The mystery prisoner (UPDATED)

A reader has directed my attention to this troubling story on a mystery woman -- Prisoner 650 -- said to be a doctor from Pakistan, held by Americans at Bagram base in Afghanistan. From British journalist Yvonne Ridley:

"I think everyone was shocked to hear that the Americans were holding this woman at Bagram in Afghanistan. From the information coming through I am told she is being held in exactly the same conditions as the men and has absolutely no privacy when it comes to toilet and shower facilities.

"This would never happen to a Western woman and it shows just how women are viewed by the US military. There is even a suggestion she has been molested and sexually abused by her captors."

I don't know what -- if anything -- this prisoner is accused of doing. But even if she has committed a serious crime, no woman should undergo such treatment. Pakistan is officially a friendly government. Subjecting a Pakistani national to barbaric detention without charge or oversight can only increase anti-Americanism.

If anyone knows more about the "mystery prisoner" story, please let me know.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Twilight, we now have a name: Dr. Afia Siddiqui.

Britain's Lord Nazeer Ahmed (of the House of Lords), asked questions in the House about the condition of Prisoner 650 who, according to him, is physically tortured and continuously raped by the prison officers at Bagram prison, Afghanistan.

It is said that Siddiqui has "lost her senses." She was arrested in 2003 by the ISI, Pakistan's version of the CIA; they appear to have handed her over to either the FBI or American intelligence. The mother of three children, she was 30 years old at the time of arrest.

The most complete versions of her story known to me are here and here.

A few days later an American news channel, NBC, reported that Afia had been arrested in Pakistan on suspicion of facilitating money transfers for terror networks of Osama Bin Laden. The mother of the victim, Mrs. Ismat (who has since passed away) termed the NBC report absurd. She went on to say that Dr. Afia is a neurological scientist and has been living with her husband, Amjad, in the USA for several years.

A number of reports claim that the ISI threatened the mother into compliance.

As far as I can tell, the only specific charge against Dr. Siddiqui (who studied and lived for some years in the United States) is that she rented a mailbox in Maryland, which was used by an Al Qaeda operative named Majid Khan, now interred at Gitmo.

The Wikipedia page on Khan is surprisingly detailed. He grew up in Baltimore and lived the life of a normal American teen. While teaching computer classes at a local Islamic Center, he was exposed (says the American government) to radical teachers, who recruited him into Al Qaeda.

In 2002, Khan returned to Pakistan, where he married his wife, Rabia, and subsequently returned to the United States for a short period to continue his work as a database administrator in a Maryland government office.

(Emphasis added.) Note that this kid from Baltimore had no problem re-entering the U.S. after 9/11. We can assume that his extremist tendencies -- if genuine -- were kept very hidden. Note, too, that he got a job in a Maryland government office. Federal or state? How sensitive were the records he handled?

My point is this: If the people who hired him did not know of any Al Qaeda connection, then why must we presume that Dr. Siddiqui knew about this hidden agenda (presuming it truly exists)? Why should her "vetting procedures" be more stringent than those of the Maryland (or Federal) government?

People use mail drops all the time, usually to avoid creditors. Often, a person reduced to living in cars will make use of a mail drop in order to fill out employment applications. The publicly available facts suggest that, in allowing Khan to use that mailbox, Siddiqui may well have thought that she was aiding an innocent fellow Pakistani.

Published accounts indicate that Khan, under harsh and painful interrogation, has "confessed" to any and all charges -- even to accusations known to be impossible. Under extreme duress, he might well have fingered an innocent person as an accomplice.

That's why one cannot trust information derived from torture.