PESHAWAR: The display of anti-Taliban banners by unknown persons in various areas of Kabal was the topic of discussion in Swat on Monday and majority of people hailed the move as a sign of an end to the Taliban era.
Kabal residents said on Sunday that they saw anti-Taliban banners calling leader of the Swat militants Maulana Fazlullah a "shameless" person. "Where is the shameless Fazlullah?" was the slogan inscribed on one of the banners. One can infer from the writing on the banner that those having displayed the banners were criticising the Taliban leader for going underground.
Other slogans included, "Taliban's friend is the nation's foe," and "The Taliban movement is virtually the movement of oppressors."
"I have reached Afghanistan safely," Maulana Fazlullah told BBC Urdu.
"We are soon going to launch full-fledged punitive raids against the army in Swat."
....
He issued a warning to the North West Frontier Province's information minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain.
"The authorities should beware, especially Mian Iftikhar Hussain, whose fate will be like that of Najibullah," he warned, referring to Dr Najibullah who was Afghan president before the Taliban hanged him in 1996 when they took Kabul.
Najibullah* was tortured, castrated and executed without trial by the Afghan Taliban in 1996, after which his body was dragged through the streets and hung from a lamp post.
* Juan Cole today linked an article by a UN official who spent some time visiting with Najibullah just before the Taliban killed him. The official asked Najibullah if he regretted the blood on his hands from his time serving as head of the Afghan secret police under the communists.
"Dear Alan, do not be naïve about what you are facing. They will bring a destruction you cannot imagine."
His message to me, at our New Year meeting in 1995, was one of no regrets for whatever he had done to stand against the Islamists. He was absolutely clear about that; he would do it again.
But something bothered us yesterday: did Bumiller and her editors consider the possibility that a six-year stay Gitmo could actually create terrorists? That an innocent Afghan man embittered after being scooped up by the United States and unjustly imprisoned for years might actually become a terrorist?
....
Bumiller and her editors seem to have realized the possibility that they might have gotten spun -- though too late to change the front-page story in the print edition.
The paper has changed the lead and headline of the Web version of the story to reflect the uncertainty. The new headline reads: "Later Terror Link Cited for 1 in 7 Freed Detainees." And the lead: "An unreleased Pentagon report concludes that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are engaged in terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials."
Compare that to the original version: "An unreleased Pentagon report provides new details concluding that about one in seven of the 534 prisoners already transferred abroad from the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has returned to terrorism or militant activity, according to administration officials."
Conservatives frequently look to 24 as a justification for hawkish policies such as torture.
Actor Kiefer Sutherland plays Jack Bauer on the Fox series "24."
From Media Matters: Fox & Friends' Brian Kilmeade falsely suggested that only "people at the U.N." want to close Guantánamo, while co-hosts Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson, as well as Glenn Beck, used TV drama 24 as a justification for the use of torture. In fact, Sen. John McCain, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and five former secretaries of state are among those who have said that Guantánamo should be closed.
Beck and the Fox & Friends hosts also invoked 24 as a justification for the use of torture. Referring to the show's recent season premiere, in which protagonist Jack Bauer, a former member of the fictional "Counter Terrorist Unit," defends his use of torture during a hearing before Congress, Beck said: "[I]t's going to take somebody who sits in front of Congress who is not afraid of them anymore and does what Jack Bauer did. And that is, 'Yes, I did torture, and I'm proud of it.' And it's time for these things to come out of the closet." Introducing an excerpt from 24, in which Bauer is seen answering questions from a congressional committee about torture, Kilmeade stated: "Let's listen to what happened in the fictional series 24 and see if this helps build your argument."
After the clip, co-host Steve Doocy said: "In particular, in that clip, you know, the guy [fictional Sen. Blaine Mayer] goes, 'You tortured them.' And he [Bauer] goes, 'Well, it probably was torture under your definition. But ask the people whose lives I saved whether or not it was worth me going over the edge' -- they would probably -- you ask the average person, 'Is it OK to do something, rough somebody up, to save lives?' You ask the person on the street, they'd say, 'Yeah, why not?' "
During the segment, on-screen text read: "What Americans Need to Hear; Beck Applauds Jack Bauer's Honesty."
Media Matters for America has noted that conservatives -- including Beck -- frequently look to 24 as a justification for hawkish policies such as torture.
Jimmy Carter writes: Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With a new administration and a new vision coming to the White House, we have the opportunity to move boldly to restore the moral authority behind the worldwide human rights movement. But the first steps must be taken at home.
President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and end torture, which can be accomplished by executive orders to close the prison and by enforcing existing prohibitions against torture by any U.S. representative, including FBI and CIA agents. The detention of people secretly or indefinitely and without due process must cease, and their cases should be transferred to our courts, which have proved their competence in trying those accused of terrorism. Further, a nonpartisan expert commission should be named to conduct a thorough review of U.S. practices related to unwarranted arrest, torture, secret detention, extraordinary rendition, abandonment of habeas corpus and related matters. Acknowledging to the world that the United States also has made mistakes will give credence to our becoming "a more perfect union" -- a message that would resonate worldwide. Together, these actions will help us restore our nation's principles and embolden others abroad who want higher moral standards for their own societies.
Dr. Gajanan Chawan, who saw the bodies, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday he did not believe the wounds he observed suggested the hostages had been tortured prior to their deaths.
A hospital doctor at Mumbai's JJ Hospital, which received the bodies of six Jewish and Israeli hostages from the Chabad House terrorist siege, has cast doubt on a report claiming that signs of torture were apparent on the bodies of the victims.
Dr. Gajanan Chawan, who saw the bodies, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday he did not believe the wounds he observed suggested the hostages had been tortured prior to their deaths.
Asked if he saw any evidence of torture on the bodies, Chawan replied, "No, I don't think so." He added that the majority of the wounds he could identify had been caused by firearms.
On Monday, a morgue employee at the JJ hospital who had also seen the bodies told the Post by telephone that the bodies of the Jewish victims had a higher number of gunshot wounds than the bodies of other victims.
"On the Jewish bodies, there were more injuries in numbers, they were firearms injuries," the morgue official said.
President Bush could pardon officials involved in brutal interrogations -- but he may also face a sweeping investigation under the new president.
Nov. 13, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration's brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush.
The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.
The proposed commission -- similar in thrust to a Democratic investigation proposal first uncovered by Salon in July -- would examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House -- widely rejected by experienced interrogators -- that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool.
Above, BBC report on Aafia Siddiqui that includes scenes from the press conference with members of her family in Pakistan that is referenced below. I'm glad the BBC had the temerity to show both sides of the issue, but I'm appalled at the dramatically propagandistic "swooping camera" effect over the black and white photo of Siddiqui.
From MidEast Youth blog: More than 5 years ago, Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neurologist and mother of three was accused without evidence by the U.S government to have links with Al Qaeda (don't we all?)
Since 9/11 her life and the lives of many innocent Arabs, Muslims, Afghans and Pakistanis within the USA changed for the worse, when the USA began shamelessly discriminating, arresting, and even torturing innocent civilians under the false premise of "national security." Innocent people were undergoing severe torture simply for being "suspects" of terrorism.
According to a BBC article from earlier this month:
Research at the time refused to turn up anything on the status of Aafia Siddiqui - she was not listed as wanted by any federal or Pakistani agency.
At that point, it seemed she had vanished off the face of the earth.
Siddiqui comes from a very well established and educated family, and from what I have been reading, she is seemingly open minded. She even wanted her children to be raised and educated in the USA, which led to disputes with her husband, also a Pakistani who was arrested and questioned by the FBI for buying goggles and some military manuals. Here is her familial background:
Her brother is an architect based in Houston, while Fauzia [her sister] is a neurologist who used to work at Mount Sinai hospital in New York.
Aafia Siddiqui went to school in Karachi and graduated with a biology degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US.
Keep in mind that the claims below are nothing but that; baseless claims, and has yet to be evidenced by something other than FBI gossip. Comments within brackets are my own:
In 2004 then-FBI director Robert Mueller announced at a press conference that Aafia Siddiqui was wanted for questioning.
She was later named as part of an alleged al-Qaeda diamond smuggling operation in Liberia. [Because an established neurologist with an MIT degree and three children has enough free time on her hands to organize terrorist movements in Liberia.] Publications such as Newsweek quoted the FBI as saying this was to finance al-Qaeda's biological and chemical weapons programme.
After that, her name remained on the list of disappeared - until she surfaced last month in Afghanistan in US military custody.
[...]
"It is always believed one is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way round," her sister, Fauzia, told reporters in Karachi on Tuesday.
She added that every time she had met US officials, they had said they had never formally accused Aafia Siddiqui of being a terrorist [but arrested and tortured her anyways!]
The article concludes with what is pretty much her only crime:
The answer may lie in her relationship with the family of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Aafia Siddiqui is said to have married Ali Abd'al Aziz Ali, one of his nephews following her divorce. Although her family denies this, the BBC has been able to confirm it from security sources and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family.
It is an open secret in Karachi, that any member of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family deemed to be "a 1% threat to US security" is in American custody.
That may be the only "crime" that Aafia Siddiqui has committed.
No evidence of anything else but a romantic link. No record of terrorism or abuse. No proof of her "terrorist activities" whatsoever. She is from an educated family, she has never harmed the USA, she has never committed a crime, and her only supposed link to "terrorism" is her marriage to a "nephew" of whom the USA considers to be a terrorist.
From cageprisoner.com: "July 18th 2008. Ghazni, Afghanistan . This video, obtained by Cageprisoners shows the media conference following the 'arrest' of a woman and a teenager identified by Afghan police as Saliha and Ali Ihsan. The US allege that this is Aafia Siddiqui and her 12 year old son, Ahmad.
"Aafia Siddiqui was extradited to the US on 4th August 2008 on charges of attempted murder and assault. She denies the charges and claims to have been held in US custody since her disappearance in March 2003. Her son Ahmad remains in Afghan custody. The whereabouts of her two other children, missing for 5 years remain unknown."
From MuslimMatters.org: Sr. Aafia's bail hearing has been postponed to September 3. Please make dua' that she be released, and please keep her and her three children in mind and your dua's as you read this story.
A new chapter in the long and painful saga of the "War on Terror" has been revealed to the public. The facts are murky, the details impossible to confirm.
While there are several possibilities, there is one that most will find almost impossible to believe. We are not ready to believe that Dr. Aafia is a star terrorist- a claim that is ironically being pushed by the US Government and not denied by Al-Qaeda. Why? The answer lies in each group's malicious agenda.
Below is the text of a response in the comments section of the above-linked article from Maryann Hassan that succinctly points out the problems with the case against Aafia Siddiqui.
Aafia disappeared in March 2003 - the FBI and Pakistani officials initially admitted she was in custody. A few weeks later they retracted this. There was no news of her whereabouts until August 2008. Her family were meanwhile threatened and told to keep quiet and not pursue the case - why do this if the intelligence agencies had nothing to hide; if Aafia was, as they now claim, lying low and hiding in Pakistan for five years?
In that time period we have reports from several detainees held in Bagram of a woman prisoner held there between 2002-2005. We have been told she is Pakistani, appearing to be in her 40's, that she was abused. The screams of this woman were heard by other prisoners. Her prisoner no. was 650. The Red Cross privately confirmed to Moazzam Begg, ex Gtmo detainee, that a woman had been held in Bagram in 2003 and they had met her. The US denied that there was any prisoner 650 or any woman in Bagram but in recent weeks they have backtracked and said there was a woman held there but she does not match the description of Aafia Siddiqui.
Does it really sound plausible that after there is international uproar following the press conference with Yvonne Ridley and Saghir Hussain in Pakistan, when the Pakistani courts file a habeas petition, ordering that Aafia be brought before the court, that suddenly, after five years when the pressure mounts, she conveniently turns up in Afghanistan, outside the house of the Governor of Ghazni, with dangerous chemical substances in her purse, anarchist manuals on explosives, plots about attacking landmarks in New York? That some woman rang the Afghan police and said that there is this woman about to perform a suicide bombing outside the governor's house? If this is a woman the FBI have been lookign for, for five years, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to be in such a place (and to bring your son along too)?
Does it sound plausible that they would present a detainee in Afghan custody to the media in a press conference the day they are arrested (unprecedented)?
Does it sound plausible that within days they would extradiate a foreign national from Afghan custody to the US and charge them in a civilian court (unprecedented)?
Is it not strange that in the media we had reports that the Afghan did not wnat to give her to the US and an argument ensued; in some cases they said this was the cause of her being shot (caught in the crossfire). That later the governor of Ghazni backtracked and said there was no argument?
Is it credible that the US and Afghans would keep a woman with all these explosives and bomb plots on her "unsecured" - not shackled, not handcuffed, not treated like all t he other detainees in US and Afghan custody? That she would be conveniently hiding behind a curtain when FBI officials came into the room - not knowing she was there?
Is it plausible they'd put the weapon down right next to the curtain and she'd be able to pick it up and shoot at them?
Aafia is 35-40kg, extremely frail - is it feasible she'd be able to shoot and struggle with six male US soldiers as they claim?
They say Aafia is so devout and yet they claim she shouted at the US soldiers "get the f*** out of here"?
We then on the other hand have the word of our sister Aafia that she has been held in custody "for years" by the US; that she has been held in Bagram; that she has been, in the words of her lawyer after meeting with her, "horrendously abused... physically and psychologically". We have the court appointed lawyer saying she has all the signs of PTSD. We have her shaking her head in court, denying the allegations against her. We know she is very disturbed and distraught, not knowing the welfare and whereabouts of her children.
And if Aafia had been in hiding for years, and had not been in US custody, then where are her children?
Can anyone really give credence to the US' version of events?
From AltMuslim: It may be all quiet on the Western front, but apparently it's not that relevant. Recently, two ghost detainees, who disappeared in Pakistan in March 2003, conveniently reappeared last month in Afghanistan where they were promptly arrested by American officials.
The first detainee, Aafia Siddiqui, is a 36-year-old Pakistani national and MIT PhD graduate, now being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. The second is her 12-year-old American son - her eldest child - still being held in Afghanistan. Her two younger children (also American citizens) also disappeared with her in 2003, but their whereabouts are still unknown. The youngest was only 6-months at the time.
Elaine Sharp, Aafia's lawyer, interviewed her last week and says it is certain that she was held in Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan. They had to talk through the food slot at the bottom of Aafia's cell door for the entire 3 hour session.
"The whole situation made it impossible for me to meet properly with my client," says Sharp. "The abuse was horrendous. It was physical, as well as psychological. It was torture." In early 2003, the FBI announced it wanted to take Aafia Siddiqui in "for questioning," though they admitted they had "no information indicating this individual is connected to specific terrorist activities."
A few weeks later, Aafia and her three children were picked up by Pakistani police and were not seen or heard from again for the next five years. The FBI, however, continued to list her as "wanted," denying that she was held by Pakistan - or any other country. In May 2004, then-Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller accused Aafia of being an al-Qaeda member, claiming she was still at large.
Their evidence: While in America, Aafia opened a PO box. Also, her bank account displayed suspicious behavior. That is to say, she made automatic withdrawals to a few Muslim charities. However, more puzzling than her disappearance is Aafia's reemergence. Why would the US concoct a scenario that would bring Aafia out of total oblivion and back into the public eye? To give her a chance at justice?
On the one hand, human rights groups have been pressuring the US to bring an end to the captivity of the "Grey Lady of Bagram," Prisoner 650, the woman whose screams and agony have haunted the hearts of released Bagram prisoners (until now, the US denies holding any women at the airbase). Perhaps Aafia is the Grey Lady, finally given face and name.
