Dr. Aafia Case Verdict & Our Responsibility

Kashmir Problem & Pak – India Peace Efforts

Downfall of America has just Begun – Dr. Aafia’s Mother Statement

Dr. Aafia Convicted of trying to kill Americans – That’s why we hate YOU -Americans

NEW YORK—A U.S.-trained Pakistani scientist was convicted Wednesday of charges that she tried to kill Americans while detained in Afghanistan in 2008, shouting with raised arm as jurors left the courtroom: “This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America.”

A jury deliberated three days in federal court in Manhattan before finding Aafia Siddiqui guilty in the third week of her attempted murder trial, which she often interrupted with rambling courtroom outbursts.

After declaring the verdict came from Israel, she turned toward spectators in the packed courtroom and said: “Your anger should be directed where it belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof.”

Siddiqui, 37, was convicted of attempted murder, though the crime was not found by the jury to be premeditated. She was also convicted of armed assault, using and carrying a firearm, and assault of U.S. officers and employees.

Before her arrest, U.S. authorities had called Siddiqui an al-Qaida sympathizer. She was never charged with terrorism, but prosecutors called her a grave threat who was carrying bomb-making instructions and a list of New York City landmarks including the Statue of Liberty when she was captured.

The defendant—a spindly neuroscience specialist who trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis University—”is no shrinking violet,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher La Vigne said in closing arguments.

“She does what she wants when she wants it,” he said. “These charges are no joke. People almost died.”

Testifying in her own defense, Siddiqui claimed she had been tortured and held in a “secret prison” before her detention. Charges that she attacked U.S. personnel who wanted to interrogate her were “crazy,” she said. “It’s just ridiculous.”

In court, Siddiqui veiled her head and face with a white scarf and often sat slumped in her chair. She openly sparred with the judge and her own lawyers, insisted she could single-handedly bring peace to the Middle East and lashed out at witnesses in tirades that got her kicked out of the courtroom.

“I was never planning a bombing! You’re lying!” she yelled while an Army captain testified.

In her closing argument, defense attorney Linda Moreno accused the prosecutors of trying to play on the jury’s fears.

“They want to scare you into convicting Aafia Siddiqui,” she said. “The defense trusts that you’re much smarter than that.”

During the two-week trial, FBI agents and U.S. soldiers testified that when they went to interrogate Siddiqui at an Afghan police station, she snatched up an unattended assault rifle and shot at them while yelling, “Death to Americans.” She was wounded by return fire but recovered and was brought to the United States to face charges attempted murder, assault and gun charges.

A chief warrant officer, who testified in uniform but did not give his name, told jurors he had set down his M4 rifle after being told Siddiqui had been restrained. He testified he was shocked when she suddenly appeared from behind a curtain wielding his M4 rifle and yelling, “Allah akbar,” Arabic for “God is great.”

“It was pretty amazing she got that thing up and squared off,” he said. “She was looking at me and aiming dead at me.”

Hearing the rifle go off, the officer said he followed his military training and pulled his pistol. Siddiqui was wrestling with an interpreter when he shot her in the stomach.

“I operated within the rules of engagement to eliminate the threat,” he said.

The defense told jurors there was no ballistic, fingerprint or other physical evidence proving the weapon was “touched by Dr. Siddiqui, let alone fired by her.”

Siddiqui testified she was shot shortly after she poked her head around a curtain to see if there was a way she might slip out of the room where she was being held. She said she was desperate to escape because she feared being returned to a secret prison.

“I wanted to get out. … I was afraid,” she said.

Verdict in Aafia Siddiqui’s case expected Wednesday

NEW YORK, Feb 03 (APP): A New York jury deliberated for several hours on Tuesday without reaching a verdict in the case of Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui, who is charged with attempted murder of FBI agents and US military personnel in Afghanistan.

The deliberations are scheduled to resume on Wednesday, at the end of which a verdict is expected. But no one could with certainty that the 12-member jury would return a verdict. Ms. Siddiqui’s case went to the jury after more than two weeks of trial in a Manhattan federal court.

She is accused of grabbing a US warrant officer’s M-4 rifle in a police station in Ghazni, Afghanistan in July 2008 and firing two shots at FBI agents and military personnel, who had gone there to interrogate her.

The prosecution alleges she emerged from behind a curtain and fire two bullets before she was shot by the chief warrants officer. Before adjourning Tuesday afternoon, the jury went over the testimonies of Ms. Siddiqui, Captain Robert Snyder of US Army, who accused her of picking an unsecured gun and firing two shots; FBI Special Agent Gordon Hurley, who was first to inspect the crime scene; and two Afghan police officers—Abdul Qadeer and Bashir.

The jurors also examined the M-4 rifle that Ms.  Siddiqui is alleged to have brandished at US personnel. Last week, Siddiqui testified she was concerned about being transferred to a “secret” prison by the US forces and was trying to slip out of the room when she was shot. “I’m telling you what I know.

I walked toward the curtain. I was shot and I was shot again. I fainted,” she said. Siddiqui’s lawyer Linda Moreno said during closing arguments Monday that the “science” supported her testimony that she didn’t touch the weapon or fire it. “Where are the bullet holes? Did the Afghanis take the bullet holes? There is no physical evidence that an M-4 rifle was touched by Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, let alone fired”, Moreno said.

Some legal experts believe that by testifying before the court against the advice of her lawyers and family, Ms. Siddiqui may have complicated her case. This was clear from the way the prosecution on Monday picked holes in her testimony, accusing her of lying planning to destroy New York City landmarks. Ms. Siddiqui vanished in Karachi with her three children on March 30, 2003.

US officials allege that she was seized on July 17, 2008 by Afghan security forces in Ghazni province and claim that documents, including formulas for explosives and chemical weapons, were found in her handbag. She has been brought to the United States to face charges of attempted murder and assault.

Siddiqui faces 20 years in prison on the attempted murder charges and life in prison on the firearms charge. However, human rights organizations have cast doubt on the accuracy of the US account of the event.

Source : http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95624&Itemid=2 

رات کو سستا فون بند کریں: پنجاب

پنجاب اسمبلی نے مطالبہ کیا ہے کہ نوجوان نسل کے بہتر مستقبل کے لیے موبائل فون کمپنیوں کی جانب سے متعارف کرائے گئے دیر رات کے سستے پیکیجوں پر پابندی لگائی جائے۔

یہ مطالبہ پنجاب اسمبلی کے اجلاس میں ایک قرارداد کے ذریعے کیا گیا جو مسلم لیگ (ق) کی خاتون رکن اسمبلی ثمینہ خاور حیات نے پیش کی۔

پاکستان میں کام کرنے والی مختلف موبائل فون کمپنیوں نے ایسے پیکیج متعارف کرائے ہیں جن کے تحت رات گئے سے صبح تک انتہائی کم پیسوں میں طویل بات کی جاسکتی ہے اور یہ پیکیج صارفین میں خاصے مقبول ہیں۔

پنجاب اسمبلی کے ارکان نے قرارداد متفقہ طور پر منظور کرتے ہوئے وفاقی حکومت سے سفارش کی کہ وہ موبائل کمپنیوں کو یہ ہدایات جاری کریں کہ وہ لیٹ نائٹ پیکیجوں کو ختم کریں۔

ثمینہ خاور حیات نے اپنی قرارداد میں یہ کہا ہے کہ موبائل فون کے دیر رات کے کم دام کی وجہ سے نوجوان نسل بری طرح متاثر ہورہی ہے کیونکہ طلبہ اور طالبات ان پیکیجوں کی وجہ سے رات بھر جاگتے ہیں اور فون پر باتیں کرتے ہیں۔

قرارداد میں کہا گیا کہ نوجوان نسل نہ تو رات کے وقت پڑھتی اور نہ مناسب نیند لیتی ہے جس کے باعث ان کی تعلیم اور صحت دونوں بگڑ رہی ہیں۔

ثمینہ خاور کا کہنا ہے کہ نوجوان نسل اخلاقی اور سماجی اقدار کو بھول کر اصل مقصد سے ہٹ گئی ہے اس لیے ایسے پیکیج کو ختم کیا جائے۔

خیال رہے کہ گزشتہ برس وفاقی حکومت نے موبائل فون کے ذریعے پیغام رسانی یعنی ایس ایم ایس پر بیس پیسے ٹیکس لگانے کی تجویز بجٹ میں پیش کی تھی جس پر نوجوان لڑکوں اور لڑکیوں کے علاوہ دیگر شعبوں سے تعلق رکھنے والے افراد نے شدید درعمل کا اظہار کیا تھااور اسی وجہ سے بجٹ میں ایس ایم ایس پر بیس فیصد ٹیکس لگانے کی تجویز پر عمل درآمد نہیں کیا گیا تھا۔

Jury To Decide Fate of Aafia Siddiqui

 Source : http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/jury-to-decide-fate-of-aafia-siddiqui/1027/ 

As closing remarks came to an end and jury deliberations began in the trial of female Pakistani. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who faces 7 count assault and attempted murder charges in a New York Court room, for an alleged shooting incident in Ghazni Afghanistan, many spectators are wondering if it is possible for her to have a fair trial in post 9-11 America.

Although she is not charged with terrorism, the Prosecution was able to make that claim the underpinning of its entire case, due in large part to Judge Richard Berman’s decision to allow into evidence documents found in Dr. Siddiqui’s possession which include handwritten notes about “how to make a dirty bomb” and plans to cause “mass casualties” in the United States. The defense Attorney, Charles Swift said it was a legally “flawed” decision and will be the basis on an appeal if Dr. Siddiqui is not acquitted.

In their closing remarks the prosecution was able to spin the jury’s decision from a verdict on the guilt or innocence of Dr. Siddiqui, to the guilt or innocence of the 9 government eyewitnesses who say they heard or saw an M4 rifle shot on July 18, 2008 by Dr. Siddiqui. ‘For you to find Aafia Siddiqui not-guilty. That means you believe that the 9 Government witnesses who testified under oath stared you in the face and lied, men and women of the armed forces.’

The Prosecution characterized Siddiqui as a highly intelligent yet shrewd and cunning manipulator who carefully “planned her defense”. He described how she “ducked” and “dodged” questions referring to her answers about the year she was born and her son who was found with her. During her testimony Dr. Siddiqui was asked if she was born in 1972. Her response was “If you say so” , then when on to explain how can anyone recall when they were born. Later, she was asked by Jenna Dabbs if the boy she was with was her son. She again couldn’t answer directly claiming that she only saw pictures of him so she didn’t know for sure. Though many legal observers found her answers quite logical, it would be difficult for the jury to understand this without being informed of her claims of being in held in a secret prison for 5 years.

The prosecution then addressed the inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimonies as analogous to a car accident, in which different people would have different accounts of what happened prior to the accident as their “focus” would be on different things, but during the accident everyone’s focus would then “shift” to the sight of action and then perspectives would converge.

Later during the rebuttal phase of the closing, the prosecution argued that the inconsistencies were proof that the accounts were truthful. “They didn’t get together” and make sure their stories matched. “There was no grand conspiracy to convict this woman.” If they wanted to do that “why didn’t they simply plant some evidence” at the crime scene.

They were responding to the closing remarks made by the defense in which Linda Moreno argued that the ‘bond” between soldiers on the battlefield who must “protect each other”, influenced the testimonies of the government witnesses. She pointed out that their testimonies not only conflicted with each other’s but with their own earlier signed statements.

Moreno tried to get the jury to focus on the science and the forensic evidence. “there’s only one witness who’s impartial” and who “doesn’t have a dog in this fight”, and that is the room she said, the 26 X 12 ft room, 300 square feet with 10-120 people. She reminded the of the complete lack of physical evidence, no bullets, casings, bullet holes, gun shot residue. No one else was hurt except Aafia Siddiqui in this small crowded room where the M4 rifle allegedly went off. She responded to the government claim that the Afghans took the evidence, by pointing out that they (the Afghans) were the ones who alerted the Americans to her in the first place.

The Prosecution’s closing remarks had more references to the “documents” describing terrorist acts against Americans, than throughout the entire trial. Moreno responded to this by saying, “they’re trying to scare you. But that “Fear has no place in this trial. Fear has no place in America”

Quaid e Azam Mohmmad Ali Jinnah was not secular

By : Moin Ansari

Barrister Muhammad All Jinnah after financially securing himself entered the political field in 1905 at the age of 30 years as a staunch nationalist from the platform of the Indian National Congress. He was soon reckoned as an aggressive, bold and a forthright speaker for the cause of the Indian independence.

In his speech in December 1906 in an annual open session of the Indian National Congress in Calcutta he created a stir by challenging the British government to hasten the grant of ‘home-rule’ to India. He said: “If the British do not give ‘home-rule’ to India and soon, then it will not be Boston tea chests that will be thrown in to the sea, but truck loads of Britishers that will be thrown into the Indian ocean.” The speech not only shook the Vice-regal Lodge, but also created ripples amongst the Congress ranks as well, who were not prepared to go that far and were only hypocritically agitating against the Raj.

In his pursuit for ‘home rule’ for India, Jinnah firmly believed in Hindu-Muslim unity as a prerequisite and therefore came to be known as the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. But the Hindu bigots in the Congress put many obstacles in the way of this unity. Jinnah saw through their nefarious designs to perpetually dominate the Muslims. For almost 20 years he tried to convince them of the need of this unity and proper safeguards for the minorities, particularly the Muslims. His views were always sidelined but he remained firm in his convictions. And in spite of separating from the Congress in 1920, he continued to attend various ‘unity’ conferences. He advanced many proposals that were not accepted, and finally came up with his Fourteen Points which later became the combined voice of all the Muslim organisations.

As president of the Muslim League in 1916, and at the same time a front rank leader of the Indian Congress, he was in a unique position and negotiated a unity agreement between the two political parties in a pact known as the Lucknow Pact. It was a personal triumph for Mr Jinnah. This pact conceded the right of the Muslims to a separate electorate. Was Mr Jinnah secular? Some of Mr Jinnah’s detractors call him secular.

Who is a secular? Webster’s Pocket Dictionary defines secular as one who “is not concerned with religion; and not living in a religious community.”

Let us see Mr Jinnah in the light of this definition. In this context, nothing could be more authentic than Jinnah’s own confession about his faith. On August 6, 1939, he said: “I was born Muslim; I am a Muslim and shall die a Muslim.” At another time he said: “I am no Maulana or a Maulvi but I also know a little of my faith.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah was brought up in a Muslim family, adhered to the tenants of Islam, was repeatedly elected to the Indian Council/Legislative Assembly on a seat reserved for a Muslim, succeeded in getting a number of bills concerning the Muslims passed from the Legislative Assembly, advocated Hindu-Muslim unity, always stressed for safeguards for the Muslims including their demand for a federal form of government as envisaged by the Nehru Report. In his negotiations with the government and parlays with the Indian Congress, he always stoutly advocated the Muslim cause.

But when Jinnah finally resigned from the Congress after 20 years, he focused more to organise his community. Within a short time in 1935, he gave Muslims a sense of separate entity, a third party status in 1936/37 when Nehru introduced his “two forces” doctrine in the Indian politics, gave them the status of nationhood in 1940, indicated to them the goal of Pakistan and finally within seven years in 1947 brought about the miracle of the 20th century in the form of an independent dominion of Pakistan.

With this background and Mr Jinnah’s relentless struggle for the rights of his Muslim community none of Webster’s definitions may be applied to him – his actions or sayings. He was as good a Muslim as anyone of us or perhaps better in many respects. He had complete knowledge of the convents of Islam and was well acquainted with the prayer rituals. I am a witness to it as his ADC. To dub Quaid-i-Azam as secular or that he wanted Pakistan to be a secular state is only an attempt to further confuse the quagmire of political thinking already prevalent in the country.

Having said that, I would not like the clerics and those alluding Pakistan to be a theocracy, to get away with the argument that “if Quaid-i-Azam and Pakistan were no secular then they must be theocratic.” It is a fallacy and totally illogical.

In a theocratic state, a priestly class claiming to have divine authority runs the government. This is what the politico-religious class is exploiting in order to gain power. They have also spread the notion that “Pakistan was created in the name of Islam…its ideology is based on adherence to the strict convents of Islam.” In support of their arguments they always quote the well known slogan: Pakistan ka matlab kia, La-e-la-ha Illil- lillalla raised by the masses during their struggle for Pakistan.

It may be pointed out that a few religious parties are very recent converts to being the champions of Pakistan. Their predecessors and forefathers vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan. They called Quaid-i-Azam as Kafir-i-Azam and Pakistan Dar-ul-Harb (the house of evil). They even preferred to stay back in India after independence and it was only when they saw a bleak future for them there, they reluctantly migrated to Pakistan. Encouraged and abetted by the dictators they established their political foothold and now present themselves as the custodians of Pakistan.

It must be understood that Pakistan was established on the basis of ‘Muslim nationhood’ and to safeguard the social, economic and political existence of the Muslims of the subcontinent. It was not created as a theocratic state. Quaid-i-Azam at no stage used the term ‘ideology’ of Pakistan. He always talked of Pakistan as a ‘democratic’ where ‘faith’ would be the personal matter of each individual. In his address to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947 he said: “Religion, cast or creed has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Again in February 1948 while addressing the Australians and later the Americans he asserted: “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with divine mission.” After these unambiguous and categorical statements of the Quaid all this controversy of his or the state being secular or theocratic should end.

A few words for the well known slogan: Pakistan Ka Matlab Kia: La-e-la-ha Illil-lillalla. This slogan was an expression of the two centuries of domination by the majority community that the Muslims saw as ending and in their exuberance and frenzy they raised slogans.

Founder of the country before and after independence in his speeches and writings always assured the people and the world at large that Pakistan is not going to be secular or a theocracy to be ruled by priests.

Quaid-i-Azam’s vision of Pakistan is very clear: he wanted Pakistan to be modern, progressive, dynamic, forward looking and a democratic country with equal rights for all its citizens irrespective of their casts, creed or religion.

Let us get out of this secular and theocracy syndrome so ruthlessly exploited so far and unite to chart out a course for making Pakistan the envy of the vision of Quaid-i-Azam, an Islamic democratic welfare state. Nation. The writer is former ADC to Quaid-i-Azam. Ata Rabani

Source : http://www.zimbio.com/Muhammad+Ali+Jinnah/articles/0IP1yUTeBkW/Quaid+e+Azam+Mohmmad+Ali+Jinnah+not+secular

Aafia Siddiqui Trial: Jury Can Start Deliberation On Monday

  By Ibrahim Sajid Malick

Jury in Dr. Aafia Siddiqui trial is likely to begin deliberations Monday afternoon after prosecution and defense attorneys make closing statements.

In a taped video deposition presented by defense on Friday, Bashir, an Afghan police officer testified that he saw an American officer walk behind the curtain just before he heard gun shots, and that he never saw Dr. Siddiqui pick up a gun. Bashir was the last defense witness.

 Earlier in the day Judge Richard Berman allowed prosecution to produce additional witnesses to rebut claims made by the defense witnesses and experts. With lack of physical evidence and burden of proof – the Government has to demonstrate with mathematical certitude that Dr. Siddiqui grabbed the Chief Warrant Officer’s M4 Assault Rifle and fired at United States officers and employees in Ghazni, Afghanistan on July 18, 2008.

A point of possible contention was raised Friday when Bashir testified there were two shell casing found in the room. Government has produced only one .9mm shell casing as evidence during the trial. The prosecution offered rebuttal witnesses, intended to respond to the evidence presented by the defense. First, the prosecution called a firing range owner, Gary Woodworth, who testified that he remembered Dr. Siddiqui coming to the shooting range 19 years ago.

However under cross examination, Mr. Woodworth also admitted that there were no records of Dr. Siddiqui ever having visited the shooting range, and that even if she had, it could have been as part of her physical education requirements at MIT. Mr. Woodworth also acknowledged being a member of the National Rifle Association and having very close relationships with law enforcement officers. He also admitted that the course he alleged she came for is a very basic training pistol course.

 When asked by a defense attorney if he remembered the student he taught before Aafia he said, “no”; if he remembered the student he taught after Aafia, he said “no”. The prosecution then called FBI Special Agent Bruce Kammerman, who testified that while recuperating at Bagram Airbase hospital, Dr. Siddiqui had told him that she had picked up the gun because she wanted to scare people in order to ease her escape. However, on cross-examination, Agent Kammerman admitted that his original handwritten notes about the conversation did not mention anything about “picking up” the gun, but only Dr. Siddiqui’s desire to escape, and that the reference to the gun was added only in the final typed report.

Kammerman testified that during the conversations she was “lucid”, but he was not aware of what medications she was on and did not inquire about them. He testified that he addressed all of her needs for food, water, and bathroom use during his 12 hour daily shifts monitoring her.

 In Aafia Siddiqui’s direct testimony during her time at the hospital she said that Bruce’s presence was “torture” for her as he would cross examination, Kammerman conceded that when she needed to go to the bathroom he did insist that the door be open for “security”. According to Siddiqui’s testimony, he would stay all night and because of this during his entire 12 hour shifts she could not go to the bathroom. The Prosecution then brought the other FBI agent who monitored Dr. Siddiqui while in the hospital, Angela Sercer. Sercer is a female Special Agent who also kept 12 hour shifts every day that Siddiqui was at the hospital.

She offered similar testimony to Kammerman, however, acknowledged that Siddiqui was on a wide variety of medications including, morphine, ativan, haldol, phentinol, and percocet; still she maintained that Siddiqui was “lucid”. According to Siddiqui Angela seemed like a “nice person” Both Sercer and Kammerman testified that their purpose in being with Siddiqui was for “security” and to “gather intelligence” about matters unrelated to the shooting incident. They both also testified that Siddiqui initiated the conversations. If neither of these fact were accurate then Miranda Laws would apply and these alleged self-incriminating statements would not be admissible in court.

According to Miranda laws an arrested individual must be advised of their rights including the right to an attorney and/or consular staff, and right not to speak. Also, law enforcement officals must identify themselves. Although Siddiqui was not read her Miranda rights and FBI officals did not identify themselves, the judge has allowed their testimony.

 Thursday had marked a turning point in the trial of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, who decided to take the witness stand in her own defense. She declared under oath for the first time that she “was tortured in a secret prison” and that her missing children are all that has been on her mind every day. Dr. Siddiqui denied ever having shot at anyone, and appeared to remain unshaken even under intense cross-examination by the prosecution.

She explained that she was shot by US soldiers while attempting to peek around the curtain partition in the interrogation room, while looking for a way to escape. Before her testimony was cut short by the Judge, Dr. Siddiqui mentioned that her fear of being sent back to a secret prison had made her anxious to escape.

Source : http://ibrahimsajidmalick.com/aafia-siddiqui-trial-jury-can-start-deliberation-on-monday/986/

Defense team wants ‘Lady al Qaeda’ Aafia Siddiqui barred from taking stand

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/26/2010-01-26_defense_team_wants_lady_al_qaeda_aafia_siddiqui_barred_from_taking_stand.html#ixzz0e2Fn2NDt

BY Alison Gendar AND Stephanie Gaskell
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Rosenberg for News

Aafia Siddiqui raises her hand to tell Judge Richard Berman “You’re a liar!” at Federal Court in Manhattan.

She’s not just out of control – she’s out of her mind.

Or so lawyers for the so-called “Lady al Qaeda” claimed Tuesday as asked a judge to bar their client from taking the stand in her own defense.

Lawyers for MIT-trained scientist Aafia Siddiqui say her request to testify “is driven by her severe mental illness and would turn the trial into a spectacle.”

“It has been and continues to be our belief that Dr. Siddiqui suffers from diminished capacity,” the lawyers wrote in a letter to Manhattan Federal Richard Berman.

The bid to muzzle Siddiqui – charged with attempted murder for opening fire on Americans in Afghanistan – is a longshot since she’s already been found competent.

Since the trial began last week, she’s been tossed from the courtroom several times for outbursts – including pleas to talk to President Obama and boasts that she can broker peace with the Taliban.

The lawyer fear more of the same under oath.

“Should Dr. Siddiqui continue her irrational and bewildering insistence that she has the power to influence the Taliban, she will invite jurors to infer that she has terrorist associations,” they wrote.

Her family says they’re also worried about Siddiqui’s mental state.

“The Aafia whom we know and love is not the same rational and focused Aafia who we see in this courtroom,” said her brother, Muhammad Siddiqui.

Prosecutors aren’t buying it.

“She is clearly doing it opportunistically,” prosecutor David Rody said even before the defense made its request.
“This is not any kind of political statement. She is trying to win the trial.”

Siddiqui, meanwhile, told the judge she no longer wants to attend the trial.

“I’m going to boycott from now on,” she said as she left the courtroom. “I’m not coming here again. Bye again.”

The judge is expected to rule on whether she can testify before the defense begins presenting its case to the jury today.

Siddiqui is on trial for allegedly snatched a Special Forces officer’s rifle and opening fire on a team of Americans sent to interrogate her after she was arrested in Afghanistan in 2008 with chemicals and weapons-making guides