September 23rd, 2010
01:50 PM ET

Pakistani scientist gets 86 years for attempted murder

Pakistani scientist Aafia Siddiqui was sentenced to 86 years for attempted murder and other charges by a federal judge in New York for attempting to kill several U.S. military officers while she was being interrogated in Afghanistan.

Siddiqui was found guilty in February on seven counts, including attempted murder.

In 2008, she fired a rifle at two FBI special agents, a U.S. Army warrant officer, an Army captain and military interpreters when they entered a room where she was being held. She did not hit anyone, but was injured when the warrant officer returned fire.

Afghan police had arrested her outside the Ghazni governor's compound after finding her with bomb-making instructions, excerpts from the "Anarchist's Arsenal," papers with descriptions of U.S. landmarks and substances sealed in bottles and glass jars, according to a September 2008 indictment.

The indictment said Siddiqui had "handwritten notes that referred to a 'mass casualty attack'" listing several locations in the United States, and "construction of 'dirty bombs.'"

The notes also "discussed various ways to attack 'enemies,' including by destroying reconnaissance drones, using underwater bombs, and using gliders," the indictment said.

soundoff (34 Responses)
  1. Numbaoneballa

    Dirka dirka dirka, Muhammad jihad!

    September 23, 2010 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
  2. pingdanny

    have fun rotting in prison!!

    September 23, 2010 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
  3. In the name of peace

    Can't say which is more peaceful. religion of people of religion. Even MIT grads can be brainwashed for Jihadi. All in the name of peaceful religion

    September 23, 2010 at 2:16 pm | Report abuse |
  4. PCola Vet

    Not very bright for a scientist. Thank God she wans't able to carry out her mission.

    September 23, 2010 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
  5. the_dude

    So this woman was detained and placed in a room (but apparently not disarmed). She was carrying a rifle (so she couldn't conceal it) that she shot at the guards and interrogators coming for her. Man CNN something about this story smells of total bull s&%#. Cnn is saying the military detained her but didn't disarm her and let her carry a loaded rifle into the interrogation room.....yeah...right.....ok

    September 23, 2010 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Arsio

      It is bull many people dont realize but she's been played by both pakistan and U.S government. In reality this poor woman is innocent!!!! I hope one day people know the truth!!!!!

      September 23, 2010 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • shimmyx20

      She didn't bring the rifle into the interrogation room. She grabbed one of the soldiers rifles that was in there with her.

      September 23, 2010 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • snip

      CNN is clearly lacking in the ability to report news.

      September 24, 2010 at 2:35 am | Report abuse |
  6. Jason

    And the question is why was she taken alive? Now we have to pay to keep her in prison until she dies, and pay for attorneys to appeal her conviction for the next 20 years. Before she dies, she will cost the American tax payers millions of dollars. That is this woman's real impact. A well placed bullet would have cost the tax payers about 10 cents and ended it right then and there.

    September 23, 2010 at 2:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Arsio

      Its called getting the info out!!! This woman is more valuable than Obama and Osama combined. In reality she's innocent!!!!

      September 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
  7. AniMeyhem!

    If she had been captured and was being held in that room, where did she get the rifle from? Last time I checked, when you capture someone you intend to interrogate, you make sure they don't have any "suprise packages" for you. We've been burned that way before.

    Seems like the Warrant was the only one with the situational awareness to return fire with his sidearm...then again, I expect a former enlisted man to react faster than an officer in life-or-death situations...

    September 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
  8. truth

    no mention of inhumane and mad torture and animal treatment she recieved at prison

    September 23, 2010 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Concerned Citizen

    I'd like to know what really went on......first of all its impossible that she even had a rifle while being interrogated, second if she actually fired at all those people how did she manage to not even graze one of them.....WE ARE ALL BEING FED LIES BY THE MEDIA

    September 23, 2010 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Saleem

    This verdict is utter nonsense. There are serious problems with this verdict, for the innocent Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

    1) There was no evidence (other than mere verbal statements of US Army officers) that there was a riffle placed on the floor which she allegedly captured and shot.

    2) There was no mention of why the US Army officers allegedly left a riffle on the ground.

    3) Her mass apparently was lesser than that of the riffle used, so how could we even capture and use the riffle.

    4) Why was she transferred to the US for this case, and why did the trial took place in the US? This alleged incident occured in Afghanistan, and the trial should have been in Afghanistan, the place where this incident took place.

    There is no doubt, this "verdict" is used to silience a victim of mass-disappearences and mass-killings by US forces in Afghanistan and other occupied countries like Afghanistan.

    September 23, 2010 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Raymond

      Saleem, you are SPOT ON. This case raises many questions about the fairness of the trial.

      Poor lady.

      September 23, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Lou

    86-years for attempted murder, with no questions raised as to why the riffle was left unattended, with no action (read: court martial) for the US Army officers for their serious negligence? And, how was it determined that indeed there was a riffle unattended, and Aafia Siddiqui did use it?

    To convict a person, and with penality such grave of 86-years in prison, requires complete, without any doubt, that the culprit was complict in the crime.

    It does not appear so, in this verdict.

    Very sad for Dr Aafia Siddiqui.

    September 23, 2010 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Abraham Lincoln

    Can we jail her with Van der Sloot in Pervian prison. how much money and trouble wil be saved.

    September 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lou

      Haha, yes, the money can be saved, but what about the moral standing? Was the case fair? It does not appears so.

      September 23, 2010 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
  13. nomoregbldgk

    how did she get a hold of a rifle while being held? she's almost as impressive as that little girl in kickass.

    September 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lou

      That is EXACTLY the question the "verdict" does not state.

      And remember, as I wrote above, conviction and that of 86-years life sentence, requires proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the culprit was involved in the crime. Very sad.

      September 23, 2010 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
  14. what_the_heck

    this case is nothing but a media spectacle. its the U.S soldiers who should be facing a U.S armed court first for all the fumble they created.

    86 yrs for only verbal statements, without any hard evidence, is absured. Murderers get away with less than that.

    September 23, 2010 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
  15. jjjsd

    This so-called verdict is totallly wrong. As the comments above indicate, it is wrong to convict a person with so many unanswered questions. 86 years of life is too much.

    This is very unfair for the US-trained Pakistani doctor. The world community should protest against this inhumane verdict which is so harsh for the poor lady.

    September 23, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Report abuse |
1 2