Aafia Siddiqui did not appear at her arraignment in U.S. District Court, because she declined to be strip searched as a pre-requisite, something which is apparently required of all prisoners before and after court appearances in the court in question.

The judge has asked the prosecution and defense to discuss the issue of medical and psychiatric treatment, asked the defense to discuss the issue of mental competence, and proposed that she could appear by closed-circuit video from jail at the next hearing if that would resolve the matter.

Apparently not strip searching is not an option, and negotiating on medical and psychiatric treatment for a month is.

Her lawyers did enunciate in court that they believed the problem was her mental condition due to torture in captivity prior to her arrest.

Also, there seems to be confusion between the Pakistani government, the U.S. State Department, and her relatives over the state of the children. Inaccuracies in this kind of thing when dealing with all the different press outlets from so many countries occur, but it certainly looks like there is a negotiation over custody of more than one child right now, how that is happening, given the government story, hasn't been explained by any of the governments involved, or the family.

Just in case anyone is keeping track. The issue is not so big in the U.S. Even the issue of mistreatment in prison is not so big here. There are foreign consulates and ambassadors involved, and the U.S. is currently making a bid to expand the war into one of the countries. Oh, and the supply lines for about 40,000 troops go through the same country, which is teetering on instability right now over the reinstatement of some judges who demanded some prisoners be produced, charged, or released. Ms. Siddiqui's picture, which showed her looking particularly unhealthy, is the poster for it all. She might be the Mata Hari of Al Qaeda, or the Grey Lady of Bagram. But she is definitely a symbol in several countries of the inability of the U.S. to provide justice and the rule of law or even basic human rights.

She's also the symbol for allegations of torture. Allegations of torture are supposed to be investigated promptly, under both U.S. and international law, but in this case, the investigation consists of the D.A. and the U.S. Ambassador dismissing the allegations as ridiculous. So millions of people just think they are inveterate liars.

So it probably isn't important. At least the people being charged with terrorism in Minneapolis today won't be getting shot or being held incommunicado and in deprivation. Not yet, anyway. They're just anarchists, not Muslims.

You're right, Master of Sockpuppets, our interventionist foreign policy has nothing to do with oil pipelines, Israel, or any combination of the two. Hmmm, I remember a long time ago in these comments, someone once said:

I disagree with you about American foreign policy. It has been a disaster since we began interfering in other people's business in earnest over a century ago.

It appears that times have changed, lol... I wonder if that young lad ever read that book he recommended?

Did you meet your quota of 13 letters per day on LWM and decided to switch it up so as not to look too pathetic should your average letter count exceed 15 per day or something?

You average 13 letters a day, and have nothing in return to show for it but constant rebuttals to your warped authoritarian/statist worldview. You're either right, and being constantly called out for praising the status quo and the police state and standing for nothing outside of unlimited centralized power is a "thankless job", or you are delusional and the letter you write and the things you defend are absurd.

Trollop.

Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland used the racially-tinged term "uppity" to describe Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Thursday.

Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.

"Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they're a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they're uppity," Westmoreland said.

"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

So if Palin responds in kind by questioning Obama's experience and policies, she is somehow nasty and unfair?

Let's just be clear who drew first blood.

I am constantly amused by those on the far Left who feel perfectly entitled to launch the most vicious attacks on their opponents, but cry fowl and throw tantrums when someone hits back.

-- barrister89

Is saying that Palin would be "sharing John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. wade" a "vicious attack"? Is it not the truth. In fact is there anything in the statement by the Obama campaign person that was not true? No, there isn't. So how is it a "vicious attack"? Palin's speech was loaded with lies, falsehoods and, frankly, just dumb "attacks". I won't call them "vicious" because most of her insults were too lame and dumbed-down to her audience to qualify as vicious.

Oh and, saying "the far left" every f'in' day kind of takes the sting out of what you must consider to be one of your "vicious attacks".

Hey MORON--who said any of us are members of the Democratic Party? You know, the people that actually make decisions and run for office? We're just commenters on a website.

You hacks always confuse the media with the party--sometimes on purpose, but I guess mainly because you can't differentiate anyone criticizing your vainglorious heroes.

The Democratic Party is not making personal attacks on McCain and Palin, but its supporters may be. The Republican Party is making personal attacks on their opponents at their CONVENTION!

So get a fucking clue.