I remember Ms. Siddiqui from when she gave a talk on ‘Women in Islam’ at the university. She was a petite, polite young lady, well-spoken and obviously very devout. The idea of her having ‘contacts’ with people involved in terrorism doesn’t seem completely outlandish as she was an active member of Muslim Associations in the Boston Area, but the idea of her grabbing guns, shooting people, running diamond smuggling rings and whatnot are utterly unbelievable. It seems to me like someone has been cooking up evidence and charges because after having held her and tortured her for so many years it would be embarrassing for them to admit that they have no substantial evidence linking her to any crime.

Sad.

You are dangerously stupid.

Arif:

What makes you so sure that just because a women is 5’4″ and 110lbs she can’t jump from behind a curtain and attack military officers? Haven’t you seen Kill Bill?

I have read many stories about here, which seems true. American bastard tortured him badly and kept her in the jail with mens. Serious violation of human rights.

It’s also shame for Pakistanis, who were directly or indirectly involved to sold their one sisters.

——

Evy: You’re, very welcome. You’re right about the Brandeis thing. In the end, it was much ado about nothing. But it’s sad that some people lash out accusations with such violence and ease.

——

Madprof: I actually agree with your characterization of Yvonne Ridley. But I strongly disagree with your claim that my arguments are undermined because I did not go beyond referring to Ridley as a “British journalist.” Though you fail to explain why, my defense is below.

The reference to her as a “British journalist” was not a value statement, but a mere statement of basic fact. I could have gone into some detail, but it was non-essential.

Why? One, I wrote a blog post, not a dissertation. What’s next? Requiring footnotes and conforming to the Chicago Manual of Style?

Two–and this is more important–journalists are only good as their reporting. I treated her claims as exactly that — claims. As a result, specifying about her was not necessary.

Her claims are important, but I have no capacity to evaluate their veracity. But, as I have written, their significance stems from the fact that they mark the beginning of this immediate timetable in the Siddiqui story (i.e. early July – present).

Specifically, they raise the question of cause and effect — a question that should be asked. Put together with other **independent** facts provided, the context is highly suggestive, but not conclusive.

Our task, as you seem to agree, is to ask questions. That is the role of a responsible public in a free society. And that’s what I’ve attempted to do.

There is a threshold of reasonable doubt that must be reached in the courtroom. But we all know that there is also the court of public opinion which bleeds into the former.

The tragedy of the past seven years is that cases are closed with the first New York Times article and constrained by official secrecy. Guilt is presumed. Later, we find what we were told were facts are claims, hypotheses, or assumptions. And sometimes after that ‘facts’ are fully-downgraded to ‘non-fact’.

The lesson? Question everyone and everything.