I intend to belabor this point endlessly, but remember when the opponents holding the 9/11 trials in civilian court said that the trial would give them a "platform" to spread their hateful views? That al-Qaeda's perspective is so compelling that we have to cover our ears lest we be seduced? Well, aside from the obvious contempt for democracy that this kind of criticism has, it just isn't true.
On Friday, Zarein Ahmedzay pleaded guilty for his involvement in the plot to bomb New York City subways alongside Najibullah Zazi. The scene in court illustrates how bogus this argument is:
Then, appearing at ease, he began an angry rant, suggesting that a Zionist conspiracy represents a greater threat to the United States than Al Qaeda does.
“And I believe that the real enemies of this country are the ones destroying this country from within,” he said. “And I believe these are the special group, the Zionist Jews, I believe, who want a permanent shadow government within the government of the United States of America,” he said.
The judge eventually interrupted him. Moments before, Mr. Ahmedzay, a New York City taxi driver who went to Flushing High School with Mr. Zazi and the third defendant, Adis Medunjanin, 25, tried to say what had motivated him and his co-defendants, but United States Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold cut him off, saying, “It doesn’t matter.”
So, this is why we're afraid of trying the 9/11 defendants in civilian court? It's not like this is atypical. When Aafia Siddiqui was being tried earlier this year and became disruptive, the judge just threw her out of the courtroom. Federal judges, especially in New York, see a lot of these cases. They know how to deal with people like this.
-- A. Serwer
