Posted on 05/03/2006 1:44:47 PM PDT by MikeA
Except that he might actually like that.
I'd like to find out more about the jury selection in this case. How many jurors had to be sieved through to find a panel that didn't already have exposure to and opinions about the events in question? And how ignorant were the ones eventually picked?
Well, until some federal judge somewhere orders the Warden to allow such. I'm sure CBS, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and others are preparing their briefs as we type.
Feed the filthy heathen pork only products. Let him know that when he dies of starvation, he'll be covered in bacon grease to ease his descent into hell.
So what was that massive release of several hundred prisoners a few years ago, for the remains of three dead Israelis?
Oh, that was a "good will" gesture.
Don't get me started on the Elchanan Tannenbaum fiasco.
He got to wear the cloth-thing on his head, during court,according to the drawings I saw.
The Daily News? I'm sure they know everything there is to know about the situation.
Moussy needs the Ricky Reid sentencing speech read to him, then he needs to disappear into a supermax black hole forever.
He's wrong. We won. The system worked. Not even his silly lies skewed the system. It'd be nice to believe we snagged a guy who really was doing everything he claimed. But do you really believe this guy and Mr. Fire-Extinguisher-to-the-head were going to pull off an 'operation'?
We don't need his mug on a martyr recruiting poster.
Had I been on the jury, I would have stood up at that point and said "I've changed my mind - give him the chair!"
I don't remember that incident. I'll try to google it up later. But, isn't current Israeli policy not to negotiate for hostages?
That link quoted Peter Lance about Ramzi Yousef still directing operations with jihadists; he details this in several articles and a book. This is the same prison where Moussy will be incarcerated. I have little comfort thinking that Moussy will be kept in what you and I think of as true solitary confinement.
If you believe what some of these folks have to say, Yousef had Flight 800 blown up from inside the supermax. You may believe that, too, since I get the sense that you believe that OK City, the first WTC bombing, 9/11, AQ, Yousef and Saddam Hussein are all pieces of the same puzzle.
My response is that anyone who believes that must necessarily believe that the current administration is either dangerously incompetent in the WOT or purposefully lying to the American people. And I don't think you believe either of those things. But if all these things are linked so well that a Lance or a Mylroie without full access to classified info can figure it out, why can't the gov't figure it out?
I'm glad you have so much confidence in the government, regardless of which administration is in power. And that they don't cover up for each other.
Any of the basic assumptions underlying the grand conspiracy theory - Yousef was working for the AQ/Saddam joint venture; This JV blew up Flight 800; This JV blew up OK City - is HELPFUL to the positions of the Admin. For what purpose do you presume they would bury these things?
It comes down to the difference between snippets and proof. There may be snippets that can be interpreted in a certain way. One can presume that the lack of anything more, in words or actions, from the government means that the snippets are just that, and don't pan out as proof under the microscope. This doesn't prevent people from pointing to the snippets and trying to connect dots without any proof of the line between the dots. The other possible presumption is that the snippets are indicative of a greater truth, which bolsters the fundamental case presented by the Admin for its actions, but which is buried by that same Admin for reasons unstated.
Occam says the former is more likely.
This kind of miscarriage of justice happens because the words of the Constitution have been twisted from having the right to a speedy trial by an "impartial jury" to a "jury of one's peers." Hence, a rapist is now supposed to be tried by a jury of rapists, a murderer by a jury of murderers, a child molester by a jury of child molesters,a terrorist by a jury of..........
If that's not what you are saying, what are you saying?
In plain English,I am saying the jury was either composed of his peers or absolute idiots.
(((What's Sirhan Sirhan up to these days? Is he still alive?)))
Years ago I heard a quote from Sirhan that made my blood boil (yes, I admit it, I like Bobby Kennedy). He said, "Kennedy had a chance to have his children...when do I get my turn?"
GRRRR!
The absolute idiots alternative does not support your explanation about constitutional interpretation or the alleged shift - which, btw, is an absolute crock as there has never been any decision holding that jurors must have similar avocations or criminal experiences as the accused - so are you calling - in plain English - the jurors 'terrorists'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.