The Pakistan Policy Blog

Aafia Siddiqui, the U.S.-educated Pakistani neuroscientist who for years has been designated a “missing person” by human rights groups and wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for questioning, is in U.S. custody as many have suspected.

But the U.S. government narrative of her arrest claims that it was recent, rather than years ago.  The time line and details its offers are not only suspect, but ludicrous.

Siddiqui has been transferred from Afghanistan to the United States, where she will appear before a federal court in Manhattan today to face charges of “attempted murder and assault of United States officers and employees in Afghanistan.”

The doctorate in neuroscience has ‘evaded’ intelligence agencies for years, yet managed to get ‘caught’ in mid-July in a central Afghanistan province by Afghan National Police (one of the country’s most incompetent and corrupt institutions) with information on U.S. landmarks, an amateur book on bomb making, and sealed containers with undisclosed contents — all conveniently in the same handbag.

The 5′4″, 110 lbs. middle-aged mother of three also managed to launch a Rambo-like attack on U.S. military officers and an FBI agent.

All this information comes from a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release and complaint seemingly written under the influence of narcotics and Fox’s 24.

NOT-SO-DEEP BACKGROUND

Of all the stories of alleged al-Qaeda members, none was perhaps more peculiar than that of Aafia Siddiqui.  A practicing Muslim born and raised in Pakistan, Siddiqui received her B.S. from MIT and a Ph.D. from Brandeis University — a secular, Jewish institution.  None of Siddiqui’s university colleagues or neighbors offer anything to suggest an inclination toward militancy.  She apparently got along well with those she interacted with.  Indeed, Siddiqui is said to have estranged from her first husband because he wanted their children to be raised in Pakistan, while she preferred that they be brought up in the United States.

Since 2003, the FBI has said that it “has no information indicating [Siddiqui] is connected to specific terrorist activities” but “would like to locate and question [her].”  Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM), allegedly the planner of 9/11, is said to have claimed in interrogations that Siddiqui was an al-Qaeda “fixer”  — perhaps after he was waterboarded.  The Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) claims that Siddiqui–a U.S.-educated Ph.D. from Karachi–married Ammar al-Baluchi, KSM’s nephew, who appears to be a minimally educated Pakistani Baloch born and raised in Kuwait (i.e. there were ethnic, educational, and class differences).  The DNI also claims that Siddiqui provided administrative assistance to alleged al-Qaeda operatives in the U.S. and even shopped for blood diamonds in Liberia.  Despite the specific claims, no evidence has been provided.  More importantly, despite the severity of the allegations against Siddiqui, she was never charged with a crime.  The gap between media claims–serious they are–and legal action is considerable.  None of these allegations by the DNI are mentioned in her ‘extradition’ to the U.S.’

THE SILENCE ENDS

Until yesterday, the last reported sighting of Siddiqui was in March 2003, at her mother’s home in Karachi.  Media coverage of Siddiqui seems to have peaked around the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when there was speculation about a potential al-Qaeda attack against the moot — which never happened.

Siddiqui’s name stayed out of the headlines till early July 2008, when British journalist Yvonne Ridley claimed she was told that a female prisoner has been held at Bagram Air Base in Kabul for years and, after sexual abuse and confinement, has deteriorated physically and mentally.  Ridley’s speculation that it could be Siddiqui stirred up the issue in the Pakistani media.

In mid July, senior Pakistani journalist Nusrat Javed told his television program co-host and audience that U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson informed him at a dinner party that she looked into the matter and Siddiqui is not in U.S. custody.  Javed naively said the whole issue was a non-story.

The book on Siddiqui would reopen this Sunday, when the Boston Globe reported that she was alive and in U.S. custody.  Elaine Sharp, a lawyer for Siddiqui’s family in Houston was contacted by the FBI and said, “She is injured but alive, and she is in Afghanistan.”  Sharp added that Siddiqui’s brother was visited by an FBI agent and his request to learn of the fate of his sister’s three children was denied.  Siddiqui’s three children are U.S.-born citizens, one of the many factors that complicate this case.

THE SIDDIQUI ARREST STORY: 24 MEETS THE TERMINATOR

Yesterday, the DOJ formally announced the arrest of Aafia Siddiqui — almost a month after reports emerged of her detention in Bagram.  Virtually all facts claimed by the DOJ are puzzling.

It states that Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan National Police (ANP) on July 17 in Afghanistan’s Ghazni province.  Siddiqui is alleged to have been arrested a week and a half after the initial reports of her detention.  Curious, no?

Siddiqui is said to have been arrested while allegedly loitering around the Ghazni governor’s compound.  She speaks none of Afghanistan’s languages and could not interact with the police.  So why was she, conceivably a technical expert, on the ‘field’, especially without experience and a capacity to mix in and be independent?  How did she make her way around?  Strange, no?  Plus, she was allegedly picked up by the ANP — widely notorious for its corruption and incompetence.  That it could do something right is difficult to imagine.

The ANP officers are reported to have been suspicious of Siddiqui.  She is claimed to have in her handbag:

• “numerous documents describing the creation of explosives, chemical weapons, and other weapons involving biological material and radiological agents;”
• “descriptions of various landmarks in the United States, including in New York City;”
• “documents detailing United States military assets;”
• “excerpts from the Anarchist’s Arsenal;”
• “a one gigabyte (1 gb) digital media storage device (thumb drive);”
• and “numerous chemical substances in gel and liquid form that were sealed in bottles and glass jars.”

Wow.  That’s a bag full of smoking guns.  All that in a “handbag” while canvassing the Ghazni province governor’s compound?  Half of the alleged materiel has no relevance to that site.

So an MIT-educated neuroscientist had to rely on the Anarchist’s Arsenal?  Is that a ‘bootleg’ version of the ‘Anarchist’s Cookbook’?  Did she have any Rage Against the Machine tracks on her flash drive?

Adding to the incredulity is the story of how Siddiqui allegedly got into U.S. hands.  According to the narrative (mostly my paraphrasing):

Siddiqui is detained by the ANP overnight.  The next day (July 18th), a group of U.S. personnel (two FBI agent and several army officers) coincidentally arrived at Siddiqui’s detention facility.  They were “unaware that Siddiqui was being held there, unsecured, behind a curtain.”  One army officer sits down and by chance places his M-4 rifle on the floor near the curtain.  Another officer hears a woman yell.  When he turns, he sees Siddiqui holding the other officer’s rifle, pointing it at him.  Siddiqui said, “May the blood of [unintelligible] be directly on your [unintelligible, possibly head or hands].” I am not sure if this is a direct quote or paraphrasing from the epic film, True Lies.  Siddiqui fires two shots, but the rifle is pushed away by an army interpreter.  She was then shot in the torso at least once by an army officer.  Still, she continued to struggle with the officers as they were attempting to subdue her.  Siddiqui “struck and kicked them while shouting in English that she wanted to kill Americans.”  Then she temporarily lost consciousness and medical aid was rendered to her.

Sounds like Terminator meets 24.

CONCLUSION

The above strongly indicates there is far much more to Siddiqui’s story than the initial New York Times article, which all too often are overwhelmed by official press releases.  The narrative presented in court documents is wildly cartoonish.  If it is true, then I would say Siddiqui might be mentally ill.  Her alleged behavior is erratic, non-methodical, and unscientific.  It counters the DNI profile of her being the ‘patient sleeper.’  Its veracity, not only in the court but also in the realm of public opinion, is clearly contestable.  It defies a nominal personality profile available from personal acquaintances of Siddiqui.

Moreover, it serves to counter a context/competing narrative that is troubling for the prosecuting authority.  In other words, if Siddiqui was arrested years ago on grounds that not only lack a legal/practical basis, but also serve to damage the reputation (and even security) of involved governments, then this ’story’ provides the seemingly absent basis to try, incarcerate, and shut up Siddiqui.  The Ridley-suggested narrative — that the the U.S. unlawfully detained (and even abused) a U.S.-educated Pakistani Muslim mother and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) assisted in whatever shape or form — would be immensely damaging to both countries.

Before us, it seems, are two competing narratives.  But I would not rule out other alternatives.  The actual details, of Siddiqui’s arrest — whether it occurred five years ago or two weeks ago — is unclear.  The initial claims made against her years ago are cause for concern.  But it is puzzling as to why, if they were true, there was no legal followup.  Even now, those claims go unmentioned in the present legal action against her.  Siddiqui is not being treated as an enemy combatant; rather, she’s being prosecuted in conventional U.S. courts, albeit in a more closed anti-terrorism context.

And so Siddiqui’s arrest provides not answers, but more questions.

There are so many.

Where are her children?  They’re U.S. citizens.

If she was in Bagram, were the children also there?

Is it true that Siddiqui’s estranged/ex-husband, who seems to have been a person of interest, is now freely practicing medicine in Karachi?  Why?

How could Siddiqui operate in Afghanistan without knowing the local languages — especially in a city that is 70% Tajik and Hazara?

The role of U.S.-Pakistan relations, particularly in terms of intelligence, is likely critical.  Is the ‘arrest’ of Siddiqui a product of cooperation or competition between U.S. and Pakistani intelligence agencies, or none of the above?  Is either, or both, being provided with some sort of deniability in this case?

And who exactly were Yvonne Ridley’s sources?  Was the Siddiqui story leaked to her by intelligence officials from Pakistan, the United States, or another country?  Or did she simply find out from former detainees?

Alternatively, was this a ’sting’ operation designed to reel her in and provide a context to arrest her (after being arrested or in hiding)?

Who knows?  But all one can say at this point is that the article you’ve read in today’s paper likely offers very little toward the truth.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.