Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Saudi Arabia: 'ID cards revolution' inflames YouTube against regime
06 April 2014
Source: Middle East Monitor
Exclusive report and translation
Under the emblem of "the ID cards revolution" the Saudi youth protest
movement has shifted from twitter to YouTube. A group of Saudi young
men have begun recording individual video clips separately to convey
messages to the king complaining living hardships, criticising the
performance of the authority and denouncing corruption.
This started nearly a week ago, more specifically on the 30th of March, when a young man called Abd Al-Aziz Muhammad Al-Dusari published a video clip on YouTube under the title "a message to the king" in which he complained from his living condition due to the low salary he receives, which does not exceed 1900 riyals (500 dollars) and which, according to him, does not suffice his essential living needs. He criticised the preoccupation of the authority with fighting "bombings" and not paying attention to the needs of its citizens. He demanded improving the living conditions of Saudis from oil revenues that are, in his own words, enjoyed solely by the royal family. The he pulled his ID card in front of the camera announcing his full name to the public in what seemed an act of defiance to the authority and its expected repressive response.
This is the translation of what he says in his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. I am a Saudi citizen. I only receive 1900 riyals. I ask you in the name of God, O Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, is this amount sufficient for the dowry or for the car or for the house? We have had enough. And you (do nothing but) blame those who carry out bombings and you blame this and that. Give us (what is duly ours) of the petroleum, which you keep to yourself and your children to enjoy. Here, this is my name, Abdul Aziz Muhammad Fahd Al-Dusari. Give us what is duly ours."
The Saudi Authorities moved immediately arresting Al-Dusary and charging him with incitement, sedition and rebelling against the ruler. This case has stirred up a wave of criticisms within the ranks of Saudi youth. Some young men have followed Al-Dusari's example and recorded their own videos in which they express their solidarity with him and criticise corruption within the ranks of the ruling regime in the Kingdom.
The second message was posted by Abdullah Al-Ghamdi who expressed solidarity with Al-Dusari's demands and called on young men to express solidarity with him by means of recording similar video clips. Al-Ghamdi criticised corruption inside the kingdom as a result of which few people enjoy wealth and prosperity while the rest of the people are starving, as he put it.
The following is the translation of his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. Good evening to you all. Today, I watched a video clip for a Saudi young man called Abdul Aziz Muhammad Al-Dusari complaining from low salaries and their insufficiency addressing the king in his statement. By virtue of my own judgement and knowledge of the situation I support what the young man said in his statement and message to the king. I call on everyone to participate using the same method so that (our) voice may reach the Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines and so that he may learn about the situation we are in of low income and the spread of corruption and oppression. It is neither acceptable nor sensible that only a small group of people, whether those governing or others that are corrupt, are enjoying state wealth while the rest of the population is starving and suffering because of poverty and oppression. Therefore, I support what the young man said and hereby I show you my ID card with my full details. I am Abdullah Mabruk bin Othman from Disha. I wish that everyone takes part (in this effort) using the same method. May God's peace and prayers be upon Muhammad."
The third message came from Saud Al-Harbi who started with an expression of solidarity with his comrades. He warned that this dynamic may soon spread to the street and criticised the Authority that is having dialogue with everyone including the Jews and the Americans but it has never occurred to it to have a dialogue with its own people.
Here is the translation of his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. May God's peace and prayers be upon His Messenger. I would like to talk about the video clip of brother Abdullah Al-Ghamdi and the video clip of brother Abdul Aziz Al-Dusari. They demanded the improvement of citizens' living conditions. These of course are our demands, the demands of the entire people. We lost our voices talking in vain about them. Our demands are easy to find. You do not need to open a twitter account or something of the sort to know them. You will find them in the rubbish bins of Al-Tuwaijri. Do not force the people to resort to a peaceful protest dynamic. Do not force the people to take to the streets. Simply put, the number of black (word indistinct) cars is a lot fewer than the number of free men. It would be easy for us to (take to the streets) to demand our rights, peacefully of course. So, I beg you, I beg you, listen to our voice. Please listen to our voice. You have a national dialogue centre. You have had dialogue with the Jewish and the Christian and tomorrow you will be having dialogue with Obama. So, I beg you. Listen to our voice, listen to your voice, meet our demands. We need housing. We need to live a decent life. And here is our ID card: Saud Mardi Abdullah Al-Harbi."
The Saudi authorities arrested all three men one after the other and charged them with incitement, sedition and rebelling against the ruler. Consequently, there has been more discussion among the youth about this. Some of them pursued the same methodology of recording video clips in solidarity with the detained young men.
The next message came from Abul Rahman Al-Asiri who criticised the authorities for arresting the three young men who preceded him simply for demanding their rights.
The following is the translation of his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. I am citizen Abdul Rahman Ali Ahmad Ghraib Al-Asiri from Tuhama of Asir. I have watched a video clip for some repeatable and kind young men from our country, namely Al-Dusari, Al-Ghamdi and Al-Harbi. They were demanding their rights, their most basic rights. They were imprisoned the following day. The problem is with you Al Saud. You deliberately seek to humiliate and impoverish the people. The poor fellow Al-Dusari says "my salary is 1900", by Allah this is not sufficient to pay for dinner for one of your children. The following day we saw one of the princes, one of your children, who bought a gold plated car. The problem is with you Al Saud. You have stolen everything. You have stolen our name and our country and you have annexed us to you. By what right have you done that? You have even stolen Islam. It has become Saudi Islam, the one that belongs to Al-Fawzan, to Al Al-Sheikh and to you. You have even distorted it. You have stolen Messenger who has become Saudi. As for petroleum, instead of distributing it and giving to the people, you have (pursued a policy of) empoverishing and humiliating the people. And if you ever distribute petroleum you distribute it to the enemies of the Ummah, the Sisi and the Christians of Lebanon who look down upon the Arabs and see them as nothing but trash. The problem is with you. You have stolen everything. This is unlawful, this is unjust. This is unjust. I am a medical doctor. I trained in (National) Guards and military hospitals and in hospitals belonging to the Ministry of Health. Once we had to place three patients in one bed. Where is this Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz? You seem to see nothing! I am demanding the rights. The first right I demand is (to ask) why have you imprisoned them? All they did was to demand their rights. Why have you imprisoned them? It is from the man who bought a gold plated care that we seek to demand our right. While I am recording this clip you are busy giving an oath of allegiance to Migrin. This is a selling / buying process as if the people are nothing but a piece of furniture. You sell and buy when you tell people come and pay allegiance. No, this will not do. This is unlawful. And when we speak you imprison us. You imprison us or you tell us to leave the country. This is not your country alone. No. The people demand their rights. We want freedom. I warn you. We want what is right for our country. Yemen, Tunisia and the others are in the second republic (phase). Saudi Arabia will enter the first republic (phase) if you do not move and apply reason. And for the benefit of the secret police, because I know their tactics, here is (my ID card). Abdul Rahman Ali Ahmad Ghraib Al-Asiri. Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God."
The fifth message was recorded by Mu'adh bin Sulaiman Al-Juhani. He criticised the authority for imprisoning the youth who are only demanding their rights. He himself demands that the state distribute wealth to the people, build housing estates, employ the unemployed, and increase the salaries or else repercussions would rather grave, as he put it.
The following is the translation of his clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. I direct this message to Al Saud. When the despotic king [reddens his cheeks] we flock to him with swords. You have stolen the people's wealth and when the people demand their rights you imprison them. What religion is this and what humanity? We demand the government to distribute the wealth fairly among the people and to stop stealing it you and your children. We demand the building of housing estates, employing the unemployed and increasing the salaries of employees. Otherwise the repercussions will be rather grave. And this is my ID card. I am Mu'adh Muhammad Sulaiman Al-Juhani from the Blessed Hijaz. May God's peace and prayers be upon Muhammad."
Video clip on YouTube by Al-Shammari
"Peace be upon you. I have three messages. The first message is directed to the people. Naturally, we all wish for reform except, of course, for the House of Saud. We as people wish for reform and wish to see things change (for the better). But, to be fair, whoever sees things will discover that it would impossible for reform to take place under the banner of the House of Saud. It is impossible, just impossible, by the Almighty God. These people are hostile to Islam, they are traitors, they are lackeys. They sold Iraq and they sold Palestine to Israel and they are hostile to all the Arab revolutions. The people are destitute. 25 per cent of the people are below the poverty line. All of this and (ours) is the richest country in the world. 70 per cent of the people cannot find housing. 60 % of the land is in the hands of the princes. And who ever utters a word demanding reform will be thrown in jail. Evidently, the young men who a few days ago demanded reform have been imprisoned. Why? What did they say to deserve imprisonment by you? As the proverb says: "evil and arrogant". You do not like to hear people demand reform! You just want them to pay lip service to you? Praise and thanks be to God. By God, even the Pharaoh was not like that. So, my message to the people is: rebel. Rebel because reform will not occur unless the House of Saud is no more.
My second message is directed at the Ulema. If you consider rebellion against the ruler is unlawful, this does not justify your defence of them and paying lip service to oppression and oppressors. By God, some Ulema, and some laymen too, justify oppression by the House of Saud in a manner that makes one suspect that they are none other than secret police. Why are you justifying this? What motivates you to defend them in this way? Some (much earlier) ulema used to prohibit rebellion against the rulers but they used at the same time to denounce them and even curse them. There is no contradiction (between the two acts). Regrettably, some ulema are not content with justifying (their oppression) but they also praise them. That is one thing. But if you consider rebellion against the oppressive ruler to be mandatory, then why are you silent? Why are you silent? I would like to know. You are (supposed to be) an example (to be followed by others). The House of Saud are oppressing (the people) and stealing (the wealth) while you are preoccupying the people with (trivial matters such as) growing the beard, shortening the gown and the technique of uttering praise post prayer. Ok, these are part of jurisprudence, we do not dispute. But, to what extent are we in need of this (type of) jurisprudence. Are these things more important than justice? Gold Almighty says: "We sent down our messengers with the book so that people establish justice and balance". He made justice an objective of sending messengers and books (to humanity) while you only care about growing the beard and shortening the gown. Yesterday, during the Friday sermon the imam spoke about the rewards allocated for those who fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You may say to me, so what, where is the problem (in this)? I shall tell you what is the problem. When oppression is so widespread and when corruption is so widespread and when all types of deviation are widespread while you are giving (the Friday) sermon about the reward (awaiting these who) fast on Mondays and Thursdays, there must be something wrong with you. This means you are completely detached from reality. So, my message to the ulema is that you should speak the truth. You should tell the oppressor "you are an oppressor". By God Almighty, the people will never respect you or appreciate you if you do not tell the House of Saud the truth to their faces.
My third and final message is directed at the House of Saud. Naturally, I am not (here) to demand or wish (anything) from you. Frankly and clearly, we have already lost all hope in you. Since the day you detained those young men who demanded reform, I feel you live in a world and we live in a different world altogether. However, I would like to say just one word. I would like to say that your end is drawing near, you lackeys. Your end is near. And this is my name: Muhammad Mut'ib Abdullah Al-Shammari."
Translation of a video clip by Al-Amri
"In the name of God most Gracious Most Merciful. May God's peace and prayers be upon Prophet Muhammad and all his companions. I would like to extend my thanks to the brothers who have demanded the rights of the citizens. My Allah reward them on our behalf. It is your legitimate right to demand you rights. So long you are on the (path of) truth, we are the supporters of Truth. The brothers have said enough regarding demands for the rights of the citizens.
The money that is sent abroad, to (support) coups and other things for the purpose of protecting your thrones, (you'd better) give to your people. Empower your own people instead. It is your people that will protect you. I ask you by God, (is it acceptable that) you have been so disrespectful of your people to the extent that a minister from Al Al-Sheikh comes out to say that we are protecting our asses? Shame on you by Allah. Not only is the citizen in dire need but is being humiliated by you. What a mess.
The detainees, the detainees, oh Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, (include) scholars and ulema. Whoever speaks the truth, you imprison him. By Allah this is a disaster. Sheikh Khalid Al-Rashid who is a defender of the Messenger of God, you have imprisoned him for 15 years? And then you say you implement the Law of God? No by God, this is not the Law of God. Never, never. The same thing happened to Sheikh Sulaiman Al-Ulwan. This by God is a strange thing. Fear god. There is this poor weak woman who is powerless and helpless, and you have imprisoned her. (Something about Muhammad bin Nayif - indistinct). I am present and my name is Jabir Salih Hamdan Al-Amri. This on the one side.
On the other side, whoever calls for the implementation of Shari'ah is accused of terrorism. If demanding the implementation of Shari'ah (amounts to being accused of) terrorism, (I'd say) welcome. If demanding our legitimate rights is (considered) stirring up sedition, then we seek God's help. Consider us fomenters of trouble. To (give my claim) more credibility that the people are suffering, I shall move elsewhere to video from it. Peace be upon you.
My second message is from the bedside of my father in the hospital. May God cure him and provide him with recovery. My father is the father of detainee Ali Salih Al-Amri who has been held inside Al-Ha'ir prison for the past 12 years. He was sentenced to three years but has not so far been released. There is no charge whatsoever apart from having god to (perform) jihad in 1410 (of Hijrah). Apart from that he has never been charged (of any crime). Frankly, we have not kept quiet for 12 years out of cowardice or fear. No, by God. We have appealed to the king, we have appealed to the Court of Grievances, we have appealed to the human rights (council), we have appealed to prince Nayif, we have appealed to Prince Muhammad bin Nayif, but to no avail. He was sentence for three years and now they are retrying him and fabricating new charges to justify keep him locked up for 12 year. For 12 years we have left no one but appealed to by letters and by faxes etc. You tell us your door is open? For 12 years, oh Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, I and my father have spared no effort. Of the open doors you talk about we have found none whatsoever. Muhammad bin Nayif has burnt the heart of this elderly man. May God burn his heart and provide us with victory in the life before the Hereafter.
I have only spoken and recorded this clip to clear my responsibility. I am not going to ask you once again whether you will release him or not. It is all in the hand of God. But I wanted to convey to you a picture that is already known to many people.
This is the father of detainee Ali Salih Hamdan Al-Amri whose nickname is Abd Al-Majid Al-Tabuki and I am his brother. May the peace and mercy of God be with you."
Link: /www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10748-saudi-arabia-id-cards-revolution-inflames-youtube-against-regime.
Comment: Subhan Allah...The regime of Arabia (Hijaz) is indeed tyrannical.. It is obviously a part of the global oligarchy/NWO/Illuminati. Leaders of many Muslim countries are tyrants who are agents of the NWO. All leaders within The Islamic Nation that are tyrannical will fall....I repeat any and all leaders within The Islamic Nation -that are tyrannical- will fall. Allah hates tyranny.
In sha' Allah... the period of tyranny is over and the period of the return of the Sunneh of Prophet Muhammad has begun... Allah knows best... tyrants within The Islamic Nation will fall. Only Allah knows when and how... Only after all the tyrants are gone will the Khilafah be re-established. Allah knows best.
Any Muslim who wants the Khilafah to be re-established must understand that the Khilafah is a blessing from Allah-not an obligation. This blessing will only come after the tyrants have gone. Allah knows best.
This is a statement to the NWO. Your agenda will not be accomplished. Allah is in command. He was always in command, and He will always be in command.
You who are of the Illuminati/NWO, you are not in command. Only what Allah permits will happen-nothing more! Your "God" Shaitan is a Jinn who is doomed to The Hell Fire. Any one who takes him as a lord or as a patron-and dies as such- will find themselves in The Hell Fire.This is a promise from Allah, through The Qur'an. Allah fulfills His promises.
The actual taped recordings of the individual brothers can be found in the original article.
Source: Middle East Monitor
Exclusive report and translation
Al-Dusari: My
salary is 1900 Riyals. The authority is preoccupied fighting the
bombings while enjoying alone the revenues of the petroleum. The maxim
"stave your dog it will obey you" is no longer valid.
Al-Ghamdi: I call upon the youth to participate by recording videos in the same way.
Al-Harbi: The
authority has established centres for having dialogue with the Jews and
the Americans but has not yet thought of having a dialogue with its
people.
Al-Asiri: Al
Saud, you have stolen every thing including even Islam and the
Messenger. I warn that the first Saudi republic is on its way.
Al-Juhani: If the state fails to meet the demands of the youth the repercussions will be grave indeed.
This started nearly a week ago, more specifically on the 30th of March, when a young man called Abd Al-Aziz Muhammad Al-Dusari published a video clip on YouTube under the title "a message to the king" in which he complained from his living condition due to the low salary he receives, which does not exceed 1900 riyals (500 dollars) and which, according to him, does not suffice his essential living needs. He criticised the preoccupation of the authority with fighting "bombings" and not paying attention to the needs of its citizens. He demanded improving the living conditions of Saudis from oil revenues that are, in his own words, enjoyed solely by the royal family. The he pulled his ID card in front of the camera announcing his full name to the public in what seemed an act of defiance to the authority and its expected repressive response.
This is the translation of what he says in his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. I am a Saudi citizen. I only receive 1900 riyals. I ask you in the name of God, O Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, is this amount sufficient for the dowry or for the car or for the house? We have had enough. And you (do nothing but) blame those who carry out bombings and you blame this and that. Give us (what is duly ours) of the petroleum, which you keep to yourself and your children to enjoy. Here, this is my name, Abdul Aziz Muhammad Fahd Al-Dusari. Give us what is duly ours."
The Saudi Authorities moved immediately arresting Al-Dusary and charging him with incitement, sedition and rebelling against the ruler. This case has stirred up a wave of criticisms within the ranks of Saudi youth. Some young men have followed Al-Dusari's example and recorded their own videos in which they express their solidarity with him and criticise corruption within the ranks of the ruling regime in the Kingdom.
The second message was posted by Abdullah Al-Ghamdi who expressed solidarity with Al-Dusari's demands and called on young men to express solidarity with him by means of recording similar video clips. Al-Ghamdi criticised corruption inside the kingdom as a result of which few people enjoy wealth and prosperity while the rest of the people are starving, as he put it.
The following is the translation of his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. Good evening to you all. Today, I watched a video clip for a Saudi young man called Abdul Aziz Muhammad Al-Dusari complaining from low salaries and their insufficiency addressing the king in his statement. By virtue of my own judgement and knowledge of the situation I support what the young man said in his statement and message to the king. I call on everyone to participate using the same method so that (our) voice may reach the Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines and so that he may learn about the situation we are in of low income and the spread of corruption and oppression. It is neither acceptable nor sensible that only a small group of people, whether those governing or others that are corrupt, are enjoying state wealth while the rest of the population is starving and suffering because of poverty and oppression. Therefore, I support what the young man said and hereby I show you my ID card with my full details. I am Abdullah Mabruk bin Othman from Disha. I wish that everyone takes part (in this effort) using the same method. May God's peace and prayers be upon Muhammad."
The third message came from Saud Al-Harbi who started with an expression of solidarity with his comrades. He warned that this dynamic may soon spread to the street and criticised the Authority that is having dialogue with everyone including the Jews and the Americans but it has never occurred to it to have a dialogue with its own people.
Here is the translation of his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. May God's peace and prayers be upon His Messenger. I would like to talk about the video clip of brother Abdullah Al-Ghamdi and the video clip of brother Abdul Aziz Al-Dusari. They demanded the improvement of citizens' living conditions. These of course are our demands, the demands of the entire people. We lost our voices talking in vain about them. Our demands are easy to find. You do not need to open a twitter account or something of the sort to know them. You will find them in the rubbish bins of Al-Tuwaijri. Do not force the people to resort to a peaceful protest dynamic. Do not force the people to take to the streets. Simply put, the number of black (word indistinct) cars is a lot fewer than the number of free men. It would be easy for us to (take to the streets) to demand our rights, peacefully of course. So, I beg you, I beg you, listen to our voice. Please listen to our voice. You have a national dialogue centre. You have had dialogue with the Jewish and the Christian and tomorrow you will be having dialogue with Obama. So, I beg you. Listen to our voice, listen to your voice, meet our demands. We need housing. We need to live a decent life. And here is our ID card: Saud Mardi Abdullah Al-Harbi."
The Saudi authorities arrested all three men one after the other and charged them with incitement, sedition and rebelling against the ruler. Consequently, there has been more discussion among the youth about this. Some of them pursued the same methodology of recording video clips in solidarity with the detained young men.
The next message came from Abul Rahman Al-Asiri who criticised the authorities for arresting the three young men who preceded him simply for demanding their rights.
The following is the translation of his video clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. I am citizen Abdul Rahman Ali Ahmad Ghraib Al-Asiri from Tuhama of Asir. I have watched a video clip for some repeatable and kind young men from our country, namely Al-Dusari, Al-Ghamdi and Al-Harbi. They were demanding their rights, their most basic rights. They were imprisoned the following day. The problem is with you Al Saud. You deliberately seek to humiliate and impoverish the people. The poor fellow Al-Dusari says "my salary is 1900", by Allah this is not sufficient to pay for dinner for one of your children. The following day we saw one of the princes, one of your children, who bought a gold plated car. The problem is with you Al Saud. You have stolen everything. You have stolen our name and our country and you have annexed us to you. By what right have you done that? You have even stolen Islam. It has become Saudi Islam, the one that belongs to Al-Fawzan, to Al Al-Sheikh and to you. You have even distorted it. You have stolen Messenger who has become Saudi. As for petroleum, instead of distributing it and giving to the people, you have (pursued a policy of) empoverishing and humiliating the people. And if you ever distribute petroleum you distribute it to the enemies of the Ummah, the Sisi and the Christians of Lebanon who look down upon the Arabs and see them as nothing but trash. The problem is with you. You have stolen everything. This is unlawful, this is unjust. This is unjust. I am a medical doctor. I trained in (National) Guards and military hospitals and in hospitals belonging to the Ministry of Health. Once we had to place three patients in one bed. Where is this Abdullah ibn Abdul Aziz? You seem to see nothing! I am demanding the rights. The first right I demand is (to ask) why have you imprisoned them? All they did was to demand their rights. Why have you imprisoned them? It is from the man who bought a gold plated care that we seek to demand our right. While I am recording this clip you are busy giving an oath of allegiance to Migrin. This is a selling / buying process as if the people are nothing but a piece of furniture. You sell and buy when you tell people come and pay allegiance. No, this will not do. This is unlawful. And when we speak you imprison us. You imprison us or you tell us to leave the country. This is not your country alone. No. The people demand their rights. We want freedom. I warn you. We want what is right for our country. Yemen, Tunisia and the others are in the second republic (phase). Saudi Arabia will enter the first republic (phase) if you do not move and apply reason. And for the benefit of the secret police, because I know their tactics, here is (my ID card). Abdul Rahman Ali Ahmad Ghraib Al-Asiri. Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God."
The fifth message was recorded by Mu'adh bin Sulaiman Al-Juhani. He criticised the authority for imprisoning the youth who are only demanding their rights. He himself demands that the state distribute wealth to the people, build housing estates, employ the unemployed, and increase the salaries or else repercussions would rather grave, as he put it.
The following is the translation of his clip:
"Peace be upon you and the blessings and mercy of God. I direct this message to Al Saud. When the despotic king [reddens his cheeks] we flock to him with swords. You have stolen the people's wealth and when the people demand their rights you imprison them. What religion is this and what humanity? We demand the government to distribute the wealth fairly among the people and to stop stealing it you and your children. We demand the building of housing estates, employing the unemployed and increasing the salaries of employees. Otherwise the repercussions will be rather grave. And this is my ID card. I am Mu'adh Muhammad Sulaiman Al-Juhani from the Blessed Hijaz. May God's peace and prayers be upon Muhammad."
Video clip on YouTube by Al-Shammari
"Peace be upon you. I have three messages. The first message is directed to the people. Naturally, we all wish for reform except, of course, for the House of Saud. We as people wish for reform and wish to see things change (for the better). But, to be fair, whoever sees things will discover that it would impossible for reform to take place under the banner of the House of Saud. It is impossible, just impossible, by the Almighty God. These people are hostile to Islam, they are traitors, they are lackeys. They sold Iraq and they sold Palestine to Israel and they are hostile to all the Arab revolutions. The people are destitute. 25 per cent of the people are below the poverty line. All of this and (ours) is the richest country in the world. 70 per cent of the people cannot find housing. 60 % of the land is in the hands of the princes. And who ever utters a word demanding reform will be thrown in jail. Evidently, the young men who a few days ago demanded reform have been imprisoned. Why? What did they say to deserve imprisonment by you? As the proverb says: "evil and arrogant". You do not like to hear people demand reform! You just want them to pay lip service to you? Praise and thanks be to God. By God, even the Pharaoh was not like that. So, my message to the people is: rebel. Rebel because reform will not occur unless the House of Saud is no more.
My second message is directed at the Ulema. If you consider rebellion against the ruler is unlawful, this does not justify your defence of them and paying lip service to oppression and oppressors. By God, some Ulema, and some laymen too, justify oppression by the House of Saud in a manner that makes one suspect that they are none other than secret police. Why are you justifying this? What motivates you to defend them in this way? Some (much earlier) ulema used to prohibit rebellion against the rulers but they used at the same time to denounce them and even curse them. There is no contradiction (between the two acts). Regrettably, some ulema are not content with justifying (their oppression) but they also praise them. That is one thing. But if you consider rebellion against the oppressive ruler to be mandatory, then why are you silent? Why are you silent? I would like to know. You are (supposed to be) an example (to be followed by others). The House of Saud are oppressing (the people) and stealing (the wealth) while you are preoccupying the people with (trivial matters such as) growing the beard, shortening the gown and the technique of uttering praise post prayer. Ok, these are part of jurisprudence, we do not dispute. But, to what extent are we in need of this (type of) jurisprudence. Are these things more important than justice? Gold Almighty says: "We sent down our messengers with the book so that people establish justice and balance". He made justice an objective of sending messengers and books (to humanity) while you only care about growing the beard and shortening the gown. Yesterday, during the Friday sermon the imam spoke about the rewards allocated for those who fast on Mondays and Thursdays. You may say to me, so what, where is the problem (in this)? I shall tell you what is the problem. When oppression is so widespread and when corruption is so widespread and when all types of deviation are widespread while you are giving (the Friday) sermon about the reward (awaiting these who) fast on Mondays and Thursdays, there must be something wrong with you. This means you are completely detached from reality. So, my message to the ulema is that you should speak the truth. You should tell the oppressor "you are an oppressor". By God Almighty, the people will never respect you or appreciate you if you do not tell the House of Saud the truth to their faces.
My third and final message is directed at the House of Saud. Naturally, I am not (here) to demand or wish (anything) from you. Frankly and clearly, we have already lost all hope in you. Since the day you detained those young men who demanded reform, I feel you live in a world and we live in a different world altogether. However, I would like to say just one word. I would like to say that your end is drawing near, you lackeys. Your end is near. And this is my name: Muhammad Mut'ib Abdullah Al-Shammari."
Translation of a video clip by Al-Amri
"In the name of God most Gracious Most Merciful. May God's peace and prayers be upon Prophet Muhammad and all his companions. I would like to extend my thanks to the brothers who have demanded the rights of the citizens. My Allah reward them on our behalf. It is your legitimate right to demand you rights. So long you are on the (path of) truth, we are the supporters of Truth. The brothers have said enough regarding demands for the rights of the citizens.
The money that is sent abroad, to (support) coups and other things for the purpose of protecting your thrones, (you'd better) give to your people. Empower your own people instead. It is your people that will protect you. I ask you by God, (is it acceptable that) you have been so disrespectful of your people to the extent that a minister from Al Al-Sheikh comes out to say that we are protecting our asses? Shame on you by Allah. Not only is the citizen in dire need but is being humiliated by you. What a mess.
The detainees, the detainees, oh Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, (include) scholars and ulema. Whoever speaks the truth, you imprison him. By Allah this is a disaster. Sheikh Khalid Al-Rashid who is a defender of the Messenger of God, you have imprisoned him for 15 years? And then you say you implement the Law of God? No by God, this is not the Law of God. Never, never. The same thing happened to Sheikh Sulaiman Al-Ulwan. This by God is a strange thing. Fear god. There is this poor weak woman who is powerless and helpless, and you have imprisoned her. (Something about Muhammad bin Nayif - indistinct). I am present and my name is Jabir Salih Hamdan Al-Amri. This on the one side.
On the other side, whoever calls for the implementation of Shari'ah is accused of terrorism. If demanding the implementation of Shari'ah (amounts to being accused of) terrorism, (I'd say) welcome. If demanding our legitimate rights is (considered) stirring up sedition, then we seek God's help. Consider us fomenters of trouble. To (give my claim) more credibility that the people are suffering, I shall move elsewhere to video from it. Peace be upon you.
My second message is from the bedside of my father in the hospital. May God cure him and provide him with recovery. My father is the father of detainee Ali Salih Al-Amri who has been held inside Al-Ha'ir prison for the past 12 years. He was sentenced to three years but has not so far been released. There is no charge whatsoever apart from having god to (perform) jihad in 1410 (of Hijrah). Apart from that he has never been charged (of any crime). Frankly, we have not kept quiet for 12 years out of cowardice or fear. No, by God. We have appealed to the king, we have appealed to the Court of Grievances, we have appealed to the human rights (council), we have appealed to prince Nayif, we have appealed to Prince Muhammad bin Nayif, but to no avail. He was sentence for three years and now they are retrying him and fabricating new charges to justify keep him locked up for 12 year. For 12 years we have left no one but appealed to by letters and by faxes etc. You tell us your door is open? For 12 years, oh Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, I and my father have spared no effort. Of the open doors you talk about we have found none whatsoever. Muhammad bin Nayif has burnt the heart of this elderly man. May God burn his heart and provide us with victory in the life before the Hereafter.
I have only spoken and recorded this clip to clear my responsibility. I am not going to ask you once again whether you will release him or not. It is all in the hand of God. But I wanted to convey to you a picture that is already known to many people.
This is the father of detainee Ali Salih Hamdan Al-Amri whose nickname is Abd Al-Majid Al-Tabuki and I am his brother. May the peace and mercy of God be with you."
Link: /www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/10748-saudi-arabia-id-cards-revolution-inflames-youtube-against-regime.
Comment: Subhan Allah...The regime of Arabia (Hijaz) is indeed tyrannical.. It is obviously a part of the global oligarchy/NWO/Illuminati. Leaders of many Muslim countries are tyrants who are agents of the NWO. All leaders within The Islamic Nation that are tyrannical will fall....I repeat any and all leaders within The Islamic Nation -that are tyrannical- will fall. Allah hates tyranny.
In sha' Allah... the period of tyranny is over and the period of the return of the Sunneh of Prophet Muhammad has begun... Allah knows best... tyrants within The Islamic Nation will fall. Only Allah knows when and how... Only after all the tyrants are gone will the Khilafah be re-established. Allah knows best.
Any Muslim who wants the Khilafah to be re-established must understand that the Khilafah is a blessing from Allah-not an obligation. This blessing will only come after the tyrants have gone. Allah knows best.
This is a statement to the NWO. Your agenda will not be accomplished. Allah is in command. He was always in command, and He will always be in command.
You who are of the Illuminati/NWO, you are not in command. Only what Allah permits will happen-nothing more! Your "God" Shaitan is a Jinn who is doomed to The Hell Fire. Any one who takes him as a lord or as a patron-and dies as such- will find themselves in The Hell Fire.This is a promise from Allah, through The Qur'an. Allah fulfills His promises.
The actual taped recordings of the individual brothers can be found in the original article.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Libya must hand over Gaddafi spy chief: Hague judges
7 Feb, 2013
Reuters
Source: Yahoo News
Reuters
Source: Yahoo News
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - International Criminal Court judges ordered Libya on Thursday to hand over Muammar Gaddafi's former spy chief and let him see his lawyer, raising the stakes in a dispute over who has the right to try the deposed strongman's top lieutenants.
The statement placed the Hague-based court on a collision course with Libya's new rulers, who say Gaddafi-era leaders in their custody should face local justice over charges of mass killings and other atrocities.
The ICC judges said Libya must extradite Abdullah al-Senussi over his alleged role in orchestrating reprisals against the protesters in the 2011 uprising that overthrew Gaddafi.
"Libya remains under obligation to comply with the surrender request," the judges said in their statement.
They would decide later how to respond if the North African state continues to hold Senussi, the judges added. The court has the power to refer the matter to the U.N. Security Council.
"The ICC has ordered an immediate halt to Libya's unseemly rush to drag Mr. Al-Senussi to the gallows before the law has taken its course," said Ben Emmerson, Senussi's lawyer before the ICC.
Judges also ordered Libya to grant Emmerson access to his client.
Libya has become a test case of the effectiveness of the 10-year-old court, which relies on the cooperation of member countries to arrest suspects and enforce its orders.
A court-appointed lawyer for Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam was detained in Libya for a month alongside three other court officials when she attempted to visit her jailed client. Since, court officials and defense lawyers have had no contact with either Saif al-Islam or Senussi.
Most recently, allegations have surfaced that Libya paid Mauritania $200 million to ignore the ICC arrest warrant last year, sending Senussi to Tripoli rather than to the ICC's detention center in The Hague.
(Reporting By Thomas Escritt; Editing by Andrew Heavens)
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Reform of Egypt's police hits a wall: The police
Sep 19, 2011
By HAMZA HENDAWI, AP
Source:Yahoo News
CAIRO (AP) — A gang that broke out of prison during the revolution was killing people and robbing merchants in the town of Abu Teeg. So the chief of detectives gave his officers their orders: Do nothing.
"The revolution let them out, so let the people have a taste of their revolution," he said, according to two of the seven officers at the meeting, who spoke anonymously for fear of reprisals.
For the next four months, residents in the southern Egyptian town say, they appealed repeatedly for help, but were rebuffed by a police force still bitter about its humiliation in the uprising that ended President Hosni Mubarak's rule. The gang went on to kill at least seven people, officials and residents believe.
The Egyptian police force has long been hated for its corruption and use of torture, and many Egyptians saw the downfall of the police state as a critical goal of their 18-day uprising.
But current and former officers say some members of the force are thwarting any attempt at change, and in many cases are avenging their fall from power by refusing to do their jobs.
These alleged sanctions are blamed for a surge in crime. According to Interior Ministry figures, there were 36 armed robberies nationwide in January but the figure rose sharply to 420 in July; murders went from 44 to 166, kidnappings from three to 42.
Midlevel officers have "an attitude that borders on mutiny," says Lt. Col. Mohammed Mahfouz, who left the force in late 2009 and now advocates reform.
Their attitude, he told The Associated Press, is that "Egyptians must be taught a lesson before the police come back to the streets. They want people to suffer without effective policing so they realize the prestige of the state is a red line that must not be crossed again."
As far back as the 1952 coup that put the military in power, the police force, now one million-strong, has been a sworn enemy of reform and its advocates.
From street cops to agents of the daunting State Security Agency, policemen were untouchable and intimidation kept order on the streets. Talking back to a policeman could earn a slap on the head or worse. In 2006, in an incident that was filmed and posted on YouTube, a Cairo minibus driver who annoyed an officer was dragged to a station and sodomized with a wooden pole.
Torture was a basic investigative tool. If a car was stolen, police would often round up suspects and beat them until someone confessed. Bribery was common. Rarely was a policeman investigated, much less prosecuted.
And then there was the State Security Agency, an arm of the police that operated at the political level but was seen by the public as just another instrument of police oppression.
The agency was involved in election-rigging to keep the ruling party's in power. It weighed in on the running of universities, trade unions, the media, and even had the final word on appointments of Cabinet ministers, governors and ambassadors.
It also suppressed and spied on the opposition. After Kareem el-Behery, a 27-year-old blogger, helped organize a protest against corruption in April 2008, he was arrested, taken to a basement in a State Security compound and tortured through the night, he said.
It was the casualness of the scene that stunned him, he said. He recalled how his tormenter listened to recordings of recitations from the Quran, Islam's holy book, even as he inflicted electric shocks, then took a prayer break.
"How can you do this to me while listening to the Quran, and then just go and pray?" el-Behery says he asked the officer.
"I'll go and give God what I owe him, then I'll come back and give you what you deserve," the officer replied. "You think I'm an infidel like you?"
The anti-Mubarak uprising shattered the fear barrier.
On Jan. 28, the deadliest day, tens of thousands of protesters withstood water cannons, tear gas and gunfire until overwhelmed police broke and ran.
The next dramatic move came in March, when protesters stormed the main Cairo headquarters and several branch offices of the State Security Agency, aiming to stop the shredding and burning of secret documents.
"It was sweet revenge for all those who have been tortured there over the years," said el-Behery, who was among the protesters.
Since then, momentum has faltered.
Interior Minister Mansour el-Issawi, who heads the police, dissolved the State Security Agency and replaced it with a new body called the National Security Authority, which he vowed would not be involved in politics. However, it has kept on nearly half the staff of the outgoing agency.
Protesters have handed back most of the documents they seized lest they embarrass the victims of State Security's spying. There has been no public airing of the agency's abuses since.
Prosecutors have put 140 police officers on trial for killing protesters during the uprising, and in July, el-Issawi sacked 700 senior officers from the various police branches, including the State Security Agency and the notorious Criminal Investigation Department, but most of them were near retirement anyway.
Many State Security officers whom activists and victims have identified as being involved in torture have simply been transferred to other posts. El-Issawi says their experience is still needed.
He acknowledges that some police were reluctant to shoulder their duties, but denies it's a conspiracy.
He also says police are wary of acting to restore order, because some of those being prosecuted for using lethal force did so to fend off dangerous mobs.
"People who were shot dead while trying to storm police stations are counted as 'martyrs' just like the protesters killed in cold blood," el-Issawi complained in a TV interview.
One group, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, has put forward a detailed proposal for reform, starting with a widespread investigation of officers suspected of abuses.
It calls for monitoring police stations for abuses and appointing a civilian as interior minister instead of a career police officer. It says police should get better salaries and crime-fighting technology to blunt the efficacy of bribes and beatings.
So far, the group says, the ministry has shown no interest.
"Many in the police force are filled with a desire for revenge," said the group's head, Hossam Bahgat. "They are convinced that for them to be an effective police force again, fear of the police must be reinstalled in society."
Mahfouz, the former officer, keeps in touch with his colleagues on the force and says most police know no way other than intimidation. "They can only work in a climate that does not respect human rights."
Lt. Col. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, a serving officer who also heads a reformist group, says that even though Mubarak is ousted and on trial, senior officers have been helping pro-Mubarak businessmen hire thugs who attack pro-democracy demonstrators. The charge, in many variations, has been widely reported by the media and sometimes repeated by officials, but no investigation is known to have taken place.
In Abu Teeg, a farming and trading town of 300,000 people some 400 kilometers (250 miles) south of Cairo, the five escaped criminals went on a rampage for months. They smuggled drugs and weapons, carried out robberies and settled old blood feuds.
Brig. Mitwali Abdou, who headed Assiut Province's Criminal Investigations Division at the time, denies the charge that he told the seven district chiefs of his division at the Feb. 15 meeting in his office not to pursue the criminals.
Speaking to the AP, Abdou praised the anti-Mubarak uprising, saying "the revolution is a glorious thing."
One of the two officers who described the meeting, a major, said he opposed the order but did not speak up, since that would have meant "swimming against the current."
"It is a decision that saddened me, a decision whose consequences we'll have to live with for years to come," the major told AP.
Desperate residents went to police in Abu Teeg and the nearby provincial capital Assiut, but each time were told to just protect themselves, said a local resident, Younis Darweesh.
Eventually, it was the army that took action, capturing two of the five criminals.
Abdou has been moved to the post of general inspector in October 6 Province, near Cairo. Three of the seven district chiefs at the Feb. 15 meeting have been transferred to the central police headquarters in Assiut following repeated complaints from residents that they were using criminals and thugs to protect police stations.
Abdel-Rahman, the officer and reformist, said the police force's "job has been to protect the (Mubarak) regime, not the people. ... Only a genuine purge of the force will bring reconciliation between the people and the police."
By HAMZA HENDAWI, AP
Source:Yahoo News
CAIRO (AP) — A gang that broke out of prison during the revolution was killing people and robbing merchants in the town of Abu Teeg. So the chief of detectives gave his officers their orders: Do nothing.
"The revolution let them out, so let the people have a taste of their revolution," he said, according to two of the seven officers at the meeting, who spoke anonymously for fear of reprisals.
For the next four months, residents in the southern Egyptian town say, they appealed repeatedly for help, but were rebuffed by a police force still bitter about its humiliation in the uprising that ended President Hosni Mubarak's rule. The gang went on to kill at least seven people, officials and residents believe.
The Egyptian police force has long been hated for its corruption and use of torture, and many Egyptians saw the downfall of the police state as a critical goal of their 18-day uprising.
But current and former officers say some members of the force are thwarting any attempt at change, and in many cases are avenging their fall from power by refusing to do their jobs.
These alleged sanctions are blamed for a surge in crime. According to Interior Ministry figures, there were 36 armed robberies nationwide in January but the figure rose sharply to 420 in July; murders went from 44 to 166, kidnappings from three to 42.
Midlevel officers have "an attitude that borders on mutiny," says Lt. Col. Mohammed Mahfouz, who left the force in late 2009 and now advocates reform.
Their attitude, he told The Associated Press, is that "Egyptians must be taught a lesson before the police come back to the streets. They want people to suffer without effective policing so they realize the prestige of the state is a red line that must not be crossed again."
As far back as the 1952 coup that put the military in power, the police force, now one million-strong, has been a sworn enemy of reform and its advocates.
From street cops to agents of the daunting State Security Agency, policemen were untouchable and intimidation kept order on the streets. Talking back to a policeman could earn a slap on the head or worse. In 2006, in an incident that was filmed and posted on YouTube, a Cairo minibus driver who annoyed an officer was dragged to a station and sodomized with a wooden pole.
Torture was a basic investigative tool. If a car was stolen, police would often round up suspects and beat them until someone confessed. Bribery was common. Rarely was a policeman investigated, much less prosecuted.
And then there was the State Security Agency, an arm of the police that operated at the political level but was seen by the public as just another instrument of police oppression.
The agency was involved in election-rigging to keep the ruling party's in power. It weighed in on the running of universities, trade unions, the media, and even had the final word on appointments of Cabinet ministers, governors and ambassadors.
It also suppressed and spied on the opposition. After Kareem el-Behery, a 27-year-old blogger, helped organize a protest against corruption in April 2008, he was arrested, taken to a basement in a State Security compound and tortured through the night, he said.
It was the casualness of the scene that stunned him, he said. He recalled how his tormenter listened to recordings of recitations from the Quran, Islam's holy book, even as he inflicted electric shocks, then took a prayer break.
"How can you do this to me while listening to the Quran, and then just go and pray?" el-Behery says he asked the officer.
"I'll go and give God what I owe him, then I'll come back and give you what you deserve," the officer replied. "You think I'm an infidel like you?"
The anti-Mubarak uprising shattered the fear barrier.
On Jan. 28, the deadliest day, tens of thousands of protesters withstood water cannons, tear gas and gunfire until overwhelmed police broke and ran.
The next dramatic move came in March, when protesters stormed the main Cairo headquarters and several branch offices of the State Security Agency, aiming to stop the shredding and burning of secret documents.
"It was sweet revenge for all those who have been tortured there over the years," said el-Behery, who was among the protesters.
Since then, momentum has faltered.
Interior Minister Mansour el-Issawi, who heads the police, dissolved the State Security Agency and replaced it with a new body called the National Security Authority, which he vowed would not be involved in politics. However, it has kept on nearly half the staff of the outgoing agency.
Protesters have handed back most of the documents they seized lest they embarrass the victims of State Security's spying. There has been no public airing of the agency's abuses since.
Prosecutors have put 140 police officers on trial for killing protesters during the uprising, and in July, el-Issawi sacked 700 senior officers from the various police branches, including the State Security Agency and the notorious Criminal Investigation Department, but most of them were near retirement anyway.
Many State Security officers whom activists and victims have identified as being involved in torture have simply been transferred to other posts. El-Issawi says their experience is still needed.
He acknowledges that some police were reluctant to shoulder their duties, but denies it's a conspiracy.
He also says police are wary of acting to restore order, because some of those being prosecuted for using lethal force did so to fend off dangerous mobs.
"People who were shot dead while trying to storm police stations are counted as 'martyrs' just like the protesters killed in cold blood," el-Issawi complained in a TV interview.
One group, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, has put forward a detailed proposal for reform, starting with a widespread investigation of officers suspected of abuses.
It calls for monitoring police stations for abuses and appointing a civilian as interior minister instead of a career police officer. It says police should get better salaries and crime-fighting technology to blunt the efficacy of bribes and beatings.
So far, the group says, the ministry has shown no interest.
"Many in the police force are filled with a desire for revenge," said the group's head, Hossam Bahgat. "They are convinced that for them to be an effective police force again, fear of the police must be reinstalled in society."
Mahfouz, the former officer, keeps in touch with his colleagues on the force and says most police know no way other than intimidation. "They can only work in a climate that does not respect human rights."
Lt. Col. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, a serving officer who also heads a reformist group, says that even though Mubarak is ousted and on trial, senior officers have been helping pro-Mubarak businessmen hire thugs who attack pro-democracy demonstrators. The charge, in many variations, has been widely reported by the media and sometimes repeated by officials, but no investigation is known to have taken place.
In Abu Teeg, a farming and trading town of 300,000 people some 400 kilometers (250 miles) south of Cairo, the five escaped criminals went on a rampage for months. They smuggled drugs and weapons, carried out robberies and settled old blood feuds.
Brig. Mitwali Abdou, who headed Assiut Province's Criminal Investigations Division at the time, denies the charge that he told the seven district chiefs of his division at the Feb. 15 meeting in his office not to pursue the criminals.
Speaking to the AP, Abdou praised the anti-Mubarak uprising, saying "the revolution is a glorious thing."
One of the two officers who described the meeting, a major, said he opposed the order but did not speak up, since that would have meant "swimming against the current."
"It is a decision that saddened me, a decision whose consequences we'll have to live with for years to come," the major told AP.
Desperate residents went to police in Abu Teeg and the nearby provincial capital Assiut, but each time were told to just protect themselves, said a local resident, Younis Darweesh.
Eventually, it was the army that took action, capturing two of the five criminals.
Abdou has been moved to the post of general inspector in October 6 Province, near Cairo. Three of the seven district chiefs at the Feb. 15 meeting have been transferred to the central police headquarters in Assiut following repeated complaints from residents that they were using criminals and thugs to protect police stations.
Abdel-Rahman, the officer and reformist, said the police force's "job has been to protect the (Mubarak) regime, not the people. ... Only a genuine purge of the force will bring reconciliation between the people and the police."
Monday, February 1, 2010
THE Powerful Testimony of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui
SAFAR 1431 A.H.
(January 31, 2010)
As captured by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were. That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) – needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia – contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire – a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice – began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! – before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui – after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
© copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
(January 31, 2010)
As captured by El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
Aafia Siddiqui – a daughter, a sister, a mother of three, committed Muslim, social scientist, hafiz of Qur’an – needed to be heard. For years she had suffered in virtual silence…aching to be heard, to be understood, to have certain malicious untruths corrected and exposed for the lies they were. That day finally came on Thursday, January 28, 2010!
The high drama of that day’s proceedings revolved around the question of whether or not U.S. District Judge Richard Berman would grant Aafia’s repeated demand to take the stand in her own defense.
Aafia’s lawyers appeared to be animate in their opposition to her taking the stand, while the prosecution appeared (on the surface) to be in favor of Aafia being entitled to her Fifth Amendment right. Her brother (Muhammad) was apprehensive about her taking the stand, leaning more in favor of her following the advice of her lawyers. Even Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani became involved. During a short visit he was allowed with the defendant, he reportedly advised Aafia to follow the advice of her lawyers.
Aafia’s response to this collective concern was that she would make istiqara (a supplication to ALLAH Almighty for guidance on the matter); and in the end Aafia Siddiqui would be heard.
While I understood the reservations of those who were concerned about Aafia taking the stand (given all that she had already been through), I fully supported our sister’s right to be heard, and was guardedly optimistic about the potential outcome. More than anything, however, I knew that Aafia – like two young Muslim men in an Atlanta courtroom, and several young Muslim men in a New Jersey courtroom (who were eager, but manipulated into not taking the stand in their own defense not long ago) – needed to be heard! Aafia needed to have her day in court!
The process began with a preliminary (test) examination, with Aafia taking the witness stand in the absence of the jury – a kind of hearing within a hearing – to see how she would respond to that type of intensive and focused examination. After the judge determined that she was capable enough to enjoy her constitutional “right” to take the stand in her own defense, the jury was brought back into the courtroom, and it was on. (And what truly spectacular courtroom drama it turned out to be!)
The following summary is based on my notes from January 28th
Open court proceedings began late in the morning, due to a number of procedural issues that needed to be addressed behind closed doors. Once proceedings began, it did so with the judge explaining Aafia’s right, and the possible risks, of her taking the stand. There was extensive discussion about the course and extent of cross examination should Aafia decide to testify.
The government’s support of Aafia taking the stand was full of irony, given the fact that the government had repeatedly argued (during pre-trial and trial proceedings) that Aafia should not even be allowed to remain in the courtroom, because of her periodic outbursts and “uncontrollable” nature (in their view).
The First Witness
It was noted by the government that over a 12 day period, while Aafia was at the Craig Field Hospital at Bagram for critical care medical treatment, following her near fatal re-arrest in July 2008, two FBI agents had continuous access to the injured prisoner (a male and female who did not identify themselves to Aafia as FBI personnel).
FBI Special Agent Angela Sercer was the first to testify. She spoke about how she interrogated Aafia on a daily basis for the purpose of gathering “intelligence.” She described how she sat with Aafia for an average of eight hours each day, and of how they discussed the shooting incident and other related matters (discussions she said Aafia would always initiate). Agent Sercer prepared written reports, and disclosed during testimony that Aafia was never Mirandized (i.e. informed of her rights to remain silent and consult with an attorney before questioning), nor did she have access to a Pakistani consular official.
According to Sercer, Aafia mostly enjoyed her discussions with this special agent. Sercer maintained that she treated Aafia with respect and did her best to respond to Aafia’s needs – i.e. when she requested food, water, bathroom access, or when she requested a Qur’an and a scarf, or when she would complain that the “soft restraints” were too tight and needed to be loosened, etc.
Between 7/19/-8/4/08, FBI agents were posted inside and outside Aafia’s room 24 hours a day, ostensibly to insure that Aafia could not escape and to provide security for hospital personnel – despite the “soft restraints” which secured her hands and legs to the bed (in what Aafia later described as very uncomfortable positions) during her stay at this field hospital in Bagram.
The second witness
The second agent to testify was FBI Special Agent Bruce Kamerman, who had reportedly been assigned on 7/21/08. He claimed that Aafia made numerous statements, that she seemed lucid and to not be in much pain. He also insisted that there was never any coercion. He testified that Aafia had no visitors, and that no Afghan staff attended to her. He also claimed that there were occasions when Aafia would declare that her children were dead, and other times when she stated they might be living with her sister.
Following the testimony of the second agent, a hearing within the trial was held so that Aafia could give testimony (in the absence of the jury).
Aafia testified that when she first realized she was in a hospital she had tubes everywhere. She was in a narcotic state resulting from the administration of powerful drugs (one or two she could remember by name, others she couldn’t). She recalled how her hands and feet were secured uncomfortably apart. She said the agents never identified themselves as FBI, except for “Mr. Hurley.”
Aafia accused Agent Bruce Kamerman of subjecting her to “psychological torture.” She accused him of being immodest whenever he was present and medical personnel needed to examine her, and complained of how he would stand right outside the bathroom door whenever she needed to use it. She testified that Kamerman would sometimes come in the middle of the night (when he wasn’t supposed to be there), and encourage the person assigned to take a break. Aafia said she remained in a sleep deprived state as a result of his frequent presence.
During this period she never had any contact with family, nor with any Pakistani authorities. She thought that [FBI Agent] “Angela was just a nice person.”
During the cross examination Aafia spoke about being “tortured in the secret prison,” and of how she kept asking about her children. She insisted that she never opined that they might be with her sister.
(I should note here that Aafia’s testimony was consistent with information contained on an audio CD that we’ve produced on the case. On the CD, former Bagram and Guantanamo prisoner Moazam Beg recounts how the un-identified female prisoner at Bagram, known only as Prisoner 650, was identified as a Pakistani national who appeared to be in her 30s, and as someone who had been torn away from her children and who didn’t know where they were.)
Aafia also testified that she had multiple gunshot wounds; and that in addition to the gunshot wounds she had a debilitating back condition (resulting from being thrown on the floor after she was shot), persistent headaches, and an intubation tube. She also emphasized that she was in and out of consciousness; and, at times, mentally incoherent.
The video testimony of an Afghan security chief (by the name of Qadeer) was received by the court. While I had to briefly leave the court, and missed this testimony, it is my understanding that what Qadeer had to say about events at the Afghan National Police station in Ghazni – leading up to the shooting of Aafia – contradicted the testimony of a number of the government’s main witnesses.
Later in the afternoon, when Aafia testified in front of the jury, the overflow courtroom (where I was seated) was full of observers. The majority appeared to be non-Muslims in professional attire – a probable mix of court and Justice Department personnel (including interns), law students, and a few journalists. I would estimate that roughly a quarter of the observers in this overflow courtroom were made up of solid Aafia supporters – and yet the reaction to the testimony at times was both interesting and edifying.
When I returned to the courtroom (about 10 minutes into Aafia’s testimony), she was describing her academic work leading up to the achievement of her PhD at Brandeis University. She testified that after completing her doctorate studies she taught in a school, and that her interest was in cultivating the capabilities of dyslexic and other special needs children.
During this line of questioning, the monstrous image that the government had carefully crafted (with considerable support from mainstream media) of this petite young woman, had begun to be deconstructed. The real Dr. Aafia Siddiqui – the committed muslimah, the humanity-loving nurturer and educator, the gentle yet resolute mujahid for truth and justice – began to emerge with full force.
Testimony then proceeded to the events of July 17-18, 2008. Aafia testified that she remembered being concerned about the whereabouts of her missing children. She also remembered a press conference in an Afghan compound.
She testified about being tied down to a bed until she vigorously protested, and was later untied and left behind a curtain. She later heard American and Afghan voices on the other side of the curtain, and concluded that they [Americans] wanted to return her to a “secret prison” again. She testified about how she had pleaded with the Afghans not to let the Americans take her away.
She testified about peaking through the curtain into the part of the room where Afghans and Americans were talking, and how when a startled American soldier noticed her, he jumped up and yelled that the prisoner had gotten loose, and shot her in the stomach. She described how she was also shot in the side by a second person. She also described how after falling back onto the bed in the room, she was violently thrown to the floor and lost consciousness.
She testified that she was in and out of consciousness, and vaguely recalled being placed on a stretcher, a helicopter, and receiving a blood transfusion – which she protested, drawing laughter in the courtroom when she recounted how she had “threatened to sue” her medical attendants if they gave her a blood transfusion. During this testimony, Aafia animatedly rejected the allegation that she picked up a [M-4] rifle and fired it (or that she even attempted to do so).
The Cross Examination
This is the time when every eye and every ear was riveted on the proceedings. It was the moment that Aafia’s defense attorneys, her brother, and a host of Muslim and non-Muslim supporters (seated within both courtrooms) dreaded. It was also the point in the proceedings that had the prosecution salivating for what opportunities would come there way – or so they thought!
Cross examination began with Aafia revisiting the degrees that she received at MIT and Brandeis universities. She acknowledged that she took a required course in molecular biology; but emphasized that her work was in cognitive neuroscience. When questioned on whether she had ever done any work with chemicals, her response was, “only when required.”
(This opening line of questioning was significant for its prejudice producing potential in the minds of jurors. While Aafia is not being charged with any terrorism conspiracy counts, the threat of terrorism has been the pink elephant in the room throughout this troubling case!)
The prosecutor attempted to draw a sinister correlation between Aafia and her [then] husband being questioned by the FBI in 2002, and leaving the U.S. a week later. Aafia noted that there wasn’t anything sinister about the timing; they had already planned to make that trip home before the FBI visit. To underscore this point, she noted how she later returned to the U.S. to attempt to find work in her field.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments in the cross-examination was when Aafia described how she was briefly re-united with a young boy in Ghazni (July 2008) who could have been her oldest son. She spoke of how she was mentally in a daze at that time, and had not seen any of her children in five years. As a result she could not definitively (than or now) determine if that was indeed her son, Ahmed.
When asked whether she had incriminating documents in her possession on the day she was arrested, Aafia testified that the bag in her possession on the day that she was re-detained was given to her. She didn’t know what was in the bag, nor could she definitively determine if the handwriting on some of the documents was hers or not. She also mentioned on a number of occasions (to the chagrin of the prosecutor) how she was repeatedly tortured by her captors at Bagram.
She was also questioned on whether she had taken a pistol course at a firing range while a student in Boston. Her initial reaction was that she did not have any recollection of taking such a course, and when pressed further, answered “No.” When the prosecutor continued to press the issue (infusing sinister motivations in the process), Aafia admonished the prosecutor in the strong, clear voice that was heard throughout her testimony: “You can’t build a case on hate; you should build it on fact!”
Aafia testified that all she was thinking about at the time of her re-arrest in Ghazni, was “getting out of that room and not being sent back to the secret prison.” While discussions were going on between the Afghans and Americans, Aafia was searching for a way out. She repeated her assertion that she startled one of the soldiers who hollered, “She’s free! – before shooting her.
Aafia also elicited an approving reaction in the courtroom when she opined, in reaction to the government’s narration of events, she could not believe a soldier would be so irresponsible as to leave his M4 rifle on the floor unsecured.
In response to government questioning she again took the opportunity to strongly rebuke Agent Kamerman, while rejecting most of his testimony revisited by the prosecutor.
Aafia spoke highly of a number of nurses (and a doctor) who took care of her at Bagram. There was one nurse in particular that Aafia promised to mention favorably if she ever wrote a book. She then produced laughter in the courtroom again when she stated, “Since I don’t think I’m going to write a book, I’m mentioning her now.”
One of the most powerful and revealing moments in the testimony was when she spoke about the people who systematically abused her in the “secret prison” – denouncing them as “fake Americans, not real Americans.” (Because of the way their actions both violated and damaged America’s image!)
She spoke again, under cross examination, about the strong pain medication she was on, and some of the effects this medication had on her.
Aafia also mentioned how she was instructed to translate and copy something from a book while she was secretly imprisoned. During the course of this testimony which repeatedly drew the ire of an increasingly frustrated prosecutor, Aafia noted how she can now understand how people can be framed (for crimes they are not guilty of).
At this point in the proceedings, the judge ordered a brief recess. Clearly the government had thought that they would be able to control and manipulate Aafia in manner that would work in their favor; this ended up being a MAJOR MISCALCULATION. The purpose of this break in the proceedings, in my humble opinion, was to allow the prosecutor to regain her composure, and consult with fellow prosecutors for a more effective line of attack.
When testimony resumed, Aafia spoke of how she was often forced-fed information from one group of persons at the secret prison, and then made to regurgitate the same information before a different group of inquisitors. While it was presented to her as a type of “game,” she spoke of how she would be “punished” if she got something wrong.
On defense cross, Aafia was shown pictures and asked to identify herself in them. She reluctantly did so, but with a little levity, citing how unattractive and immodest the photos were.
I could not see the photos from the overflow courtroom where I was sitting, but I assume that these were the photos of an un-covered, emaciated and emotionally disfigured Aafia Siddiqui – after her horrific ordeal at the hands of American terrorists.
A final note: I sincerely believe that Aafia Siddiqui’s time spent on the witness stand on January 28th was a cathartic experience for her – but one that the prosecution, in retrospect, now deeply regrets. For any truly objective and fair-minded person who witnessed that day’s proceedings, the U.S Government’s case against Aafia Siddiqui was exposed for what it always was…a horrific and profoundly tragic miscarriage of justice!
The struggle continues…
El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
© copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved
Siddiqui Takes Stand in Her Own Defense In Federal Trial
By Mark Hamblett
January 29, 2010
Aafia Siddiqui yesterday denied attempting to kill U.S. personnel in Afghanistan in 2008 and insisted she was framed for the crime.
Speaking from the witness stand in Manhattan federal court, with much of her face obscured by a scarf, the U.S.-educated native of Pakistan said she had been trying to sneak out from behind a curtain and escape the police compound where she was about to be questioned on July 18, 2008, when she was shot by an American soldier. She denied seizing an unattended M-4 rifle and firing at FBI agents and military personnel.
"The next thing I know, somebody saw me and said something and shot me," Ms. Siddiqui told the jury during 30 minutes of questioning by defense attorney Elaine Sharp.
When asked by Ms. Sharp if she ever picked up a gun, Ms. Siddiqui called it "the biggest joke. I have sometimes been forced to smile under my scarf. Of course not."
Later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenna Dabbs asked her on cross-examination, "Are you saying you don't remember?"
Ms. Siddiqui responded, "I'm telling you what I know: I walked toward the curtain and then I was shot. My head does not believe that American soldiers would be so irresponsible to leave a gun around."
Ms. Siddiqui's testimony came after two days of arguments in which defense counsel for the 37-year-old neuroscientist said their client had mental health issues and diminished capacity, and should be kept off the witness stand for her own good. Prosecutors from the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office insisted she had the right to testify.
Though Ms. Siddiqui had been found competent to stand trial she has had outbursts in court that have prompted Judge Richard M. Berman to order her removed.
But the judge ultimately decided that Ms. Siddiqui's right to testify carried the day and she had neither waived that right nor forfeited it by her conduct.
Ms. Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan authorities on July 17, 2008, while allegedly carrying in her purse chemicals, a list of terror targets in New York City, instructions on how to make a dirty bomb and drawings of weapons.
Yesterday, she denied to Ms. Dabbs having any knowledge of the bag's contents.
"I can't testify to that, the bag was not mine, so I didn't necessarily go through everything," she said.
"Did you have notes on a dirty bomb?" Ms. Dabbs asked.
"To answer your question, I do not know how to make a dirty bomb," Ms. Siddiqui said, adding later, "I did not draw those pictures. I'm definitely not that good an artist, I can tell you that."
Ms. Siddiqui repeatedly snuck into her testimony her claim that she had been held in "secret prisons" and tortured before her arrest in Afghanistan.
At one point, when her head scarf began to slip over her face, her attorney, Ms. Sharp, asked her to explain her attire.
"If you've been in a secret prison, abused, you get more modest. And it's part of the religion," Ms. Siddiqui said.
Judge Berman has had to chart a delicate course with Ms. Siddiqui, who boycotted several trial sessions, repeatedly disrupted proceedings and has been removed from the courtroom several times. Most of the time she spent in the courtroom she sat slumped over the defense table with her arms crossed as on a pillow.
The judge allowed her to testify yesterday only after a lengthy question-and-answer session on whether she understood her rights and a debate between prosecutors and defense lawyers over whether statements she made to FBI agents while being treated at the hospital for a gunshot wound could be admitted into evidence.
Judge Berman ruled that the statements could indeed be used to impeach Ms. Siddiqui, and Ms. Dabbs introduced several of them, including one in which Ms. Siddiqui allegedly told an agent she had fired the weapon.
Ms. Siddiqui denied it and making the other statements as well, telling the jury at one point, "If I messed up it was torture. It was the same game."
She also denied taking pistol lessons at the Braintree Pistol and Rifle Course in Braintree, Mass., while she was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When asked by Ms. Dabbs whether she had "fired thousands of rounds" at the club, Ms. Siddiqui answered, "I have no recollection."
The prosecution is expected to counter that testimony with a witness during its rebuttal case this morning.
@|Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.
January 29, 2010
Aafia Siddiqui yesterday denied attempting to kill U.S. personnel in Afghanistan in 2008 and insisted she was framed for the crime.
Speaking from the witness stand in Manhattan federal court, with much of her face obscured by a scarf, the U.S.-educated native of Pakistan said she had been trying to sneak out from behind a curtain and escape the police compound where she was about to be questioned on July 18, 2008, when she was shot by an American soldier. She denied seizing an unattended M-4 rifle and firing at FBI agents and military personnel.
"The next thing I know, somebody saw me and said something and shot me," Ms. Siddiqui told the jury during 30 minutes of questioning by defense attorney Elaine Sharp.
When asked by Ms. Sharp if she ever picked up a gun, Ms. Siddiqui called it "the biggest joke. I have sometimes been forced to smile under my scarf. Of course not."
Later, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jenna Dabbs asked her on cross-examination, "Are you saying you don't remember?"
Ms. Siddiqui responded, "I'm telling you what I know: I walked toward the curtain and then I was shot. My head does not believe that American soldiers would be so irresponsible to leave a gun around."
Ms. Siddiqui's testimony came after two days of arguments in which defense counsel for the 37-year-old neuroscientist said their client had mental health issues and diminished capacity, and should be kept off the witness stand for her own good. Prosecutors from the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office insisted she had the right to testify.
Though Ms. Siddiqui had been found competent to stand trial she has had outbursts in court that have prompted Judge Richard M. Berman to order her removed.
But the judge ultimately decided that Ms. Siddiqui's right to testify carried the day and she had neither waived that right nor forfeited it by her conduct.
Ms. Siddiqui was arrested by Afghan authorities on July 17, 2008, while allegedly carrying in her purse chemicals, a list of terror targets in New York City, instructions on how to make a dirty bomb and drawings of weapons.
Yesterday, she denied to Ms. Dabbs having any knowledge of the bag's contents.
"I can't testify to that, the bag was not mine, so I didn't necessarily go through everything," she said.
"Did you have notes on a dirty bomb?" Ms. Dabbs asked.
"To answer your question, I do not know how to make a dirty bomb," Ms. Siddiqui said, adding later, "I did not draw those pictures. I'm definitely not that good an artist, I can tell you that."
Ms. Siddiqui repeatedly snuck into her testimony her claim that she had been held in "secret prisons" and tortured before her arrest in Afghanistan.
At one point, when her head scarf began to slip over her face, her attorney, Ms. Sharp, asked her to explain her attire.
"If you've been in a secret prison, abused, you get more modest. And it's part of the religion," Ms. Siddiqui said.
Judge Berman has had to chart a delicate course with Ms. Siddiqui, who boycotted several trial sessions, repeatedly disrupted proceedings and has been removed from the courtroom several times. Most of the time she spent in the courtroom she sat slumped over the defense table with her arms crossed as on a pillow.
The judge allowed her to testify yesterday only after a lengthy question-and-answer session on whether she understood her rights and a debate between prosecutors and defense lawyers over whether statements she made to FBI agents while being treated at the hospital for a gunshot wound could be admitted into evidence.
Judge Berman ruled that the statements could indeed be used to impeach Ms. Siddiqui, and Ms. Dabbs introduced several of them, including one in which Ms. Siddiqui allegedly told an agent she had fired the weapon.
Ms. Siddiqui denied it and making the other statements as well, telling the jury at one point, "If I messed up it was torture. It was the same game."
She also denied taking pistol lessons at the Braintree Pistol and Rifle Course in Braintree, Mass., while she was a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. When asked by Ms. Dabbs whether she had "fired thousands of rounds" at the club, Ms. Siddiqui answered, "I have no recollection."
The prosecution is expected to counter that testimony with a witness during its rebuttal case this morning.
@|Mark Hamblett can be reached at mhamblett@alm.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)