Mata Hari of Al Qaeda: The mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui


Aafia Siddiqui
By: Abdul Nishapuri

Pakistani Taliban Union of Journalists (also known as Mullah Media Alliance), including Dr Shahid Masood, Irfan Siddiqui, Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir, often present a partial, one sided picture of the ordeal and ‘mazloomiat’ of Dr Aafia Siddiqui. In the following article, The Guardian’s Declan Walsh offers a comprehensive, impartial account of Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s life and her involvement with Al Qaeda. Our readers will appreciate that this kind of objective information will be never made available to them through the commercially populist oriented (riding the pro-Taliban and anti-USA waves) Geo TV.

The mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui

Declan Walsh
The Guardian, Tuesday 24 November 2009

On a hot summer morning 18 months ago a team of four Americans – two FBI agents and two army officers – rolled into Ghazni, a dusty town 50 miles south of Kabul. They had come to interview two unusual prisoners: a woman in a burka and her 11-year-old son, arrested the day before.

Afghan police accused the mysterious pair of being suicide bombers. What interested the Americans, though, was what they were carrying: notes about a “mass casualty attack” in the US on targets including the Statue of Liberty and a collection of jars and bottles containing “chemical and gel substances”.

At the town police station the Americans were directed into a room where, unknown to them, the woman was waiting behind a long yellow curtain. One soldier sat down, laying his M-4 rifle by his foot, next to the curtain. Moments later it twitched back.

The woman was standing there, pointing the officer’s gun at his head. A translator lunged at her, but too late. She fired twice, shouting “Get the fuck out of here!” and “Allahu Akbar!” Nobody was hit. As the translator wrestled with the woman, the second soldier drew his pistol and fired, hitting her in the abdomen. She went down, still kicking and shouting that she wanted “to kill Americans”. Then she passed out.

Whether this extraordinary scene is fiction or reality will soon be decided thousands of miles from Ghazni in a Manhattan courtroom. The woman is Dr Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist and mother of three. The description of the shooting, in July 2008, comes from the prosecution case, which Siddiqui disputes. What isn’t in doubt is that there was an incident, and that she was shot, after which she was helicoptered to Bagram air field where medics cut her open from breastplate to bellybutton, searching for bullets. Medical records show she barely survived. Seventeen days later, still recovering, she was bundled on to an FBI jet and flown to New York where she now faces seven counts of assault and attempted murder. If convicted, the maximum sentence is life in prison.

The prosecution is but the latest twist in one of the most intriguing episodes of America’s “war on terror”. At its heart is the MIT-educated Siddiqui, once declared the world’s most wanted woman. In 2003 she mysteriously vanished for five years, during which time she was variously dubbed the “Mata Hari of al-Qaida” or the “Grey Lady of Bagram”, an iconic victim of American brutality.

Yet only the narrow circumstances of her capture – did she open fire on the US soldier? – are at issue in the New York court case. Fragile-looking, and often clad in a dark robe and white headscarf, Siddiqui initially pleaded not guilty, insisting she never touched the soldier’s gun. Her lawyers say the prosecution’s dramatic version of the shooting is untrue. Now, after months of pre-trial hearings, she appears bent on scuppering the entire process.

During a typically stormy hearing last Thursday, Siddiqui interrupted the judge, rebuked her own lawyers and made strident appeals to the packed courthouse. “I am boycotting this trial,” she declared. “I am innocent of all the charges and I can prove it, but I will not do it in this court.” Previously she had tried to fire her lawyers due to their Jewish background (she once wrote to the court that Jews are “cruel, ungrateful, back-stabbing” people) and demanded to speak with President Obama for the purpose of “making peace” with the Taliban. This time, though, she was ejected from the courtroom for obstruction. “Take me out. I’m not coming back,” she said defiantly.

The trial, due to start in January, is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. It is a tale of spies and militants, disappearance and deception, which has played out in the shadowlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan since 2001. In search of answers I criss-crossed Pakistan, tracking down Siddiqui’s relatives, retired ministers, shadowy spy types and pamphleteers. The truth was maddeningly elusive. But it all started in Karachi, the sprawling port city on the Arabian Sea where Siddiqui was born 37 years ago.

Her parents were Pakistani strivers – middle-class folk with strong faith in Islam and education. Her father, Mohammad, was an English-trained doctor; her mother, Ismet, befriended the dictator General Zia ul-Haq. Aafia was a smart teenager, and in 1990 followed her older brother to the US. Impressive grades won her admission to the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, later, Brandeis University, where she graduated in cognitive neuroscience. In 1995 she married a young Karachi doctor, Amjad Khan; a year later their first child, Ahmed, was born.

Siddiqui was also an impassioned Muslim activist. In Boston she campaigned for Afghanistan, Bosnia and Chechnya; she was particularly affected by graphic videos of pregnant Bosnian women being killed. She wrote emails, held fundraisers and made forceful speeches at her local mosque. But the charities she worked with had sharp edges. The Nairobi branch of one, Mercy International Relief Agency, was linked to the 1998 US embassy bombings in east Africa; three other charities were later banned in the US for their links to al-Qaida.

The September 11 2001 attacks marked a turning point in Siddiqui’s life. In May 2002 the FBI questioned her and her husband about some unusual internet purchases they had made: about $10,000 worth of night-vision goggles, body armour and 45 military-style books including The Anarchist’s Arsenal. (Khan said he bought the equipment for hunting and camping expeditions.) Their marriage started to crumble. A few months later the couple returned to Pakistan and divorced that August, two weeks before the birth of their third child, Suleman.

On Christmas Day 2002 Siddiqui left her three children with her mother in Pakistan and returned to the US, ostensibly to apply for academic jobs. During the 10-day trip, however, Siddiqui did something controversial: she opened a post box in the name of Majid Khan, an alleged al-Qaida operative accused of plotting to blow up petrol stations in the Baltimore area. The post box, prosecutors later said, was to facilitate his entry into the US.

Six months after her divorce, she married Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, at a small ceremony near Karachi. Siddiqui’s family denies the wedding took place, but it has been confirmed by Pakistani and US intelligence, al-Baluchi’s relatives and, according to FBI interview reports recently filed in court, Siddiqui herself. At any rate, it was a short-lived honeymoon.

Fowzia Siddiqui
Fowzia Siddiqui is the elder sister of Aafia Siddiqui. Photograph: Declan Walsh

In March 2003 the FBI issued a global alert for Siddiqui and her ex-husband, Amjad Khan. Then, a few weeks later, she vanished. According to her family, she climbed into a taxi with her three children – six-year-old Ahmed, four-year-old Mariam and six-month old Suleman – and headed for Karachi airport. They never made it. (Khan, on the other hand, was interviewed by the FBI in Pakistan, and subsequently released.)

Initially it was presumed that Siddiqui had been picked up by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) spy agency at the behest of the CIA. The theory seemed to be confirmed by American media reports that Siddiqui’s name had been given up by Mohammed, the 9/11 instigator, who was captured three weeks earlier. (If so, Mohammed was probably speaking under duress – the CIA waterboarded him 183 times that month.)

There are several accounts of what happened next. According to the US government, Siddiqui was at large, plotting mayhem on behalf of Osama bin Laden. In May 2004 the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, listed her among the seven “most wanted” al-Qaida fugitives. “Armed and dangerous,” he said, describing the Karachi woman as a terrorist “facilitator” who was willing to use her education against America. “Al-Qaida Mom” ran the headline in the New York Post.

But Siddiqui’s family and supporters tell a different story. Instead of plotting attacks, they say, Siddiqui spent the missing five years at the dreaded Bagram detention centre, north of Kabul, where she suffered unspeakable horrors. Yvonne Ridley, the British journalist turned Muslim campaigner, insists she is the “Grey Lady of Bagram” – a ghostly female detainee who kept prisoners awake “with her haunting sobs and piercing screams”. In 2005 male prisoners were so agitated by her plight, she says, that they went on hunger strike for six days.

For campaigners such as Ridley, Siddiqui has become emblematic of dark American practices such as abduction, rendition and torture. “Aafia has iconic status in the Muslim world. People are angry with American imperialism and domination,” she told me.

But every major security agency of the US government – army, FBI, CIA – denies having held her. Last year the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, went even further. She stated that Siddiqui was not in US custody “at any time” prior to July 2008. Her language was unusually categoric.

To reconcile these accounts I flew to Siddiqui’s hometown of Karachi. The family lives in a spacious house with bougainvillea-draped walls in Gulshan Iqbal, a smart middle-class neighbourhood. Inside I took breakfast with her sister, Fowzia, on a patio overlooking a toy-strewn garden.

As servants brought piles of paratha (fried bread), Fowzia produced photos of a smiling young woman whom she described as the victim of an international conspiracy. The US had been abusing her sister in Bagram, she said, then produced her for trial as part of a gruesome justice pageant. “As far as I’m concerned this trial [in New York] is just a great drama. They write the script as they go. I’ve stopped asking questions,” she said resignedly.

But Fowzia, a Harvard-educated neurologist, was frustratingly short on hard information. She responded to questions about Aafia’s whereabouts between 2003 and 2008 with cryptic cliches. “It’s not that we don’t know. It’s that we don’t want to know,” she said. And she blamed reports of al-Qaida links on a malevolent American press. “Half of them work for the CIA,” she said.

The odd thing, though, was that the person who might unlock the entire mystery was living in the same house. After being captured with his mother in Ghazni last year, 11-year-old Ahmed Siddiqui was flown back to Pakistan on orders from the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. Since then he has been living with his aunt Fowzia. Yet she has forbidden him from speaking with the press – even with Yvonne Ridley – because, she told me, he was too traumatised.

“You tell him to do something but he just stands there, staring at the TV,” she said, sighing heavily. But surely, I insisted, after 15 months at home the boy must have divulged some clue about the missing years?

Fowzia’s tone hardened. “Ahmed’s not allowed to speak to the press. That was part of the deal when they gave him to us,” she said firmly.

“Who are they?” I asked.

She waved a finger in the air. “The network. Those who brought him here.”

Moments later Fowzia excused herself. The interview was over. As she walked me to the gate, I was struck by another omission: Fowzia had barely mentioned Ahmed’s 11-year-old sister, Mariam, or his seven-year-old brother, Suleman, who are still missing. Amid the hullabaloo about their imprisoned mother, Aafia’s children seemed to be strangely forgotten.

That night I went to see Siddiqui’s ex-husband, Amjad Khan. He ushered me through a deathly quiet house into an upstairs room where we sat cross-legged on the floor. He had a soft face under the curly beard that is worn by devout Muslims. I recounted what Fowzia told me. He sighed and shook his head. “It’s all a smokescreen,” he said. “She’s trying to divert your attention.”

The truth of the matter, he said, was that Siddiqui had never been sent to Bagram. Instead she spent the five years on the run, living clandestinely with her three children, under the watchful eye of Pakistani intelligence. He told me they shifted between Quetta in Baluchistan province, Iran and the Karachi house I had visited earlier that day. It was a striking explanation. When I asked for proof, he started at the beginning.

Their parents, who arranged the marriage, thought them a perfect match. The couple had a lot in common – education, wealth and a love for conservative Islam. They were married over the phone; soon after Khan moved to America. But his new wife was a more fiery character than he wished. “She was so pumped up about jihad,” he said.

Six months into the marriage, Siddiqui demanded the newlyweds move to Bosnia. Khan refused, and grew annoyed at her devotion to activist causes. During a furious argument one night, he told me, he flung a milk bottle at his wife that split her lip.

After 9/11 Aafia insisted on returning to Pakistan, telling her husband that the US government was forcibly converting Muslim children to Christianity. Later that winter she pressed him to go on “jihad” to Afghanistan, where she had arranged for them to work in a hospital in Zabul province. Khan refused, sparking a vicious row. “She went hysterical, beating her hands on my chest, asking for divorce,” he recalled.

After Siddiqui disappeared in March 2003, Khan started to worry for his children – he had never seen his youngest son, Suleman. But he was reassured that they were still in Pakistan through three sources. He hired people to watch her house and they reported her comings and goings. His family was also briefed by ISI officials who said they were following her movements, he said. (Khan named an ISI brigadier whom I later contacted; he declined to speak).

Most strikingly, Khan claimed to have seen his ex-wife with his own eyes. In April 2003, he said, the ISI asked him to identify his ex-wife as she got off a flight from Islamabad, accompanied by her son. Two years later he spotted her again in a Karachi traffic jam. But he never went public with the information. “I wanted to protect her, for the sake of my children,” he said.

Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi
Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi, a geologist and uncle of Dr Aafia Siddiqui, at his home in Islamabad, Pakistan Photograph: Declan Walsh

Khan’s version of events has enraged his ex-wife’s family. Fowzia has launched a 500m rupees (£360,000) defamation law suit, while regularly attacking him in the press as a wifebeater set on “destroying” her family. “Marrying him was Aafia’s biggest mistake,” she told me. Khan says it is a ploy to silence him in the media and take away his children.

Khan’s explanation is bolstered by the one person who claims to have met the missing neuroscientist between 2003 and 2008 – her uncle, Shams ul-Hassan Faruqi. Back in Islamabad, I went to see him.

A sprightly old geologist, Faruqi works from a cramped office filled with coloured rocks and dusty computers. Over tea and biscuits he described a strange encounter with his niece in January 2008, six months before she was captured in Afghanistan.

It started, he said, when a white car carrying a burka-clad woman pulled up outside his gate. Beckoning him to approach, he recognised her by her voice. “Uncle, I am Aafia,” he recalled her saying. But she refused to leave the car and insisted they move to the nearby Taj Mahal restaurant to talk. Amid whispers, her story tumbled out.

Siddiqui told him she had been in both Pakistani and American captivity since 2003, but was vague on the details. “I was in the cells but I don’t know in which country, or which city. They kept shifting me,” she said. Now she had been set free but remained under the thumb of intelligence officials based in Lahore. They had given her a mission: to infiltrate al-Qaida in Pakistan. But, Siddiqui told her uncle, she was afraid and wanted out. She begged him to smuggle her into Afghanistan into the hands of the Taliban. “That was her main point,” he recalled. “She said: ‘I will be safe with the Taliban.’”

That night, Siddiqui slept at a nearby guesthouse, and stayed with her uncle the next day. But she refused to remove her burka. Faruqi said he caught a glimpse of her just once, while eating, and thought her nose had been altered. “I asked her, ‘Who did plastic surgery on your face?’ She said, ‘nobody’.”

On the third day, Siddiqui vanished again.

Amid the blizzard of allegations about Siddiqui, the most crucial voice is yet to be heard – her own. The trial, due to start in January, has suffered numerous delays. The longest was due to a six-month psychiatric evaluation triggered by defence claims that Siddiqui was “going crazy” – prone to crying fits and hallucinations involving flying infants, dark angels and a dog in her cell. “She’s in total psychic pain,” said her lawyer, Dawn Cardi, claiming that she was unfit to stand trial.

But at the Texas medical centre where the tests took place, Siddiqui refused to co-operate. “I can’t hear you. I’m not listening,” she told one doctor, sitting on the floor with her fingers in her ears. Others reported that she refused to speak with Jews, that she manipulated health workers and perceived herself to “be a martyr rather than a prisoner”. Last July three of four experts determined she was malingering – faking a psychiatric illness to avoid an undesirable outcome. “She is an intelligent and at times manipulative woman who showed goal-directed and rational thinking,” reported Dr Sally Johnson.

Judge Richard Berman ruled that Siddiqui “may have some mental health issues” but was competent to stand trial.

Back in Pakistan Siddiqui has become a cause celebre. Newspapers write unquestioningly about her “torture”, parliament has passed resolutions, placard-waving demonstrators pound the streets and the government is spending $2m on a top-flight defence. High-profile supporters include the former cricketer Imran Khan and the Taliban leader Hakumullah Mehsud who has affectionately described Siddiqui as a “sister in Islam”.

The unquestioning support is a product of public fury at US-orchestrated “disappearances”, of which there have been hundreds in Pakistan, and deep scepticism about the American account of her capture. Few Pakistanis believe a frail 5ft 3in, 40kg woman could disarm an American soldier; fewer still think she would be carrying bomb booklets, chemicals and target lists.

But there are critics, too, albeit silent ones. A Musharraf-era minister with previous oversight of Siddiqui’s case told me it was “full of bullshit and lies”.

Two weeks ago the Obama administration introduced a fresh twist, when it announced that next year (or in 2011) five Guantanamo Bay detainees will be tried in the same New York courthouse, a few blocks from the World Trade Centre. One of them is Siddiqui’s second husband, Ammar al-Baluchi, also known as Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who stands accused of financing the 9/11 attacks.

But while the Guantanamo detainees will be tried for their part in mass terrorism, Siddiqui’s case focuses on a minor controversy – whether she fired a gun at a soldier in an Afghan police station. And so the big questions may not be probed: whether the ISI or CIA abducted Siddiqui in 2003, what she did afterwards, and where her two missing children are now. In fact the framing of the charges raises a new question: if Siddiqui was such a dangerous terrorist five years ago, why is she not being charged as one now? A senior Pakistani official, speaking on condition of strict anonymity, offered a tantalising explanation.

In the world of counter-espionage, he said, someone like Siddiqui is an invaluable asset. And so, he speculated, sometime over the last five years she may have been “flipped” – turned against militant sympathisers – by Pakistani or American intelligence. “It’s a very murky world,” he said.

“Maybe the Americans have no charges against her. Maybe they don’t want to compromise their sources of information. Or maybe they don’t want to put that person out in the world again. The thing is, you’ll never really know.” Source

Related articles:

Aafia Sididdui – the other side of the picture

Do Major Hasan Nadal and Aafia Siddiqui represent Islam?


9 responses to “Mata Hari of Al Qaeda: The mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui”

  1. well its a real baseless article as even the usa court is not able to find grounds for the case some phony analysts or web gurus are here to defend the unjust actions of Pakistani and USA intelligence agencies of abducting a women with here three children.
    there are clear norms of human rights which were violated and you people with your prejudice are not able to or don't want to see the truth.

    if u want to read the truth please visit:

    yvonneridley.org

    united4justice.wordpress.com

    freeaafia.org

    The only thing i would like to say for the site owners .
    Play your games of dirty politics as much as you can but remember you cannot defeat the truth especially The One which created you and us.
    May Allah give us hidayath

  2. ‘Lady Al Qaeda’ Aafia Siddiqui convicted of attempted murder

    BY ALISON GENDAR
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


    “This is a verdict coming from Israel not America,” Aafia Siddiqui exclaimed after hearing the conviction.

    The woman dubbed “Lady Al Qaeda” was convicted Wednesday of attempted murder for shooting at Americans in Afghanistan – and she reacted in typical fashion.

    “This is a verdict coming from Israel not America,” Aafia Siddiqui exclaimed, raising one hand and pointing up before being led out of the Manhattan courtroom.

    “That’s where the anger belongs. I can testify to this. And I have proof.”

    The outburst was hardly shocking; Siddiqui disrupted her own trial several times with bizarre statement and demands to take the stand in her own defense.

    Despite her insistence she never grabbed an Army rifle and opened fire on her U.S. interrogators, a federal jury found her guilty of attempted murder and six other counts.

    The 37-year-old MIT-trained neuroscientist faces life in prison when she’s sentenced May 6. “Juries do make mistakes. Juries do go wrong” said Elaine Sharp, one of Siddiqui’s lawyers.

    “In my opinion this verdict is based on fear, not on fact.”

    Sharp said when she told Siddiqui the verdict, she asked that a message be sent to her supporters at home in Pakistan that she did not want any violent demonstrations.

    The lawyer claimed Siddiqui’s anti-Israeli comments were the paranoid rantings of a women who had been held in solitary confinement for 18 months.

    Siddiqui was arrested in 2008 in Afghanistan after being caught with poisonous chemicals, bomb-making instructions and a list of New York landmarks.

    She grabbed an unguarded rifle at an Afghan police station and started shooting at the Americans sent to grill her.

    She was not charged with terrorism.

    Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/02/03/2010-02-03_lady_al_qaeda_aafia_siddiqui_convicted_of_attempted_murder_.html

  3. Dr Aafia Siddiqui’s husband breaks his silence after six years – Wednesday, February 18, 2009 – Claims most reports in the local media are false, suspects his two ‘missing’ children are in Karachi – By Aroosa Masroor
    http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=20404

    ‘MI handed Dr Aafia over to US’ By Faraz Khan Friday, August 08, 2008
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C08%5Cstory_8-8-2008_pg7_7
    KARACHI: The Sindh Home Department has alleged Military Intelligence (MI) detained Dr Aafia Siddiqui in 2003 and then handed her over to United States-based agencies, Daily Times learnt on Thursday.

    Why is it so that every key member of above network has a US Background [either educational, professional etc.etc.] either they were in USA, are in USA and had been associated with USA??? Date of kidnapping of Ms. Aafia and Mr KSM is to noticed while keeping in mind their US background.
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is believed to have been born in either 1964 or 1965 in Kuwait into a family originally from the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, which borders Afghanistan. He is said to be fluent in Arabic, English, Urdu and Baluchi. He graduated in 1986 from North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in the US. Profile: Al-Qaeda ‘kingpin’ Page last updated at 14:04 GMT, Friday, 13 November 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2811855.stm
    Terror mastermind captured – Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is thought to be the man who masterminded the attacks on 11 September. His capture in Pakistan was seen as a key success in the US fight to counter al-Qaeda. BBC News Online presents key video reports following the arrest. Tuesday, 4 March, 2003, 22:56 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2820179.stm
    Mohammed was captured on March 1, 2003, at a safe house in Rawalpindi, a garrison town near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The photograph that flashed across the world after the arrest was of a slovenly, overweight man. When Mohammed, an avid reader of press reports about him, later saw it, he was furious. ‘THE MASTERMIND’
    For smug KSM, federal court could be perfect arena By Peter Finn Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 14, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/11/13/ST2009111300917.html?sid=ST2009111300917
    In a surprise move this week, Pakistan’s federal minister of the interior, Faisal Saleh Hayat, listed a number of incidences in which members of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the premier fundamentalist party in the country, had been tied to al-Qaeda, and called on it to “explain these links”.
    Pakistan turns on itself By Syed Saleem Shahzad Aug 19, 2004 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FH19Df05.html

  4. “It was published in the national press on the very first day after this raid that the police conducted two raids in Rawalpindi and arrested Arabs. I believe that they arrested these people from some other location and showed them arrested at the residence of Ahmed Abdul Qudoos, who is a relative of a leader of the Jamaat-i-Islami’s women’s wing,” the chief of the Jamaat-i-Islami, Karachi, Dr Merajul Huda, told Asia Times Online. The Jamaat-i-Islami is Pakistan’s most prominent Islamic party and a part of an ultraconservative coalition that gained an unprecedented number of seats in last October’s elections, largely on the strength of a virulently anti-American platform. Khalid: A test for US credibility
    By Syed Saleem Shahzad Mar 6, 2003http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EC06Df04.html

    Is There More to the Capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed Than Meets the Eye? http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayksmcapture

    The hunt for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed involved the entire American intelligence establishment, with its billion-dollar arrays of spy satellites and global eavesdropping net. But his capture came down to a simple text message sent from an informant who had slipped into the bathroom of a house in Rawalpindi, near the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. “I am with K.S.M.,” the message said, according to an intelligence officer briefed on the episode. Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s Interrogation Published: June 22, 2008 [ A version of this article appeared in print on June 22, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition]. By SCOTT SHANE Published: June 22, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html?pagewanted=1

    CIA’s ‘preeminent source’

    Mohammed was captured on March 1, 2003, at a safe house in Rawalpindi, a garrison town near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad. The photograph that flashed across the world after the arrest was of a slovenly, overweight man. When Mohammed, an avid reader of press reports about him, later saw it, he was furious. ‘THE MASTERMIND’
    For smug KSM, federal court could be perfect arena By Peter Finn Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, November 14, 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/11/13/ST2009111300917.html?sid=ST2009111300917

    “QUOTE”

    In a surprise move this week, Pakistan’s federal minister of the interior, Faisal Saleh Hayat, listed a number of incidences in which members of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the premier fundamentalist party in the country, had been tied to al-Qaeda, and called on it to “explain these links”.

    “It is a matter of concern that Jamaat-e-Islami, which is a main faction of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal [MMA], has neither dissociated itself from its activists having links with the al-Qaeda network nor condemned their activities,” Faisal said, adding that “one could derive a meaning out of its silence”.

    The JI’s leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, subsequently denied that his party had any links with al-Qaeda or other militant organizations. “We do not believe in violence,” Qazi said. He criticized the government for making such accusations, saying it was taking directions from the US. Typical of those being arrested is Tariq Baig, a former president of the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba (a student organization ideologically born of the JI) who was picked up from his residence in central Karachi. According to witnesses, a few cars with black-tinted windows laid siege to his residence, and then heavily armed men in plain clothes took him away. Neighbors claim that Tariq had dissociated himself from the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba. He participated in the Afghan resistance when the ISI was motivating students to wage jihad against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. However, other sources say that he was arrested for making calls on his cell phone to people connected with militant organizations. Pakistan turns on itself
    By Syed Saleem Shahzad Aug 19, 2004 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FH19Df05.html

  5. کیا عافیہ فٹبال ہے!

    وسعت اللہ خان
    بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد
    سن دو ہزار نو میں کراچی کے تھانہ گلشنِ اقبال میں ڈاکٹر فوزیہ صدیقی کی شکائیت پر ایس ایچ او رستم نواز کی موجودگی میں ایف آئی آر نمبر سات سو تہتر زیرو نائن کاٹی گئی۔

    اس کے مطابق ڈاکٹر فوزیہ کی بڑی بہن ڈاکٹر عافیہ صدیقی تیس مارچ دو ہزار تین کو اپنے تین بچوں سمیت اسلام آباد جانے کے لیے گھر سے ایک ٹیکسی میں جناح انٹرنیشنل ائرپورٹ روانہ ہوئیں لیکن انہیں راستے سے نامعلوم افراد نے اغوا کر لیا۔

    اس ایف آئی آر میں نامعلوم اغوا کنندگان کے خلاف فوجداری قانون کی دفعہ تین سو پینسٹھ چونتیس کے تحت مقدمہ درج کیا گیا اور ایس ایس پی نیاز کھوسو کی سربراہی میں ایک پولیس ٹیم نے تفتیش شروع کر دی۔

    جب ڈاکٹر عافیہ صدیقی اغوا ہوئیں اس وقت پاکستان کے صدر جنرل پرویز مشرف تھے۔ (جنہوں نے بعد میں اپنی کتاب ان دی لائن آف فائر میں اعتراف کیا ہے کہ ان کی حکومت نے سینکڑوں ملزم پیسوں کے عوض یا رضاکارانہ طور پر امریکہ کے حوالے کیے)۔

    اس دن پاکستان میں مسلم لیگ ق کے وزیرِ اعظم ظفر اللہ جمالی کی حکومت تھی اور وزیرِ داخلہ فیصل صالح حیات تھے۔ یہ فرض کیا جاتا ہے کہ جو بھی وزیرِ داخلہ ہو اس کے علم میں یہ بات یقیناً ہوگی کہ کسی پاکستانی شہری کو کب، کیوں اور کس قانون کے تحت اغوا کیا گیا یا کسی غیر ملک کے حوالے کیا گیا۔

    اس دن لیفٹننٹ جنرل احسان الحق ڈائریکٹر جنرل آئی ایس آئی تھے۔ یہ فرض کیا جاتا ہے کہ آئی ایس آئی کو معلوم ہو کہ آیا کسی پاکستانی شہری کو کوئی ملکی یا غیرملکی ایجنسی یا فرد ٹھوس قانونی جواز کے بغیر اغوا کر کے تو نہیں لے جا رہا۔

    جب عافیہ صدیقی غائب ہوئیں تو سید محب اسد ڈائریکٹر جنرل ایف آئی اے تھے۔ امیگریشن اور پاسپورٹ کنٹرول کی ذمہ داری ایف آئی اے کی ہے لہذا یہ فرض کیا جاتا ہے کہ ایف آئی اے کے علم میں ہو کہ کوئی پاکستانی باشندہ جبراً یا جعلی دستاویزات پر غیر قانونی یا خفیہ کوشش کے تحت ملک کی فضائی، زمینی یا بحری حدود سے باہر تو نہیں لے جایا جا رہا۔

    اس وقت صوبہ سندھ کے گورنر ڈاکٹر عشرت العباد اور وزیرِ اعلٰی علی محمد مہرجب کہ انسپکٹر جنرل پولیس سید کمال شاہ تھے۔ یہ فرض کیا جاتا ہے کہ صوبائی حکومت اپنے محکمہ داخلہ کے توسط سے اس وقت کے آئی جی کو یاددہانی کروائے کہ جو بھی شہری اغوا ہو اس کی ایف آئی آر فوراً کاٹی جائے اور یہ بھی متعلقہ صوبے کے اعلی پولیس افسر کا فرض ہوتا ہے کہ وہ اس بات کی تحقیقات کرے کہ کسی شہری کے اغوا میں اس کے کسی ماتحت کی معاونت تو شامل نہیں ہے لیکن عافیہ صدیقی کے اغوا کی ایف آئی آر کو پولیس ریکارڈ میں جگہ بنانے کے لیے چھ برس سے زائد عرصہ لگا۔ کیوں؟

    عافیہ صدیقی کے غائب ہونے کے لگ بھگ تین ماہ کے بعد امریکی جریدے نیوزویک کے تئیس جون کے شمارے میں کہا گیا کہ امریکی ایف بی آئی عافیہ صدیقی سے یہ پوچھ گچھ کرنا چاہتی تھی کہ ان کا القاعدہ کے ایک مشتبہ ماجد خان سے کیا تعلق ہے۔ جن کا پوسٹ بکس عافیہ استعمال کرتی رہیں۔ اس کے علاوہ ان کے شوہر ڈاکٹر امجد علی پر بھی القاعدہ سے تعلق کا شبہہ تھا جنہیں عافیہ نے اغوا سے تین ماہ قبل طلاق دی تھی۔ فرض کریں کہ عافیہ کو ایف بی آئی کے ایجنٹوں نے اغوا کیا تو پاکستان میں ایف بی آئی کی معاونت کس کس ادارے یا فرد نے کی؟

    امریکہ نے سن دو ہزار آٹھ میں باقاعدہ طور پر عافیہ کی اپنے پاس موجودگی کا اعتراف برطانوی صحافی یون رڈلے کی اس پریس کانفرنس کے دو ہفتے بعد کیا جس میں رڈلے نے انسانی حقوق کے ایک کارکن ایلین وائٹ فیلڈ شارپ کی یہ اطلاع افشا کی کہ بگرام کے امریکی فوجی اڈے پر موجود قیدی نمبر چھ سو پچاس اصل میں عافیہ صدیقی ہیں۔امریکیوں کے بقول عافیہ کو ان کے بیٹے محمد کے ساتھ عزنی میں گرفتار کیا گیا اور پوچھ گچھ کے دوران عافیہ نے ایک امریکی سارجنٹ کو فائرنگ کر کے زخمی کر دیا۔اس کے بعد عافیہ کا مقدمہ نیویارک کی ڈسٹرکٹ کورٹ میں شروع ہوگیا اور ان پر باقاعدہ فردِ جرم عائد کی گئی۔

    عافیہ صدیقی کے اغوا ہونے کے واقعہ سے امریکیوں کے اعتراف کے درمیان پانچ برس کی مدت حائل ہے۔ ان پانچ برسوں میں عافیہ کہاں اور کس کس ادارے کی تحویل میں رہیں۔ آج جو جماعتیں اور تنظیمیں عافیہ کی رہائی کی سرگرم مہم چلا رہی ہیں انہیں ان پانچ برسوں میں عافیہ صدیقی کیوں یاد نہیں آئی۔اگر یون رڈلے انکشاف نہ کرتیں تو پھر یہ جماعتیں اور تنظیمیں کیا کرتیں۔ عافیہ کی رہائی کی مہم میں پیش پیش لوگوں نے اس بات کی کتنی کوشش کی کہ چندہ جمع کر کے امریکہ میں ایک اچھا سا وکیل کرنے کی مہم بھی چلاتیں تاکہ عافیہ کو اس کھیل میں مشکوک حکومتِ پاکستان کا احسان مند نہ ہونا پڑتا۔ مسلم لیگ ق کے رہنما بھی آج عافیہ رہائی مہم میں پیش پیش ہیں۔اگر وہ یہ نہیں بتا سکتے کہ عافیہ کے اغوا میں کس کس پاکستانی ادارے یا فرد نے کیا کردار ادا کیا تو ان کے پاس عافیہ کی رہائی کا نعرہ بلند کرنے کا اخلاقی جواز کیا ہے؟

    ایسا کیوں ہے کہ اس ساری مہم کا رخ امریکہ کی طرف ہے۔ بینرز یا احتجاجی ریلیوں میں ان لوگوں میں سے کسی کا نام جذباتی مقررین کی زبان پر کیوں نہیں آتا جن کی مرضی یا اجازت کے بغیر یہ سب ممکن نہیں تھا۔ کیا کسی فرد یا تنظیم نے کسی مقامی عدالت میں ایسی پٹیشن داخل کی جس میں ان اداروں اور افراد کے نام ہوں جن پر اس پورے ڈرامے میں اہم کردار ادا کرنے کا شبہہ ہے۔ جذباتی گفتگو سے لوگ تو مشتعل کیے جا سکتے ہیں۔ اپنے گناہوں پر پردہ تو ڈالا جاسکتا ہے۔ اپنی سیاسی دکان تو با رونق رکھی جا سکتی ہے لیکن اس کرتب بازی سے عافیہ صدیقی کیس میں کیا مدد مل سکتی ہے؟ کیا عافیہ کسی فٹ بال کا نام ہے ؟ کوئی تو بتائے ؟؟

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/03/100307_baat_se_baat_np.shtml

  6. Collection of some of your personal information is essential for completion of some of the functions and activities of this Website. We will, if it is reasonable or practicable to do so, also collect your personal information directly from you. For instance, the collection of your personal information may happen when you[url=http://www.yymov.com]电影天堂[/url].

  7. Hi my name is Olivie and I just wanted to drop you a quick note here instead of calling you. I discovered your Mata Hari of Al Qaeda: The mystery of Dr Aafia Siddiqui page and noticed you could have a lot more traffic. I have found that the key to running a popular website is making sure the visitors you are getting are interested in your subject matter. There is a company that you can get targeted traffic from and they let you try the service for free for 7 days. I managed to get over 300 targeted visitors to day to my site. Visit them here: http://msus.me/48um