Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Aafia Siddiqui Goes To Court

Illustrating the bizarre nature of trying terrorists in court, suspected al-Qaeda scientist Aafia Siddiqui was in court yesterday, responding to charges she was investigating WMD attacks for the big boys.

Other than outright contradicting her lawyer's official insanity defense plan (she asked that he be removed, which seems to be terrorist SOP), they found a defense witness to make the most amazing claim:
The defense witness, Dr. L. Thomas Kucharski, however, testified that some of the written materials found in her possession revealed a delusional woman. Kucharski noted that her notes also described viruses that could only hurt adults and not children, others that would kill only certain ethnic groups, and a plot to infect U.S. poultry supply with an antibody that made the animals resistant to salmonella, and thereby sicken Americans who consumed chickens. For a woman with a degree from MIT and a PhD in neuroscience, Kucharski testified, these theories and fantasies were not the product of a healthy mind.
What a helpful guy. We already know AQ terrorists are fundamentalist nutcakes--that's kinda the point. Seems he just cooked her goose.

By the way, ABC seemed to gloss over the fact they let her testify in a full hijab that covered everything but her eyes. Sounds a little unfair to a jury if they're trying to ascertain facial expressions or body language.

Towards the end she made a political statement, giving the president a ringing endorsement from al-Qaeda:
Before the hearing ended, Siddiqui addressed the prosecutors directly, telling them, "Your President wants to make peace, but you guys are not acting on it."
Which is probably a call out to her defenders and an effort to sway Obama-loving Boston liberals who might choose not to believe her story. Well, here's a suggested reply - "nuts".

11 comments:

Mustang said...

ABC seemed to gloss over the fact they let her testify in a full hijab that covered everything but her eyes.

Hmmm. Maybe the EPA made a ruling about the skank. Or, maybe we have become the dumbest people in the entire solar system.

A.C. McCloud said...

That sounds almost like something Sha'ria law would permit, although I'm not an expert. But I know it would really irritate me if I were on the jury and the suspect covered his/her entire body minus the eyes.

Debbie said...

I did not realize the testified in a hijab. I thought our courts refused to allow witnesses in court wearing a headscarf or hijab, they are not allowed to have their pictures made for driver license with it on, and other forms of ID. So this is just wrong.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

A.C. McCloud said...

Upon further review it was a prelim hearing, no jury, although I'm not sure why they would allow her to wear it during ANY hearing.

christian soldier said...

The dhimmi attitude is getting real old!!
C-CS

Anonymous said...

Dr. L. Thomas Kucharski, psychiatrist for the defendant, explained in his affidavit filed July 2, 2009 that she says she was tasked with studying germ warfare by Abu Lubaba who she later concluded was a "bad man." Who was "Abu Lubaba"?

A.C. McCloud said...

Abu Lubaba is probably an invention based on the 7th century version who operated during the time of Mohammad. It's either part of the strategy to deem her incompetent to stand trial or she's actually nuts.

Anonymous said...

Head scarf should not be an issue here. The main point is to prove her "guilty" or "not guilty" according to the proofs not by the face. and I don't see clear evidence in this case. I am not in favour of any one but justice should be serve inspite of whatever some one is wearing??? By the way do you guys know both sides of stories????

A.C. McCloud said...

A head scarf is one thing, a full hijab (according to their description) is something else. This is not an Islamic court.

As to the other side of the story, you mean that George Bush framed her and she's innocent? Yes, most people have gathered as much. Guess that's why her lawyer decided to use the insanity strategy, eh.

Anonymous said...

Hi,

I think it instead is an alias (they all were known by Abu this or that, referring to a son's name). I expect it was Abu Ghaith, as it likely had to be someone they viewed as in the position to issue a fatwa. He issued a fatwa on biochem weapons in June 2002.

A.C. McCloud said...

Abu Ghaith

You talkin' bout this:

The Fall 2001 letter from Al Qaeda spokesman, Kuwaiti Abu Ghaith, directed to the American public - but which was not released until 2006 -- claimed that the green light had been given for US -bio attack (1) from folks that were US-based, (2) above suspicion, and (3) with access to US government and intelligence information. He explained: "There is no animosity between us. You involved yourselves in this battle. The war is between us and the Jews. You interfered in our countries and influenced our governments to strike against the Moslems."