Just after I finished the previous post, the jury came back with a verdict on the Al Siddiqui trial: She was found GUILTY of Attempted Murder of a US Serviceman today.
An MIT-trained Pakistani woman was convicted this afternoon of trying to kill Americans while detained in Afghanistan in 2008.
The tirade-prone Aafia Siddiqui, 37, was found guilty by a jury in Manhattan federal court even after she denied charges that she had opened fire on US soldiers and FBI agents in Afghanistan.
After the verdict was read, Siddiqui turned to the gallery, pointed her finger in the air and said: "This is a verdict coming from Israel, not America, and that is where the anger belongs. I can testify to this and I have proof."
Siddiqui, 37, was convicted of two counts of attempted murder, though the crime was not found by the jury to be premeditated.
At leat the jury was not intimidated and came to the appropriate conclusion.
Now does the time and expense of the trial, defendant's theatrics and mockery of the court demonstrate the silliness of charging terorists with criminal acts in a US District Court, especially for acts they committed overseas, to now have them sentenced and imprisoned in the US to serve their sentences? Does it really make sense to charge foreign terorists under the US criminal code for acts committed overseas?
My bet is the Obama administration continues this wrongheaded pattern of treating terrorist acts as US criminal law questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment