'Lady al-Qaida' Trial Could Preview Terror Cases to Come

(Jan. 20) -- For a preview of the some of the antics that may be on display when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others are tried in New York federal court, it's instructive to look at the unfolding trial of another accused terrorist. Aafia Siddiqui was tossed from her own trial Tuesday by Manhattan Federal Court Judge Richard Berman after she ranted about her innocence during witness testimony, the New York Daily News reported.

Siddiqui, dubbed "Lady al-Qaida" by the tabloids, is charged with attempted murder after being accused of grabbing an unattended rifle at an Afghan police station and opening fire on U.S. personnel. When she was arrested, she was carrying an alleged list of potential terror targets, including the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building. But as Capt. Robert Snyder testified about the shooting incident, Siddiqui interrupted. "Give me a little credit, this is not a list of targets of New York," she said. "I was never planning to bomb it. You're lying." The outburst prompted her removal from the court; it was the trial's opening day.

It also wasn't the first volatile behavior by the defendant. On Jan. 11, Siddiqui said she wanted her defense team fired. A few days later, she demanded, in vain, that Jews be excluded from her jury pool. Such disruptions from a suspected terrorist unfamiliar with the U.S. judicial system aren't surprising, except she doesn't fit that profile. The Pakistani-born Siddiqui received some of the finest education America has to offer, receiving an undergraduate degree from MIT and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Brandeis University.

Of course, Mohammad also received an American education, graduating with a degree in engineering from North Carolina A&T before embarking on his life of jihad and allegedly masterminding the 9/11 attacks. Congressional Republicans have objected to trying him in civilian court for several reasons: It's likely to take years; will undermine military commissions for other terror defendants; could force U.S. officials to reveal sensitive intelligence information; and looks to cost New York City more than $200 million per year in ramped-up security.

But many conservatives have also expressed concerns that Mohammad's trial will unfold -- well, much like Siddiqui's has so far,
with the accused 9/11 mastermind taking advantage of his familiarity with America to use the trial as an anti-infidel PR platform.

It "gives him a chance for a propaganda win," says former Gov. Thomas Kean, R-N.J., co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "The eyes of the world will be on that trial, and he'll use it to criticize us for our support of Israel, to appeal to the Arab world and make himself out to be a martyr."

But some on the left say predictions of mockeries-in-the-making are overblown. "As a practical matter, federal judges don't generally allow speechifying and tantrums," New York Magazine's Chris Smith writes. Just as a judge ordered a ranting Siddiqui from the courtroom, so too would a judge boot Mohammad and other suspected terrorists if they break protocol. And even if Mohammad manages to turn his trial into a platform for espousing al-Qaida's views, Smith continues, "they will be exposed for the tangle of dead-end oppression and hatred of modernity that they really are."

What seems more certain is that the upcoming trials will put American interrogation techniques under harsh light. Siddiqui has used hers to repeat her claims that she was tortured while being held in a secret prison, and Mohammad, who was reportedly waterboarded 183 times, could make a stink of his own. For those who support trying terrorists in the open justice system, though, any additional attention the proceedings bring to those practices will not be a bad thing.