Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, here's what's going to happen. The terrorists will want a jury of their peers. It only takes one Muslim to vote "not guilty."
Gee I wonder why Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, and Zacarias Moussaoui's attorney's didn't think of that? Probably because your definition of what amounts to a "jury of one's peers" is more than a bit ridiculous.
Gee I wonder why Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, and Zacarias Moussaoui's attorney's didn't think of that? Probably because your definition of what amounts to a "jury of one's peers" is more than a bit ridiculous.
A "jury of his peers" is not required, it's not in the Constitution. The 6th Admendment does require an "impartial" jury (impartial adj. Not partial or biased; unprejudiced).
Finding an impartial juror shall prove interesting.
Right, there was no evidence gained. He CONFESSED due to the waterboarding. The jury knows he confessed too. Fair and impartial, yeah right.
He confessed before waterboarding. The waterboarding was done to try to get him to say that the terrorists had ties to Iraq. For that, he did give them "evidence". Bush/Cheney needed this "evidence" to try to justify invading Iraq. The original justification was because of all the Weapons of Mass Destrution Sadam had. After that turned out to be a lie the Administration needed to find "evidence" that would help justify the attacks. So they decided if there was none, why not create it? Which they did. Bush/Cheney knew they could count on the blind obedience of their like thinkers. Apparently, some remain.
A "jury of his peers" is not required, it's not in the Constitution. The 6th Admendment does require an "impartial" jury (impartial adj. Not partial or biased; unprejudiced).
Finding an impartial juror shall prove interesting.
It isn't as difficult or interesting as it might seem. During jury selection, absent any obvious issues, simply stating that you can be fair and impartial is more than enough.
He confessed before waterboarding. The waterboarding was done to try to get him to say that the terrorists had ties to Iraq. For that, he did give them "evidence". Bush/Cheney needed this "evidence" to try to justify invading Iraq. The original justification was because of all the Weapons of Mass Destrution Sadam had. After that turned out to be a lie the Administration needed to find "evidence" that would help justify the attacks. So they decided if there was none, why not create it? Which they did. Bush/Cheney knew they could count on the blind obedience of their like thinkers. Apparently, some remain.
He confessed under CIA Interrogation.
I'm sure we were learn what that entails when the trial starts.
It isn't as difficult or interesting as it might seem. During jury selection, absent any obvious issues, simply stating that you can be fair and impartial is more than enough.
Like I said, KSM's lawyers will have fun with that.
Like I said, KSM's lawyers will have fun with that.
There have been 145 terrorist trials in the U.S., there hasn't been a single case of a mistrial due to a tainted jury pool. Doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Frankly, I suggest that folks spend more time watching actual trials and less time watching Law and Order or Boston Legal.
AG Eric Holder "informed" Obama about his decision to hold the trial. But luckily the AG ran this by his wife and brother before announcing his decision.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.