* Excerpt on Aafia Siddiqui from 2012 Georgetown thesis
Posted by DXer on August 26, 2012
******
******
******
******
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Posted by DXer on August 26, 2012
This entry was posted on August 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. Tagged: *** 2001 anthrax attacks, *** Amerithrax, *** FBI anthrax investigation, 2012 Georgetown PhD thesis, Aafia Siddiqui. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?
DXer said
Who is Aafia Siddiqui? ‘Lady al-Qaida,’ in Fort Worth prison, was arrested after 9/11 BY KALEY JOHNSON UPDATED JANUARY 15, 2022 9:05 PM
According to an appeal filed by Siddiqui’s lawyer in 2014, Siddiqui was kidnapped by Pakistani police in 2003. She was held in the custody of Pakistani and/or American security forces for five years and subjected to physical and psychological torture at the Bagram Detention Center north of Kabul, the attorney said.
According to the Department of Justice, Siddiqui was on the run for those five years, and she detained in Afghanistan in 2008. Officers who searched her found documents about the creation of explosives, descriptions of American landmarks and sealed bottles of chemicals, according to a press release about her arrest. While in the Afghan facility, U.S. Army officers said Sidiqqui grabbed a rifle from an officer, pointed it at a captain and yelled, “May the blood of [unintelligible] be directly on your [unintelligible, possibly head or hands].” An interpreter lunged at her and pushed the rifle away as Siddiqui pulled the trigger, according to the DOJ. Siddiqui fired at least two shots but did not hit anyone. An Army officer shot Siddqui in the torso.
Read more at: https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article257366707.html#storylink=cpy
DXer said
A closer look at the case of Aafia Siddiqui, jailed in Texas
The man who authorities say was holding hostages inside a Texas synagogue on Saturday demanded the release of a Pakistani woman who is imprisoned nearby on charges of trying to kill American service members in Afghanistan
By ERIC TUCKER Associated Press
January 15, 2022, 9:57 PM
•
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/closer-case-aafia-siddiqui-jailed-texas-82290187
DXer said
Aafia Siddiqui “has absolutely no involvement” in synagogue hostage situation, her attorney says
From CNN’s Andy Rose
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/texas-synagogue-hostage-situation/h_bdb43b3cd460d8686fb0352d1a6f08e7
“She does not want any violence perpetrated against any human being, especially in her name,” Marwa Elbially told CNN by phone. “It obviously has nothing to do with Dr. Siddiqui or her family.”
DXer said
Muhammad Siddiqui, Aafia’s Brother, Is Not Accused Colleyville, Texas, Hostage Taker
https://heavy.com/news/houston/muhammad-siddiqui/
• By Jessica McBride
• Updated Jan 15, 2022 at 6:57pm
The Colleyville, Texas, synagogue hostage taker claimed he was convicted terrorist Aafia Siddique’s brother Muhammad Siddiqui, but her lawyer told Heavy in an emailed statement that he was falsely accused and her brother is not involved.
In a statement emailed to Heavy, Houston Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Houston) Board Chair John Floyd and legal counsel for the brother of Dr. Aafia, condemned the synagogue hostage taking situation and said that the “assailant has nothing to do with Dr. Aafia” or her family. The statement read, in part:
This assailant has nothing to do with Dr. Aafia, her family, or the global campaign to get justice for Dr. Aafia. We want the assailant to know that his actions are wicked and directly undermine those of us who are seeking justice for Dr. Aafia. On behalf of the family and Dr. Aafia, we call on you to immediately release the hostages and turn yourself in. The CAIR-Houston office has represented Dr. Aafia’s brother since 2004. We have confirmed that the family member being wrongly accused of this heinous act is not near the DFW Metro area. We call on the reporters that claimed this man to be a member of Dr. Aafia’s family to correct their reports and issue an apology to the Siddiqui family.
DXer said
‘If anyone tries to enter this building… everyone will die’: Man with ‘backpack of bombs’ is heard on Texas synagogue livestream as he holds four hostage and demands his terrorist ‘sister’ – ‘Lady Al Qaeda’ – is freed from jail
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406409/Officials-negotiating-man-reportedly-holding-people-hostage-Texas-synagogue.html
DXer said
Emboldened By Taliban Takeover, Activists Demand Release of Neuroscientist Dr. Aafia Jailed In Texas Over Al Qaeda Links, Attempted Murder of U.S. Military Officials
https://www.memri.org/reports/emboldened-taliban-takeover-afghanistan-pro-islamist-activists-demand-release-pakistani
DXer said
Anthrax letters suspect Adnan El-Shukrijumah was an associate with Aafia Siddiqui and Al-Hindi. When she was captured, Aafia had a thumb drive with her email correspondence with US-based cell members.
Elusive Al Qaeda thug Adnan Shukrijumah continues to frustrate U.S. authorities
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK AND LARRY MCSHANE / DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 2010, 4:00 AM
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/elusive-al-qaeda-thug-adnan-shukrijumah-continues-frustrate-u-s-authorities-article-1.464986#ixzz2V6exkGE5
He was earlier linked to the 9/11 attacks, to a plot to blow up Kennedy Airport and to a Pakistani neuroscientist arrested with notes on potential U.S. targets.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/elusive-al-qaeda-thug-adnan-shukrijumah-continues-frustrate-u-s-authorities-article-1.464986#ixzz2V6etOKmO
Shukrijumah took flight lessons at the same time as the 9/11 hijackers. He was known within Al Qaeda as Jafar al Tayar – Jafar the pilot – and assigned to scope out New York targets for a possible second wave of warfare.
Shukrijumah has ties to Aafia Siddiqui, the Pakistani neuroscientist who tried to kill an Army captain after she was caught in Afghanistan with notes on dirty bombs, chemical weapons and potential New York targets….
We must know the enemy intimately in order to defeat it.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/embodiment-evil-degrees-separation-terrorists-article-1.463853#ixzz2V6fd2aaw
DXer said
Note that this excerpt is totally botched. Ammar Al-Balucchi was Aafia’s second husband. He was not the anesthesiologist (the first husband).
Ammar al-Balucchi was the 911 planner, KSM’s nephew, who asked Aafia to help out with anthrax. Aafia, she says, spent 6 months researching the subject at Karachi technical institute.
DXer said
DXer said
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, -v.- AAFIA SIDDIQUI, Defendant-Appellant.UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22683
November 5, 2012, Decided
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended November 15, 2012.
Decision reached on appeal by United States v. Siddiqui, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22728 (2d Cir. N.Y., Nov. 5, 2012)
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed her conviction on numerous offenses, including violating 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 2332 and 1114, and the 86-year sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She asserted two claims as to her conviction and three claims as to her sentence.
OVERVIEW: Defendant’s argument that the district court committed reversible error in admitting testimonial hearsay in violation of the Crawford decision failed. The Afghan officials had no expectation or awareness that their statements regarding what documents were found on defendant when she was arrested would later be used at a trial, and the government did not offer those statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The district court did not commit reversible error in failing to give an instruction to the jury requiring them to be unanimous as to the specific identity of defendant’s intended victims for the attempted murder counts. She unsuccessfully argued that the district court erred by refusing to horizontally depart in her criminal history category and thereby to mitigate the effects of the terrorism enhancement on her sentence. Her claim of procedural error predicated on lack of notice was without merit. The district court did not improperly invade the province of mental health professionals when it commented on her likelihood of recidivism. Any error by the district court in finding defendant’s conduct to be premeditated would be harmless.
AMENDED SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York be AFFIRMED.
Appellant Aafia Siddiqui appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Berman, J.), convicting her after a jury trial of numerous offenses and sentencing her principally to 86 years’ imprisonment. In an accompanying published opinion, we address five issues that Siddiqui raises on appeal. [*2] We address the remaining issues herein. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
Siddiqui contends that reversal is warranted because the district court admitted testimonial hearsay in violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Her argument follows several steps. She claims that the testimony of two United States Army officers that they were informed by certain Afghan officials that Siddiqui was in possession of incendiary documents at the time of her arrest violated Crawford. Siddiqui argues that without this testimony, the government could not establish that Siddiqui possessed the documents when she was arrested. And according to Siddiqui, because the “real relevance” of the documents is that Siddiqui possessed them in close proximity (in time) to the shooting incident, the documents would have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 but for the officers’ testimony.
Siddiqui’s Crawford challenge stumbles at its first step. HN1The Confrontation Clause bars only testimonial hearsay used to establish the truth of the matter [*3] asserted. See United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 216-17 (2d Cir. 2006). A testimonial statement is “a solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1153, 179 L. Ed. 2d 93 (2011) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Typical testimonial statements include affidavits, depositions, and grand jury testimony. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52. The outer bounds of what constitutes a testimonial statement remain unclear. But “the critical factor in identifying a Confrontation Clause concern is the declarant’s awareness or expectation that his or her statements may later be used at trial.” United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127, 163 (2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, we have little doubt that the Afghan officials had no expectation or awareness that their statements regarding what documents were found on Siddiqui when she was arrested would later be used at a trial. When these statements were made, Siddiqui had not yet fired upon the American interview team. The United States’ interest in Siddiqui was primarily military in nature. This is underscored by the fact that the statements were conveyed [*4] to American military personnel, not domestic law enforcement officers. As such, there was no Crawford violation. See Bryant, 131 S.Ct. at 1154.
We note also that the government did not offer these statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather to show their effect on the listeners-in other words, to explain the United States’ interest in interviewing Siddiqui. The district court gave a limiting instruction to this effect. Even if, as Siddiqui appears to contend, allowing the testimony was impermissible under hearsay rules, such an error would be harmless because (1) there was other evidence that strongly suggested the documents were in Siddiqui’s possession at the time of her arrest; and (2) as explained in the accompanying published opinion, admission of the documents was harmless.
Next, in an argument that she herself characterizes as advancing a “novel theor[y],” Siddiqui Reply Br. 3, Siddiqui contends that the district court committed reversible error in failing to give an instruction to the jury requiring them to be unanimous as to the specific identity of Siddiqui’s intended victims for the attempted murder counts. We disagree.
The statutes at issue here HN2prohibit [*5] the attempted killing of “a national of the United States,” 18 U.S.C. § 2332, and “any officer or employee of the United States while such officer or employee is engaged in or on the account of the performance of official duties,” 18 U.S.C. § 1114. Because the statutes do not specify the elements of “attempt to kill,” the elements are those required for attempted murder at common law, which include an intent to kill. See Braxton v. United States, 500 U.S. 344, 351, 111 S. Ct. 1854, 114 L. Ed. 2d 385 n.* (1991).
HN3Federal juries must be unanimous as to each element of an offense. Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 817, 119 S. Ct. 1707, 143 L. Ed. 2d 985 (1999). However, “a federal jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element.” Id. “[F]or example, [where] an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat; others might conclude he used a gun. But that disagreement-a disagreement about means-would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely, that the defendant had threatened force.” Id. Courts have not developed [*6] a bright line test for distinguishing between an element of a crime and a “brute fact.” Instead, they look to the statutory language, tradition, and fairness concerns, such as the likelihood that treating a fact as a means rather than an element would allow “wide disagreement among the jurors about just what the defendant did, or did not, do” and the risk that the jury may convict on bad reputation alone. Id. at 819.
Here, HN4the relevant statutory language—prohibiting the attempted killing of “a national” and “any officer or employee—suggests that Congress did not intend that the government had to prove that the defendant had a particular individual in mind as an element of the crime. Cf. United States v. Talbert, 501 F.3d 449, 451 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Verrecchia, 196 F.3d 294, 299 (1st Cir. 1999). Viewing the identity of the intended victim as a “brute fact” rather than as an element does not implicate fairness concerns. It does not allow for wide juror disagreement as to the defendant’s acts and does not create or aggravate the risk that the jury would convict on bad reputation alone. See Richardson, 526 U.S. at 819.
Indeed, a contrary interpretation would lead to absurd [*7] results. For instance, under Siddiqui’s interpretation of the statute, a defendant who fired one shot at a group of United States employees or nationals with the intent to indiscriminately kill one of them, but not an intent to kill a particular individual, could not be convicted under the statutes. For these reasons, we reject Siddiqui’s argument that the district court was required to instruct the jury that they had to be unanimous as to which United States employee or national Siddiqui intended to kill.
The final three arguments that Siddiqui advances concern sentencing. She contends that the district court erred by refusing to “horizontally depart” in her criminal history category and thereby to mitigate the effects of the terrorism enhancement on her sentence. HN5We will not review a district court’s refusal to alter a criminal history category unless the court “misapprehended the scope of its authority to depart or the sentence was otherwise illegal.” United States v. Valdez, 426 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir. 2005); see United States v. Stinson, 465 F.3d 113, 114 (2d Cir. 2006). Because there is nothing in the record to suggest that the district court did not appreciate or understand its [*8] authority to depart or that the sentence was otherwise illegal, we reject Siddiqui’s argument.
Next, in a somewhat unfocused argument, Siddiqui contends that (1) “the district court erred procedurally by not providing notice to defense counsel that recidivism was going to be a predominant concern” at sentencing; and (2) the district court imposed a “substantively unreasonable” sentence by finding that without treatment Siddiqui was likely to be a recidivist, and thereby drew conclusions that were clearly the province of mental health professionals. Siddiqui Reply Br. 49. Siddiqui’s claim of procedural error predicated on lack of notice is without merit. Indeed, the very Supreme Court case on which Siddiqui relies notes that HN6″[g]arden variety considerations of culpability, criminal history, likelihood of re-offense, seriousness of the crime, nature of the conduct, and so forth should not generally come as a surprise to trial lawyers who have prepared for sentencing.” Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708, 716, 128 S. Ct. 2198, 171 L. Ed. 2d 28 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). In addition, and more importantly, defense counsel, in their sentencing submission to the district court, explicitly [*9] addressed the issue, writing: “We understand that the Court, in light of our continued emphasis upon Dr. Siddiqui’s serious mental illness and the role it played in her offense conduct, has to speculate as to Dr. Siddiqui’s future dangerousness when addressing the issue as to what sentence will protect the public from her.” JA 3095.
Nor did the district court improperly invade the province of mental health professionals when it commented on the defendant’s likelihood of recidivism. Contrary to Siddiqui’s contentions, the district court’s comments here are a far cry from the comments to which this Court took exception in United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir. 2011), and United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2010). Moreover, the district court relied on other factors-such as the seriousness of the offense and the need for general deterrence-in fashioning its sentence. Under the circumstances of this case, a sentence of 86 years’ imprisonment is substantively reasonable.
Finally, we need not address Siddiqui’s claim that the district court erred in finding that her conduct was premeditated. Even without a finding of premeditation, Siddiqui’s Guidelines range [*10] would have been life imprisonment. As such, the district court characterized the dispute regarding premeditation as academic before addressing the issue. Any error in finding Siddiqui’s conduct to be premeditated would be harmless. See United States v. Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 68 (2d Cir. 2009).
After a thorough review of the record, we find Siddiqui’s remaining arguments to be without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying published opinion, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
DXer said
Imran demands release of Dr Aafia
September 12, 2012 – Updated 1915 PKT
From Web Edition
http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-67444-Imran-demands-release-of-Dr-Aafia
DXer said
A radiant Aafia Siddiqui waxes eloquent in 1991 in Houson on the rights of women under islam. This is before she went on to MIT to study genetics.
DXer said
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/world/asia/no-proposal-swap-afridi-aafia-isi-chief-034
No proposal to swap Afridi for Aafia: ISI chief
• September 2, 2012
Pakistan has no plans to swap a doctor arrested for running a vaccination campaign to trace Osama bin Laden for Aafia Siddiqui, convicted in the US for links to terrorism, ISI chief Lt Gen Zahir-ul-Islam has said.
DXer said
As I recall, Dr. Ayman has said he’ll target for killing anyone who talks ill of Aafia. Thus at his request I have deleted almost all material from the blog about Aafia. (Though I have to say the treatment was pretty fair and balanced and gave prominent feature to the picture of her as a beaming graduate holding roses). After 911, she remarried KSM’s nephew, one of the key 911 operatives assisting the hijackers enter the country. He had been with Al-Hawsawi in UAE. Al-Hawsawi the one who had the anthrax spraydrying documents on his labtop. KSM’s nephew (al-Balucchi) asked Aafia to help out research biological weapons and she says she spent about 6 months at a lab at a Karachi technical institute.
As to the reported trip to Africa to meet with Atef, I just would note that it is my recollection that expert and author Deborah Scroggins did not find any evidence to corroborate those reports and so IMO it remains unconfirmed.
DXer said
Ex-US attorney general to visit Dr Aafia’s family, August 24, 2012
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012824story_24-8-2012_pg12_12
Comment: As the distinguished counsel for Blind Sheik Abdel-Rahman, Ramsey Clark would have fascinating insights into the case of Aafia Siddiqui, especially after his visit with Ismat and Fowzia.
DXer said
The former US Attorney General, the blind sheik’s counsel, is lending his considerable stature to advocate the repatriation of Aafia Siddiqui.
Asian News International (ANI)
August 27, 2012 Monday
Dr Aafia was victimised by international politics for power: Ex-U.S. Attorney General
Karachi, Aug. 27 (ANI): Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark has said that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui is innocent and has been victimised by the international politics for power.
“Dr Aafia Siddiqui was victimised by the international politics being played for power. I haven’t witnessed such bare injustice in my entire career,” the Daily Times quoted Clark, as saying.
“Neither did Dr Aafia kill anyone, nor did she attempt at. In fact she was shot thrice and should be released immediately,” he said, adding that relations between Pakistan and the U.S. could be strengthened through repatriation of Dr Aafia.
Clark expressed his intention to gather people in America, for a one-point agenda of Dr Aafia’s repatriation.
“Significant peace and justice activists will join me in promoting this agenda. Under the law, justice should be provided to each and everyone without any condition,” he said.
Clark hailed the role of Pakistani people and particularly lawyers, saying that the nation’s voice on state level could play a significant role in Dr Aafia’s repatriation. He vowed that he would raise his voice for her repatriation at all levels in the U.S.
A U.S. court had sentenced Dr. Aafia to 86 years in solitary confinement for attempting to murder trained soldiers, when she was in their captivity. (ANI)
Comment: I greatly admire a woman, a peace activisit, who knows him well and admires him. I hope he can learn some details of her last decade and fill in some gaping holes. And of course, I hope he educates himself on the matter before enlisting peace activists to put their hard won reputations on the line.
Source [Asian News International (ANI)]
Show Full with Indexing
Sort Newest to Oldest
Date/Time August 27 2012 15:24:15
1 of 968
Back to Top
About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | My ID
Copyright © 2012 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DXer said
http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/jama-al-islamiya-dozens-jihadis-join-syrian-rebels-within-days
Assem Abdel Maged, media official at Jama’a al-Islamiya, has said that a group of jihadis are ready to travel to Syria within days to join the rebels in an attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Abdel Maged told Al-Masry Al-Youm that other groups had previously fought overseas, including in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, Mohamed al-Zawahiri, brother of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, denied rumors that he had taken up arms in Syria.
“I did not and will not travel to Syria, and I have no intention to leave Egypt now to start with,” he said. “All that has been said about me traveling with jihadis to Syria is absolutely not true.”
Magdy Salem, leader of Tala’e al-Fateh (Vanguards of Islamic Conquest), one of the jihadi movements that split from the Egyptian Islamic Jihad movement, said that his movement has not officially called for its members to travel to Syria.
“The participation of jihadis in the liberation of Syria is not a general trend in the jihad movement,” he said. “Everyone is not doing enough to support Syria, but whoever decides to travel there, his decision is individual and has nothing to do with us.”
Informed sources said that the jihadis will fight with the Free Syrian Army, and denied any rift between them.
The source pointed out that a number of members of jihad organizations are in Syria with the rebels, after they fought with the Libyan rebels who revolted against Muammar Qadhafi and contributed to his fall.
According to the source, Egyptian jihadis will get together with other Arab fighters in one of the neighboring countries and will wait until they are provided with the needed weapons to enter the country.
Comment:
Peace activists should work towards nonproliferation and non-violence. Aafia, who says she worked for 6 months studying biological weapons at Karachi technical institute at the request of her new husband Al-Balucchi, a key 911 operative, does not represent the ideals that peace activists should be prioritizing. The blind sheik’s lawyer Ramsey Clark is misleading peace activists in advocating that they take up her cause. An issue to focus on instead is how did Syria obtain its chemical weapons? Who sold the materials and profited? Did they know the use to which the equipment and materials would be put?
With respect to Aafia, the key bit of advocacy would be to establish the facts as to her whereabouts for the missing years (so as to establish the bona fides of the suggestion she was detained and mistreated). Ramsey should meet with her uncle in developing his factual background and corroborating what Fowzia is telling him.
Someone profited by actions which now has posed the world with these uncertainties. Follow the money.
DXer said
Here is background on Vanguards of Islamic Conquest. According to reported Canadian legal decisions, Mahmoud Mahjoub was #2. His bail was denied on October 5, 2001.
Egypt: Information on an organization called Vanguards of Islamic Conquest, or Tala’i al-Fatah
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,EGY,,3f7d4d9023,0.html
I have always argued that the mailed anthrax was always to retaliate for the rendering and detention of senior EIJ officials and that and that Dr. Zawahiri played a key role.
Who does Assem Abdel Maged, media official at Jama’a al-Islamiya, think is responsible for the Fall 2001 anthrax mailings?
What about Mohamed al-Zawahiri, brother of Al-Qaeda/EIJ leader Ayman al-Zawahiri?
What about Magdy Salem, leader of Tala’e al-Fateh (Vanguards of Islamic Conquest)?
DXer said
The thesis notes in passing that there are some witnesses who place Atef in Sierra Leone in June 2001 with Aafia Siddiqui, a Brandeis PhD from Boston. It is by no means confirmed (and the expert I rely upon for guidance after careful study and a published book WANTED WOMEN does not credit the report. Besides, where there is ambiguity it makes sense to write the history so as to please the Dr. Ayman who is said by his friends to be prickly and mean.
I described the background in 2004.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.true-crime/IORKqEG53vA
I wrote at the time:
“According to witnesses, Brandeis neurologist Aafia Siddiqui was in
Sierra Leone in June 2001 at the same time as Muhammed Atef, Al
Qaeda’s military commander. When Glenn Simpson of the Wall Street
Journal broke the story yesterday, based on a UN dossier, I emailed
the two attorneys who have represented Aafia’s family to ask if there
was any information on her whereabouts in June 2001 that contradicted
the report. I got no response. (In the past, ACLU Attorney Lamoreaux
has been very quick to offer me evidence in conflict with reports in
the media.) And so in terms of connection, until there is conflicting
evidence, it would appear that Al Qaeda’s military commander met with
Aafia in June 2001. Atef’s involvement is significant, not merely
because he was Al Qaeda’s military commander, but because the group
claiming that the Operation “Winds of Black Death” was 90% complete
used his name. Atef apparently was killed in a bombing raid in Fall
2001. …
According to the Wall Street Journal, it would appear that the
fugitives wanted for the 1998 embassy bombings — for whom Attorney
General Ashcroft issued the alert along with Aafia — are thought to
be part of an intact cell.
Did Aafia have potential access to the collection of anthrax
strains at Brandeis? Did that long-held collection include Ames, the
anthrax used in the Fall 2001 mailings? On March 11, 2002, the
Brandeis General Counsel sent an email advising that the federal
authorities had subpoenaed records in connection with the
investigation of the anthrax crimes.
To: All Faculty/PIs/Scientists/Postdocs/Research Staff in Biology,
Biochemistry, Chemistry, Physics, Rosenstiel and Volen
From: Mel Bernstein, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic
Affairs
Judith R. Sizer, General Counsel
Date: March 11, 2002
Re: URGENT: Response to Federal Grand Jury Subpoena
A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. has recently issued subpoenas
to a number of research universities, including Brandeis, in
connection with the ongoing investigation by the Department of Justice
into possible illegal use of bacillus anthracis (anthrax).
In its response to the subpoena, the University must disclose
information concerning every present and former faculty member,
employee or other person affiliated with Brandeis (e.g., post-doctoral
fellows, visiting scholars) who has maintained or worked with anthrax
at Brandeis in the last twelve years (or in the last twenty years, if
the anthrax, or an anthrax simulant, was in dry form).
In order to ensure the University’s timely response to this subpoena,
please advise us by Friday, March 15, 2002, whether or not you, or
anyone else to your knowledge, has ever maintained, handled, stored,
destroyed or transferred any strain of anthrax in any Brandeis
laboratory or facility on or after January 1, 1990 (or, in the case of
dry, powdered, dry aerosolized or weaponized anthrax or anthrax
simulants, such as bacillus thuringiensis, bacillus globigii, bacillus
cereus and bacillus subtilis, any use,production or manufacture or on
or after March 1, 1982).
PLEASE BE SURE TO RESPOND TO THIS INQUIRY, EVEN IF JUST TO CONFIRM
THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY USE OF ANTHRAX OR ANTHRAX SIMULANTS
AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. You are welcome to respond to this message by
reply e-mail, if you wish. In order to provide a comprehensive
response to the grand jury, we need to hear from all members of the
Brandeis community who have received this message.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Ms. _____ at
XXXX@brandeis or XXXXXX. Many thanks for your cooperation.
In late February 2002, William Broad of the New York Times
explained:
“In an important step for narrowing the pool of anthrax suspects, the
Justice Department is sending subpoenas to microbiology laboratories
across the country for samples of the Ames strain of Bacillus
anthracis, the kind used in the letter attacks in the fall.
Scientists working for the federal government said they hoped that
studying the samples’ genetic fingerprints would help determine which
of 12 or more laboratories is the likely source of the bacteria in the
attacks.”
Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun wrote on February 22, 2002 of
the subpoenas:
“But even as investigators pursued possible links between military
research and the anthrax-laced letters, they were learning of more
laboratories that have had the Ames strain of anthrax used in the
attacks. At last count, 25 such labs were identified, including
facilities in at least five foreign countries — and investigators
think there are more, said sources familiar with the work.”
In November 2001, the Hazmat Team and the State Department of
Health was called to Brandeis after three reseachers were doing
research with anthrax and Administration officials were concerned
there might be contamination. The scientists were confident all
scientific protocols had been followed but Hazmat was called
nonetheless. The research had been done after the anthrax mailings in
response — seeking means to detect anthrax spores. Anthrax was used
that had been at Brandeis a long time, having been acquired at a time
before federal regulations in 1997 required that transfers be
recorded. The lab was in the Kalman Building, which was part of the
complex of buildings adjoining the Volen Center. Brandeis researchers
Daniel Perlman and Inga Mahler had “decided to focus on developing a
solid growth medium for cultivating B. anthracis that might be usable
in the field with a minimum of equipment. They further developed the
growth medium for use at room temperature thereby obviating the need
for equipment such as incubators for sustaining an elevated
temperature.” The pair obtained a patent issued March 2004 titled
“Selective growth medium for Bacillus anthracis and methods of use.”
Dr. Perlman has been innovative on a wide range of consumer
products, such as involving Vitamin E to milk; Dr. Mahler had
published on the subject of gram positive and gram negative bacteria
(the subject underlying the patent) in the Journal of Bacteriology in
1989. Dr. Mahler advises me by email that the strain of Bacillus
anthracis they used in December 2001 was ordered by her group at
Brandeis almost 40 years ago. It came from the American Type Culture
Collection and was kept viable, together with other stock strains.
She explains that before 9/11 you could simply obtain the organism
from culture collections or colleagues. Their offices are in
Abelson-Bass-Yalem, adjoining the Volen Center where Aafia’s lab
primiarly was located. Within the complex of buldings adjoining the
Volen Center, Abelson-Bass-Yalem was home to Biological Physics.
Dr. Mahler advises me that the strain used (referred to in the
paper as MC 607) — MC stands for Rosenstiel Center — was Vollum.
Vollum is a strain that like Ames is used to challenge vaccines; it is
marginally less lethal but still was used by the Russians as their
strain of choice. Dr. Mahler forthrightly reports that she does know
of any Ames on campus. Dr. Perle did not respond to my email query.
Aafia Siddiqui, for whom the FBI has issued an international
alert, studied in the neurological sciences at Brandeis. She obtained
her PhD in 2001, having graduated from MIT with a degree in biology in
1994. The Visual Lab at which Aafia worked had rules: “No Hitting, No
Punching, No Pushing, No Grabbing, No Biting.” Judging from its
internet page, the lab seems to have been a pleasant place to work and
emphasizes in its operating manual that if you don’t know “ask.” The
lab’s work under Robert Sekuler, mainly funded by a grant from the
NIH, related to how we remember, forget, or misremember things. Her
2001 183-page thesis “Separating the components of imitation,” which
concerns visual learning and visual discrimination, is very far
removed from questions like the Palestinian conflict or creating a
fine powder using a mini-spraydryer. It is available online for
purchase.
The university webpage explains:
“The Neuroscience laboratories are housed within the Volen Center and
adjoining buildings, and this close proximity facilitates the high
degree of collaboration and exchange for which Brandeis has become
famous. There are presently 22 Neuroscience faculty found in six
participating departments (Biology, Biochemistry, Psychology, Physics,
Chemistry, and Computer Science). There are today approximately 35
Neuroscience Program Ph.D. students, who often work side-by-side with
Ph.D. students in the other Life Sciences graduate programs at
Brandeis.”
All students are expected to attend the regular Monday afternoon
Neuroscience seminars (3:30 pm), most of the Wednesday Life Sciences
seminars at 4:00 pm. and other relevant seminars in Neuroscience.
“In the first year of their Ph.D. program, students do 4 nine-week
rotations in different laboratories of their choosing. First-year
course work includes a core class in principles of neuroscience, and
intensive graduate level seminars that give students experience in
reading original research literature and making oral presentations.
Graduate research advisors are typically chosen at the end of the
first year.”
So one question is: what different labs did Aafia work in during
her first year?
Aafia is not a geneticist as reported yesterday by the Wall Street
Journal. Nor is it likely she is a “senior Al Qaeda leader” as
reported today by the Financial Times. (She wrote a paper on the role
of women in islam which may provide insights). But as we collectively
try to understand where Aafia is — and what her role was — perhaps
we all can agree that she is indeed astonishing.”
DXer said
GAO, did the beautiful and pious Aafia Siddiqui have potential access to the virulent Ames strain at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston? She reports she was tasked by someone named “Abu Lubaba” to research germ warfare. Veterinarian and anthrax expert Martin Hugh-Jones, a professor at Louisiana State University, has said: “It was like trading baseball cards.” Hugh-Jones reports he got most of his anthrax from Peter Turnbull at the Porton Down lab in Great Britain, one of those that had received the Ames strain directly from Ft. Detrick. Dr. Theresa Koehler at Houston and Hugh-Jones discussed the distribution of Ames on NPR in January 2002:
Ms. KOEHLER: Because Ames is used by investigators all over the world, does it matter if originally the strain came from Texas or came from Iowa? I don’t think so.
***
Mr. MARTIN HUGH-JONES (Louisiana State University): I think the most important point is that we didn’t have Ames in this country in anybody’s collection prior to 1980. I think that’s very, very clear. And I think that limits the list of possible suspects quite considerably.
***
KESTENBAUM: Martin Hugh-Jones also has an answer to the mystery of why one paper listed the Ames strain as dating back to 1932. He was an author on that paper. When his team got the Ames sample, it was labeled `10/32,’ which turns out to have meant `Sample number 10 out of 32.’ But they interpreted it as October 1932. David Kestenbaum, NPR News, Washington.
In 2001, Dr. Theresa M Koehler held a faculty appointment at the UT Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. She was Associate Professor of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics. She has had grants from the CIA, the National Institutes of Health, and others for her work on virulence. Her office was in the same complex, in the connected John Freeman Building. Aafia’s sister-in-law, Dr. Lubna Khawaja, had an office there. In Fall 2001, Dr. Koehler said she had taken the anthrax vaccine and that she got anthrax strains from Porton Down. In the Spring of 2003, Dr. Koehler explained that “It’s critical to use a genetically complete strain of the [anthrax] bacterium in experiments involving virulence.” A government study reported in April 2003 found that all of the labs that had received grants from the National Institutes of Health had unobstructed access to the floors with critical labs.
Ten million gallons of water were unleashed on the UT Medical School at Houston June 9, 2001 by Tropical Storm Allison. The basement, where the anthrax lab was located, was the hardest hit. More than 400 emergency personnel (internal and contracted) attempted to address the devastation. Throughout June, no equipment could be removed or powered up. Stairwell doors needed to be kept closed. By the first week of July 2001, the basement and ground floor was still off limits, and only one entrance was available. Ground floor occupants needed to continue to work at their temporary sites. Gross mold spore counts continued to be beyond acceptable limits in the basement, which was ventilated separately from the rest of the building.
The building was opened for business on July 11, 2001 but the ground floor and basement were construction remediation sites and off-limits except to access elevators to upper levels. Two entrances to the building were available: on the Webber Plaza side of the building near the circle drive and at the breezeway near the guard’s desk. Occupants were reminded in an employee newsletter not to block open stair well doors on any floor. The newsletter Scoop reported that in 2007, at a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new six-story research space completed in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Allison, “[m]any in the crowd were moved to tears as they recalled that day in June 2001. ‘All of the animals were drowned and there were $165 million in structural damages,’ President Willerson said. ‘It was a daunting task, but we didn’t give up.’”
Did the anthrax lab in the basement have virulent Ames anthrax strain, to include Ames? If so, what was done with the isolates during the devastation caused in the basement by the flood? At the time it was lawful to have virulent anthrax in its liquid form in a BL-2 facility, contrary to the occasional misperception; a hood is used in handling such isolates. A University President explained as much in a letter in connection with the incident when some live Ames spores were sent by Northern Arizona to Los Alamos in Fall 2001.
Members of the lab brought out the champagne at the lab in late 2001 when a special visa was granted to a research team member, who without it would have had to return to China. “We knew it was going to be risky,” said Dr. Koehler, a microbiologist at the school who for the past 20 years has studied the anthrax bacterium now being used as a terrorist weapon. “The question was whether current events would convince federal officials that [the researcher’s] skills are in the national interest or make them restrict workers from certain countries.”
“It is a horrible feeling to think that it could be someone I know, that the perpetrator is a microbiologist among us,” said Dr. Koehler. In September 2001, Dr. Koehler explained her anthrax research, how terrorists might deploy anthrax as a biological weapon and how physicians would treat it.
Aafia’s brother in 2001 was associated with addresses in Ann Arbor, Detroit, and Canton, Michigan — and even Harrison, NJ — in 2001. The ACLU attorney representing Aafia’s family advised me that it had been years since she was Houston — certainly before 2001 and maybe not since she was married. She added that if Aafia was there, it was to visit her brother, who has nothing to do with the med center.” The attorney reports: “there is no way they could have helped her get access to the necessary labs at the med center.”
On Research Day in 2003, the award winners for Biomedical Excellence included a graduate student working in Dr. Koehler’s lab, Melissa Drysdale, who worked on gene regulation in a virulent strain of bacillus anthracis.
Dr. Koehler received, for example, the Weybridge strain from Porton Down prior to the Fall of 2001. Did Dr. Koehler have virulent Ames from either Porton Down or somewhere else? (Her mentor was the eminent vaccine researcher Dr. Curtis Thorne who got samples directly from Ft. Detrick). Co-researcher Rick Lyons at UNM was fedexed virulent Ames from flask 1029 in March 2001 at the same time the Houston lab upgraded. This month, Dr. Lyons co-published with Dr. Koehler on virulent Ames in rabbits, along with former Houston grad student Melissa Drysdale, who is now at UNM with Dr. Lyons.
Remember: Khalid Mohammed, who told authorities about Aafia, had anthrax production documents on his assistant’s laptop (the guy working with Aafia’s future husband in UAE in the summer of 2001). She allegedly was associated with both KSM and “Jafar the Pilot” who is at large. She later married an Al Qaeda operative al-Baluchi who, like al-Hawsawi, had been listed as a contact for the hijackers and took over plots upon the arrest of KSM. Authorities have said that a Pakistani scientist , who they refused to name was helping Al Qaeda with its anthrax production program. Were they referring to bacteriologist Abdul Qudus Khan in whose home the Pakistan authorities claim KSM was captured? Was it Rauf Ahmad who Zawahiri sent to infiltrate UK biodefense? Was it the chemistry professor who met with Uzair Paracha in February 2003? Or was it Aafia who was alleged to be a “facilitator” who handled logistics. “Logistics” is handling an operation that involves providing labor and materials as needed. One government psychiatrist affidavit reports that she claims to have been tasked by an “Abu Luaba” to research germ warfare. According to a UN dossier reviewed by a journalist at the Wall Street Journal, in June 2001 she traveled to Liberia to meet Al Qaeda’s military commander, Atef, who had been head of the anthrax planning. One important mystery to resolve analysis is to determine whether the chauffeur who claims the lady was Aafia is lying or mistaken. A FBI memo from 2003 titled “Allegations Relating to al Qaeda’s Trafficking in Conflict Diamonds,” and a related 2004 presentation to the intelligence community, debunking the allegations relating to trafficking in conflict diamonds. The memo was declassified in 2006 and provided under FOIA in February 2008 to intelwire.com. If those documents represent the FBI’s current thinking, there is reason to think Aafia never went to Liberia in June 2001 — or at least that the FBI does not think she did.
The ACLU in a February 2004 publication called “Sanctioned Bias: Racial Profiling Since 9/11” described Aafia’s brother first encounter with the FBI. Muhammad A. Siddiqui is an architect in Houston and father of two young children. Someone with the same common name, as mentioned in the court record relating to Project Bojinka. United States of America v. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef et al, (August 26, 1996), page 5118. A letter was read into the record
“To: Brother Mohammad Alsiddiqi. We are facing a lot of problems because of you. Fear Allah. Mr. Siddiqi, there is a day of judgment. You will be asked, if you are very busy with something more important, don’t give promises to other people. See you in the day of judgment. Still waiting, Khalid Shaikh, and Bojinka.”
In addition to many people having this very common name, people often used aliases. The attorney, Dietrich Snell, at the time was under the impression it related to a solicitation for money. Attorney Snell was from the US Attorney’s Office. More recently, Snell acted as counsel for the 9/11 Commission. He served as Deputy Attorney General for Public Advocacy under Eliot Spitzer. What was the address of the recipient? Who was Muhammad Siddiqui with whom KSM corresponded?
Attorney General Ashcroft and Director Mueller made an on-the-record renewed push to find Aafia Siddiqui in a press conference on May 26, 2004 shortly after ACLU Attorney Annette Lamoreaux responded to my emailed inquiries about Aafia. Three days after the Pakistan Ministry of Interior claimed she had been handed over to US authorities in late March 2003.
There are the many questions surrounding the mystery of the disappearance of the lovely, intelligent and pious — and it turns out occasionally quite chatty — Aafia Siddiqui. Aafia once had an MIT alumni email account forwarded to umaisha@yahoo.com — which under one translation means lively mom. Aisha was the Prophet’s favorite wife. Maybe correspondence in that email account held the answers.
In a Pakistan news account, Attorney Whitfield Sharp reported that she didn’t know of any police report filed by the mom. In the same account, she reports that Aafia received job offer at both Johns Hopkins and the State University of New York (SUNY). It likely was SUNY downstate in Brooklyn where her sister had gone to school and lived. (Her mother Ismat is associated with addresses in Brooklyn, as well as Massachusetts, in Houston, and in Ann Arbor where Mohammad’s wife had a medical practice. Mohammad is associated with some Ann Arbor and Detroit-area addresses. Ann Arbor, coincidentally, was where IANA was located, as well as the President of Global Relief.
When he was captured, Al-Baluchi, Khalid Mohammed’s nephew and Aafia Siddiqui’s husband, “was in possession of a perfume spray bottle which contained a low concentration of cyanide when he was arrested.” He was the fellow who met with Majid Khan about using a textiles shipping container to smuggle an unidentified chemical into the country. Cyanide in perfume bottles had been suggested for use in nightclubs in Indonesia but Bin Laden reportedly nixed the plan as ineffectual.
DXer said
The CIA funded research (under $100k grant to Dr. Koehler) involved growing anthrax in silica. GAO has come under pressure from the CIA in the drafting of its report. I hope everyone realizes that they have left a paper trail that will be discoverable upon subpoena.
DXer said
The biodefense study was aimed to study the persistence of anthrax in soil. That is, if anthrax were deployed on a battlefield, how dangeous would it remain to troops. But it involved growing anthrax in soil which is precisely what was observed by the forensics as explained by the FBI’s experts at Sandia.