Aafia reportedly wanted to kill former presidents using a biological agent in their drinks. She was married to the fellow helping the 911 hijackers in association with al-Hawsawi, KSM’s assistant. Al-Hawsawi had anthrax spraydrying documents on his computer. Are other US operatives going to be indicted with her in an amended indictment?
An Assistant United States Attorney once said in federal court, in the Paracha trial opening argument, that Aafia was willing to help with an anthrax attack if asked. What biological agent had she wanted to use to kill the former Presidents? If she hasn’t told her lawyers where she’s been for the past 5 years, or at least lent some clarity, is it because she is cooperating with authorities?
http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=130532
Still grey
8/18/2008
The Grey Lady of Bagram has become the Grey Lady of New York. Since Aafia Siddiqui appeared in a US court we have learned little more about her or the circumstances in which she lived during her ‘missing’ years — than we knew before. We do not know if she was in the custody of any country or agency or whether she was quietly keeping a low profile knowing that assorted American agencies were keen to have a quiet chat with her in-between sessions with the waterboard. We do not know where her children are — although there seems to be an assumption in some sections of the press that they are in America. We also do not know if she was tortured, as a careful reading of the statement by one of her lawyers, Elizabeth Fink, reveals…”The woman has been tortured. I believed she has been tortured based on my experience with people with post-traumatic stress disorder.” This is not the same as saying ‘Aafia Siddiqui has been tortured.’
There is a world of difference between Ms Fink believing she was tortured and Ms Siddiqui saying so. The lawyers, of which there seem to be no shortage, are also keen not to reveal anything about the whereabouts of the missing children. We know that she had a young male child with her when she was allegedly arrested in Ghazni. We do not conclusively know that it was her own child and we do not know what happened to the boy since he was last seen. We know that she is injured but we do not know the precise nature of her wounds and we do know that she has — finally — been seen by a female doctor. We know that she has been visited by a Pakistani consular representative but that this is something of an irrelevance as her prosecution appears to be as an American citizen — she holds dual nationality. (Those of her children born in the US will automatically have American citizenship. It is unclear if any of them are Pakistani nationals as well.) We also know that her lawyer told her to say nothing - beyond confirming who she was — to the Pakistani consular representative; especially about the children.
We know, then, remarkably little in purely factual and objective terms about a woman who it many commentators presume to know so much. And not only the commentators — the Internet, natural home to every hue and stripe of conspiracy theorist — is awash with tales of Aafia Siddiqui, all of them unsubstantiated and unsourced. The Grey Lady of Bagram, the ghostly Prisoner 650, is no more substantial to us than she was when she made her reappearance on 17th of July in circumstances yet far from clear themselves. She is due in court again on September 3, but whether we will learn anything more or new about this very grey affair is very much a matter for conjecture.