Dr. afia’s has been convicted. I have been reading through arguments of both sides on the judgment. The list of arguments that I found interesting are grouped here.
Inconsistencies and lack of forensic evidence wikipedia
The statements Aafia allegedly made in the Afghan police station in Ghazni,[35] was also mentioned by Dabbs, but the defense highlighted the absence of any forensic evidence. No bullets, shell casings or bullet debris were recovered. Neither were any bullet holes detected at the crime scene. During the cross-examination, the defense attorneys, Charles Swift and Linda Moreno, cited the contradiction in the versions of the alleged Ghazni incident given by the three witnesses. The witness testimonies ranged the number of people present at the police outpost to the distance of the barrel of the gun from the curtain. Another issue raised was the sloppy handling of evidence and the weapon.[36]
The trial continued with testimonies of FBI agent John Jefferson and Ahmed Gul, an army interpreter, who recounted their alleged struggle with her in Ghazni. Following Tuesday’s outbursts, Judge Berman warned Aafia that no more outbursts would be tolerated, which she accepted; “I’m just going to be quiet, but it doesn’t mean I agree.“[37]
The trial took an unusual turn when an FBI official asserted that the fingerprints taken from the rifle, which was purportedly used by Aafia to shoot at the U.S. interrogators, did not match hers. Further the testimony of witness Masood Haider Gul appeared to differ from that given by U.S. Capt. Schnieder earlier. The defense denied all charges saying; “The soldiers had given different versions of where she was when the M-4 was allegedly fired and how many shots were fired.“[38]
The path to Justice link
The basic stance was that in this case, a victim had been turned into the accused. That is an old tactic of patriarchy. In this case, there was not one allegations but four, and justice required that they should be addressed in the order in which they had appeared:
1. First allegation was brought against Aafia, long, long, long ago by US authorities that she had links with Al-Qaeda. This was dropped by the US authorities. So let it go (though they can be taken into account for raising false flags)
2. Second allegation was by international human rights group, prior to July 17, 2008, that Aafia was being held in secret prison, was unlawfully abducted and sexually tortured, and that he children had been abducted. This needed to be addressed before moving on. This allegation was AGAINST the US and allied authorities, and the most serious of all because two of those children are still missing, and could be dead.
3. Third allegation was by US authorities that on July 17, 2008, Aafia was found to be in possession of some objectionable and dangerous material. This was, again, not brought up, so it can be dropped. But it was a counter-allegation by the “accused”, which in this case was US authorities (and Afghan and Pakistani authorities too – i do not want to sound as if I am ignoring their alleged role in this matter, but since US authorities ended up having custody of the victim, the focus naturally shifts to them)
4. The fourth allegation was by US authorities that she fired at some US soldiers, etc. while she was being interrogated, after her alleged arrest in the event of #3. This is the only allegation on which Aafia has been tried. See, where it comes in the order?
Few confusions link
There are a number of baffling questions that need to be answered. Why did the lady take the witness stand, acting against the advice of her lawyer? Why did she insist that all Jews in the jury should be removed? After all, not all Jews are anti-Muslim, there are some Jewish organizations and individuals who have even helped Palestinians and Bosnian Muslims. Why did she antagonize the jury and the judge by her violent outbursts? How is it that after her divorce, she married an Arab linked to Al-Qaeda? Why did she refuse the Pakistan government’s offer to provide her with the best lawyers that money could buy?
But its understandable looking at the context…
And a final conclusive remarks link
“With U.S. officials failing to produce evidence implicating Dr. Aafia in a shooting incident in Afghanistan, it is now certain that the whole case was basically intended to cast her in the role of the villain. This is how the U.S. can demonise Muslim men and women. Forensic tests have confirmed that the gun allegedly used by her did not carry her fingerprints. Besides, there is the report by a ballistic expert, which also goes in her favour. Now, it doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to see that the charges from day one were totally trumped up since it is totally inconceivable and impossible for a frail woman to carry out such a daredevil stunt of snatching a heavy M-4 rifle single-handedly from a bunch of U.S. commandoes, overpowering them by sheer physical strength, and take aim at them. Nothing could be more ridiculous.
During her trial she also revealed that while in custody she has been brutally tortured and coerced into confessing herself as a terrorist. The U.S. army thugs who abducted the innocent doctor on these false charges must now be brought to book. General Musharraf for his complicity in giving the Americans a virtual carte blanche to commit such atrocities to Pakistanis in broad daylight should also be held accountable. All this provides a peep into the world of our ally Uncle Sam who takes great pride and joy in setting up facilities like Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Abu Gharaib Jail, Camp X-Ray, Bagram Air Base facility, where countless Muslim men and women have been tortured and abused. Likewise, the appalling treatment meted out to the Muslim Diaspora in the US made more intense by draconian measures seriously compromising civil liberties including airport screening procedures and tough immigration laws, shows the degree of Islamophobia prevailing there.
Under the circumstances, it is mandatory for Islamabad to make it clear to the US that it won’t tolerate humiliation of Pakistanis anymore. It would be unfortunate if the state dithers at a time when its citizens are in a dire need of help and protection. As an opening gambit, it should use its muscle and clout in securing Dr. Aafia’s freedom.”
Recent Comments