issues with a defense team paid for in part by the Pakistani government, Siddiqui responded, "These are not my attorneys."

Outside court, defense attorney Charles Swift told reporters that it was unclear whether there would be an appeal. The finding on premeditation should help Siddiqui at sentencing, he said.

"I think Dr. Siddiqui was in a terrible place, and that made this very difficult," he said when asked about his client's behavior.

Said another one of her lawyers, Elaine Sharp: "This is a verdict based on fear and not on fact."

Siddiqui faces a minimum sentence of 30 years on the firearm charge alone. Prosecutors said she could also get up to 20 years for attempted murder and up to eight years on the remaining counts at sentencing May 6.

"Today, a jury has brought Aafia Siddiqui to justice in a court of law for trying to murder American military and law enforcement officers, as well as their Afghan colleagues," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement.

Before her arrest, U.S. authorities had called Siddiqui an al-Qaida sympathizer. She was never charged with terrorism, but prosecutors called her a grave threat who was carrying "a road map for destruction" – bomb-making instructions and a list of New York City landmarks including the Statue of Liberty when she was captured.

The defendant – a spindly neuroscience specialist who trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University – "is no shrinking violet," Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher La Vigne said in closing arguments.

"She does what she wants when she wants it," he said. "These charges are no joke. People almost died."

Testifying in her own defense, Siddiqui claimed she had been tortured while held in a "secret prison" before her detention. Charges that she attacked U.S. personnel who wanted to interrogate her were "crazy," she said. "It's just ridiculous."

In court, Siddiqui veiled her head and face with a white scarf and often sat slumped in her chair. She openly sparred with the judge and her own lawyers, insisted she could single-handedly bring peace to the Middle East and lashed out at witnesses in tirades that got her kicked out of the courtroom.

"I was never planning a bombing! You're lying!" she yelled while an Army captain testified.

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."

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 trial.

A chief warrant officer, who testified in uniform but did not give his name, told jurors he had set down his M4 rifle after being told Siddiqui had been restrained. He testified he was shocked when she suddenly appeared from behind a curtain wielding his M4 rifle and yelling, "Allah akbar," Arabic for "God is great."

"It was pretty amazing she got that thing up and squared off," he said. "She was looking at me and aiming dead at me."

Hearing the rifle go off, the officer said he followed his military training and pulled his pistol. Siddiqui was wrestling with an interpreter when he shot her in the stomach.

"I operated within the rules of engagement to eliminate the threat," he said.

The defense told jurors there was no ballistic, fingerprint or other physical evidence proving the weapon was "touched by Dr. Siddiqui, let alone fired by her."

Siddiqui testified she was shot shortly after she poked her head around a curtain to see if there was a way she might slip out of the room where she was being held. She said she was desperate to escape because she feared being returned to a secret prison.

"I wanted to get out. ... I was afraid," she said.

In Washington, the Pakistani Embassy issued the statement saying diplomats were "dismayed" over the verdict.

"The Government of Pakistan made intense diplomatic and legal efforts on her behalf and will consult the family of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and the team of defense lawyers to determine the future course of action," the statement said.

___

Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST NEW YORK

NEW YORK — A U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist was convicted Wednesday of charges that she tried to kill Americans while detained in Afghanistan in 2008, shouting with raised arm as jurors left t...
NEW YORK — A U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist was convicted Wednesday of charges that she tried to kill Americans while detained in Afghanistan in 2008, shouting with raised arm as jurors left t...
Filed by Lila Shapiro  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 388
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
goddessNdiva
Internet surfer extraordinaire.
11:26 AM on 02/10/2010
Scientist are always the first to be targeted. Of course she is not guilty but her knowledge makes her dangerous to the "paranoid greedy warmongers".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hontas Farmer
Stargazer
11:20 PM on 02/07/2010
The most interesting aspect of this case is that when she disappeared in 2003 she was traveling with her three children. The two youngest and american born children have disappeared. Where are her children,Maryam (born 1998), and Suleman ( born 2002)? Say what you want about her. I mean what do any of us know of this case besides what's reported in the media, which I can tell you first hand is not even one tenth of the facts? But those kids certainly didn't do anything to anybody.

One story I have read has a Pakistani intelligence official anonymously implying that she was in fact their agent, and this whole episode was a way to get her out without tipping off Al-quaeda. Think about it, what kind of spy would we want to use?
11:20 AM on 02/04/2010
Sho,ot, captured, tried, convicted--- the fate of all those who try this kind of nonsense.
All those who support her for tribal reasons ---pass it on in your community and your children.
11:13 AM on 02/04/2010
The freak was tried and convicted.
If justice is to be served she should be sent to serve a few decades in Pakistani jail.
One meal a day, nice shtbucket and five prayers a day is assured.
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
10:41 AM on 02/04/2010
Under what Status of Forces Agreement was this person moved to the US for trial under US law?

Here is a brief summary of what a Status of Forces Agreement typically contains:

"The SOFA is intended to clarify the terms under which the foreign military is allowed to operate. Typically, purely military issues such as the locations of bases and access to facilities are covered by separate agreements. The SOFA is more concerned with the legal issues associated with military individuals and property. This may include issues like entry and exit into the country, tax liabilities, postal services, or employment terms for host-country nationals, but the most contentious issues are civil and criminal jurisdiction over the bases. For civil matters, SOFAs provide for how civil damages caused by the forces will be determined and paid. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes."
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
10:28 AM on 02/04/2010
Regarding the issue of whether Guantanamo - as specific example - is subject to US law, here is some imput:

"The Guantanamo detainees are subject to U.S. jurisdiction, but the Guantanamo base is not literally within U.S. territory. It is leased from Cuba. Under the 1903 lease and a 1934 treaty, the United States has "complete jurisdiction and control" over the base for an indefinite duration. No international tribunal has determined whether that is equivalent to saying that the base is part of U.S. territory. There is a split in U.S. federal courts over whether the U.S. jurisdiction and control is equivalent to full U.S. sovereignty over the base. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that, for habeas corpus purposes, the United States has both territorial jurisdiction and sovereignty over Guantanamo. [11] The District of Columbia Circuit, however, has held that the Guantanamo base is not within any territory over which the United States is sovereign. [12] This, too, is an issue that the military commission may have to decide, at least if the United States Supreme Court does not decide it first."

This was written by Frederic L. Kirgis, a Law Alumni Association Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, in a consideration of another case.

The existence of a treaty granting US jurisdiction makes Gitmo different. The Federal courts seem confused about what this means regarding US law and Gitmo.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Eris23
Justice is in indefinite detention.
10:09 AM on 02/04/2010
This verdict is a travesty, in that it simply can't be trusted. The woman was most likely tortured and, sadly, President Obama has been politically pressuring the DOJ to not do anything about this huge blight on our justice system.
10:52 AM on 02/04/2010
She was arrested, convicted and jailed.
you're next....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Eris23
Justice is in indefinite detention.
11:01 AM on 02/04/2010
*YAWN* You're already in prison.
09:57 AM on 02/04/2010
This is a sad case to say the least. Arab reporting agencies state that this woman was abused and took shots at the officers sensing she was going to be abuse again! Today, with the hate for Muslims in America, any Muslim before the administration of justice is in a world of hurt! A conviction is certain just based upon her religion alone and prejudicial statements by known US prosecutors that called all Muslim Americans co-conspirators to any alleged plot against the US. Translation: Upwards of 9 million Muslim Americans are not in the cross-hairs based upon that statement! Fear mongering and hate has deemed the truth, and I suspect that there is more to this story than what we know. There are a myriad of questions about this woman when she traveled to Pakistan!
10:52 AM on 02/04/2010
"Arab reporting agencies state that this woman was abused and took shots at the officers sensing she was going to be abuse again!."
ROFLLLLLL
12:25 PM on 02/04/2010
Nonsense.

If there are 9 million Muslims in the USA then some of them are in court every single day.

Receiving the same justice as anyone and everyone else.

Our system is far from perfect. But if you want to argue the verdict I suggest you take it up with the jury.

They are the ones who heard the evidence and made the decision.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:44 AM on 02/04/2010
The critical question that requires answer is whether Aafia Siddiqui was in US custody in a prison in Afghanistan after her kidnap in 2003 and before she appeared in Kabul in 2008 with all that convenient evidence to prove her a terrorist. The interpretation of everything that happened since depends on that answer.

If she was in US custody when was she released? If the answer was shortly before she was dumped on a Kabul street then the terrorist materials in her possession can only be interpreted as a crude attempt to set her up as conviction as a terrorist and indicates considerable malice towards her by the US and its agencies which are willing to fabricate evidence to convict her. If they are willing to do that they would be willing to fabricate evidence that she tried to kill US soldiers to cover up that they had shot her while unarmed.

I reccommed this article by Scott Horton http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/0082719.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:49 AM on 02/04/2010
News you won't find here - stories you'll never read otherwise. From a Trusted News Source - ICH.

Leave the US Reality Distortion Field at the stroke of a key - Get your news unfiltered at ICH - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

1 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24566.htm
2 - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24547.htm
photo
Norge
Rolf K. Artist, worker of metal, writer of poems
06:06 AM on 02/04/2010
She is innocent and is being framed as she stated by the grease of the sands.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:53 AM on 02/04/2010
Future generations of Americans will pay for what we've done to countless people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Citizen54
Conservatism is a con job!
12:45 PM on 02/04/2010
"Chickens coming home to roost," as Malcolm X said.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:01 AM on 02/04/2010
She claimed to know of domestic terrorism plots that had nothing to do with muslims. She just wanted to talk to the president. lol.. What a ridiculous fantasy world she lives in if she thinks she really had a shot at harming the president.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:00 AM on 02/04/2010
All stories about the N*e*o*c*o*n*s welcome ... See comment #3, 4 N* Dirty Tricks at -

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24577.htm
01:38 AM on 02/04/2010
she made her decision in life. she got what she deserved justice served, full court rights, she continued to scream and shout and act irrationally. lock her up for her safety and ours. she's no victim, folks. don't try and make her out to be a folk hero. if you want to believe that all her accusers were lying, you're just trying to fulfill your fantasies about the US military. for that, you prove yourself to be an idiot. she's guilty, the jury and judge said so, and if you don't see it, you're drunk on crazy drink.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jalowe1957
Poisonous epitaphs dished out periodically.
12:26 AM on 02/04/2010
Thorazine, please.