A Pakistani scientist who has been prone to rants in the courtroom is set for trial on attempted murder charges in New York.
Opening statements are scheduled for Tuesday in Aafia Siddiqui’s trial in Manhattan federal court.
A judge had the 37-year-old Siddiqui removed from court Thursday after she interrupted questioning of potential jurors about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
She told them she had nothing to do with the attacks and suggested Israel was behind them.
Authorities have linked Siddiqui to al-Qaeda, although she’s not facing terrorism charges.
Prosecutors accuse Siddiqui of having ties to al-Qaida and say she grabbed a U.S. Army officer’s M-4 rifle in Afghanistan, pointed it at an Army captain and cried “Allahu akbar,” Arabic for “God is great.” They say she fired at U.S. soldiers and FBI agents before she was shot and wounded by an Army officer.
A defense attorney has disputed that account, saying the U.S. government has the facts wrong.
(Source: WCBSTV)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
If they are not going to accuse her of terrorism I doubt they will get a conviction.
What a waste of the Federal Court System. This horrible woman should have been tried by a United States Military Court. At the least she is a war criminal. Her courtroom antics should not be tolerated and she if the trial continues in Fedral Court she should be bound and gagged and not be able to get the free press that she is seeking
My feelings are that all of these terrorists should never be tried in a public forum but by the US Military. This insanity is in good part a reflection of Obama’s desire to be politcally correct with those that are not even citizens…and should not be granted rights extended to those that are not worthy of them.
It might be impossible to accuse of her terrorism, since all they appear to have evidence for is defending herself when captured in Afghanistan. If she was a combatant defending herself when captured, it isn’t a crime since that’s what soldiers are supposed to do. If she wasn’t a combatant then she can argue self-defense.
Since she is a foreigner (who was formerly a students in the US) and the crimes involved occured overseas, and were not apparently part of a military operations, why isn’t she being dealt with by the Afghanistan government, or alternatively, by Pakistan (since she is a citizen, and her defense is that the Pakistani military has seized her and she was escaping from them). It isn’t a matter that the American courts should be involved in.
Uh, akuperma, why don’t you ask your good friend, Eric Holder?
Hey, I was listening to an audio of Obama speaking to Democratic supporters. Hey, he admitted that he reads blog posts. Does the President read mine? Please tell me that it is so…
Is this the same nut who wanted all jurors to have DNA tests to deetermine if the were Jewish?
She is being tried on criminal charges (NOT military ones), therefore it should be in a civilian court. The extensive use of secret military courts is something more suited to extremists dictatorship, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia come to mind, than to a democracy which everybody seems to be anxious to defend.
I believe it was Emile Zola who said “Let there be a trial in the full light of day.” He was referring to the French government’s attempt to silence him for defending Dreyfus.
she’s dangerous she getting what she deserves