Defense team wants 'Lady al Qaeda' Aafia Siddiqui barred from taking stand

[Kire]

Source: NY Daily News

She's not just out of control - she's out of her mind.

Or so lawyers for the so-called "Lady al Qaeda" claimed Tuesday as asked a judge to bar their client from taking the stand in her own defense.

Lawyers for MIT-trained scientist Aafia Siddiqui say her request to testify "is driven by her severe mental illness and would turn the trial into a spectacle."

"It has been and continues to be our belief that Dr. Siddiqui suffers from diminished capacity," the lawyers wrote in a letter to Manhattan Federal Richard Berman.

The bid to muzzle Siddiqui - charged with attempted murder for opening fire on Americans in Afghanistan - is a longshot since she's already been found competent.

Since the trial began last week, she's been tossed from the courtroom several times for outbursts - including pleas to talk to President Obama and boasts that she can broker peace with the Taliban.

The lawyer fear more of the same under oath.

"Should Dr. Siddiqui continue her irrational and bewildering insistence that she has the power to influence the Taliban, she will invite jurors to infer that she has terrorist associations," they wrote.

Her family says they're also worried about Siddiqui's mental state.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/26/2010-01-26_defense_team_wants_lady_al_qaeda_aafia_siddiqui_barred_from_taking_stand.html

---

What the heck does "already found competent" mean? Don't they know that mentally ill people can decompensate at any time? Judges have an obligation to not let litigants go crazy in courtroom. It is clear this woman is going to do it every day. She should be found incompetent!

It is settled that, if evidence available to a trial judge raises a bona fide doubt regarding a defendant's ability to understand and participate in the proceedings against him, the judge has an obligation to order an examination to assess his competency, even if the defendant does not request such an exam. Drope v. Missouri, <466 U.S. 984 , 986> 420 U.S. 162 (1975); Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966).

More: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070306083244AAmYniw

Somebody please call those judges. Send them copies of this. File complaints. They are a danger to our country.

Section 100.3 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently.

(A) Judicial duties in general. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge's other activities. The judge's judicial duties include all the duties of the judge's office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply.

(B) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(3) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, and of staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person. A judge in the performance of judicial duties shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status, and shall require staff, court officials and others subject to the judge's direction and control to refrain from such words or conduct.

(5) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the judge to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based upon age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status, against parties, witnesses, counsel or others. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advocacy when age, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, disability, marital status or socioeconomic status, or other similar factors are issues in the proceeding.

(6) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers concerning a pending or impending proceeding, except:

The Rules are available on the court system's website at http://www.nycourts.gov/rules/chiefadmin/100.shtml.

If they know she is going to be disruptive again, the judges have an obligation to take steps to prevent that from happening. If they do not, they are grossly negligent.

Am I wrong? Am I wrong?

[Kire]

1. I only remember pushing the button once.

Hmmm....sorry.

[rocktivity]

2. But how crazy is she?

I mean, she could be faking the whole thing--not to mention her attorneys.

:shrug:
rocktivity

[Kire]

4. "could be"

there you go, you expressed doubt

she "could be" faking the whole thing, or she could not be

If a judge proceeds with a case when there is a bona fide doubt as to the mental competence of a defendant, the state of new york are liable for aafia siddiq's medical and psychological expenses for a long, long time.

Isn't it better to be certain, one way or another?

[rocktivity]

10. How's this for a coincidence--I was on jury duty last week

I wasn't happy about it because I have a "no show, no dough" temp job and could have been replaced if I hadn't returned within two weeks. They tried to put me on a case where the charges were robbery, resisting arrest, and illegal possession of a weapon. I was so expecting the prosecutor to describe the what kind of a gun had been used, it didn't sink in right away that he'd said the weapon was a rock. A rock? How can you be in illegal possession of rock unless you USE it as weapon, in which case you should be CHARGED with using it as a weapon? Instant reasonable doubt. When the judge asked if there was "anything in the nature of the charges" that could "impair" my partiality, I raised my hand with a clear conscience--and only partially because I've been a victim of four break-ins!


rocktivity

[Kire]

15. Interesting

I wasn't there, but it sounds like a rock could be used as a weapon.

Aren't there different categories of weapons? Deadly Weapon, Regular Weapon, etc.?

A rock could be used to kill somebody.

I take it that you weren't selected.

Interesting.

[rocktivity]

19. OF COURSE a rock can used as a weapon, but that's not what the defendant was charged with

You can illegally possess a firearm if you're not legally qualified to own one, or if it's not properly registered and/or licensed. But you're not illegally in possession of a rock--or a scissors or a baseball bat or a butter knife--unless you USE them illegally.

If the rock was used in conjunction with the robbery, shouldn't the charge should have been ARMED robbery? And if the rock was used in conjunction with the resisting arrest, the shouldn't the charges have included threatening and/or assaulting a police officer>


rocktivity

P.S. You're in ? I'M in !

[Alamuti Lotus]

3. "charged with attempted murder for opening fire on Americans in Afghanistan"

What the hell kind of crime is that, anyway?!

[Kire]

5. sounds like a major felony

don't quote me, I'm not a lawyer

[sam sarrha]

7. ...attacking Invading Forign Crusaders... they get a shiny medal

[guruoo]

9. It's the kind of crime that of course, doesn't

apply when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Igel]

12. As part of a unit, she's a mercenary.

Paid or otherwise.

If she's on her own she's an insurgent, esp. if out of uniform.

Not her country. Unless it's just considered sport for people to go to Afghanistan to fire on Americans.

Come to think of it, I haven't been following the case so were the Americans military and actually engaged in combat? No, IIRC, she was already captive. So it's not like she'd go unpunished under any system of justice. At least in this one she's in a courtroom, instead of beaten, raped, and then killed by those she tried to shoot. (Small victory for cultural diversity.)

[Alamuti Lotus]

18. the bedrock of this argument is so eminently retarded

As if it's no business at all that it's considered fine sport for Americans to go to Afghanistan to fire on people?! But shame the devil to put every occupation soldier on trial for what they would presume to charge others for?!

[sam sarrha]

6. in Certain cultures women are considered "Ignorant/Defective" at birth, an if they can find a man

why is she being tried in NY.. is this for show? at first i thought it was in Afganistan....

to totally control every aspect of their life and thinking and beat them regularly they can become 1/10 less defective in a lifetime

so is she competent as a woman..? which in Certain cultures isn't saying much. the relativity here could be staggering and incomprehensible to westerners, she could have been forced to attack by threats on her family. and the stress and violence in Sharia law could drive any woman totally insane.. there are isolated tribes that severely indoctrinate their members with all kinds of insane crap.

we'll never know what this is about. here are some relevant links


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buJ2qinHMlg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45hLKiedoDM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnAc3WhYIPg&feature=related

i have heard that girl friends that get pregnant can be forced to be bombers.. the women are always under total control, Wafa Sultan's young niece committed suicide because of a brutal husband. Wafa speaks a lot on youtube, and Nonie Darwish about women being oppressed

[Flaneur]

17. Or maybe she was driven insane by her captors. Us.

I mean, as long as we're wildly speculating.

[Kire]

8. I tried to improve my commentary on this subject at Daily Kos:

I hope it worked.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/27/831197/-The-Lady-al-Qaeda-Case-is-Out-of-Control

[winyanstaz]

11. I read somewhere that she has been tortured and raped for a long time...

and she was called the greylady at the prison...and people talked about hearing her screams that went on for long periods.
It is also said that she is not what they are claiming she is..they are trying to hide what they have done and that is why they are trying to keep her from talking.
Her family believes she is in very bad mental health now.
The only way to know the truth is to let her talk IMO.

[Igel]

13. Sort of.

There was a reference to a woman in the prison. There's the assumption that it was her. Nobody could actually identified her as the woman referred to except herself and her defenders, and those who think it's as good a ID as any other. High standards, there: "reasonable suspicion."

Her family now believes she's in bad mental health. This has changed as her circumstances changed. It's not obviously related to her actual mental health, but what attributions of mental health mean for her. Competent? She's a hero while she's out, a strong woman while being tortured. An embarrassment? She's crazy. If we can blame somebody for it, all the better. Evidence that she wasn't loony-tunes before? Not so much. None needed. We have our goals and adjust the facts to fit, even if we don't actually have any facts.

Assuming that she's the only one with the truth and would say it is interesting. Perhaps we should apply that to all defendents: If they say they're innocent, hey, would they lie?

[Igel]

14. You're wrong.

Fish recently had relevant NYT column about this very problem: The difference between right and correct. "Wrong" is the denial of either. It was interesting because it pointed out a logical difference between what is factually correct and what is judged 'right' by the rules to achieve a purpose.

His initial example was when he had to register a car he imported from Europe: it made landfall in NY and he was going to drive it to Calif. It needed to be registered, he was in NY, and at the NY DMV he had to indicate the state of residence. If NY, he'd get the registration and could reregister it; if California, he couldn't register it, it would be a long-distance hassle to get it registered, and it would be time-consuming and a headache. The true response was "California." The right response in the NY DMV was "New York." (On edit: Keep in mind that these are how he defined the words in a narrow context to make a rather valid point. I'll use his terms as he defined them to apply his point in the even more narrow context of my post. Using these words in this way elsewhere will lead to a lot of confusion. There, I've issued my disclaimer. End edit.)

You are correct. You are not right. Saddiqui is probably insane, in some way that needs to be defined better. However, it was important for her and her relatives and others that she be found competent. If she was insane, all her allegations, all the charges against outsiders, would be ignored. It would make her, her family, Islam, the Taliban, her supporters all look like simpleton dupes.

So they found psychologists that gave reports, accepted by the court, that she was competent to stand trial. The trial was needed to validate her charges against the US and everybody else. The court ruled, IIRC, that she's competent.

Now consider the two options before the court. It can go with that finding of fact, which means that while she's obviously loopy she's nonetheless should be ruled competent and able to proceed in her defense. I'd hate to be the judge.

Or the judge can rule that the prior ruling was wrong. She deceived the psychologists and some defense and prosecuting attorneys lied (at worst) or were hopelessly, incompetently deceived (at best). If she tricked them before, what's to say she's not tricking them now after making her point? I'd hate to be the judge.

But the default is that the first ruling stands. I'd hate to be the judge.

In all of their defenses, my BIL is psychotic and hears voices. He has for years now. He started months and months before anybody suspected, and that was months and months before it became obvious. Then, forcibly committed, he acted perfectly rational. The psychiatric nurses thought it was a mistake; the initial doctor thought it was a mistake. Then a better trained psychologist was assigned to him and pulled out hints that he was acting. My BIL was the concluding chapter away from finishing his dissertation (one of those "staple a bunch of related, published papers together with a title, introduction, and conclusion" thingies that you can get in the physical sciences). He'd aced his grad work, magna cum laude for undergrad work. The psychologist said that often smarts can help a crazy person compensate, often enough to dupe the shrinks--listen to the voices, think critically as to whether what they say could be true, and then act accordingly. That is, until God tells you to go, get the secret ray gun from under your truck seat and blast all the male members of your family to save their souls and keep them from going to hell. Who's to argue with God? Fortunately for his brother God didn't really put a ray gun under the seat of his truck. (As he said later, when the psychologist had him sorted, God was really just testing him. Although he was still supposed to kill the males in his family.) Then, on the appropriate drugs, his family thought he was doing better; then he admitted that the voices just never went away, they just became less frequent and told him to do obviously crazy things.

Saddiqui's smart. Probably smart enough to dupe a psychologist. Esp. when some of what she says can just be marked up to an extremist view of Islam--then to judge her would be to judge Islam, and psychologists just aren't going to go there.

[Kire]

16. Thank you.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I'm busy at the moment. I will re-read your post again. What you said is very important. I'm not sure I understand it all at the moment.

I'm correct. I'm wrong.

If you could sum up your argument briefly before I get back, I would much appreciate it. Thanks.