The power of a lone dhimmi

Why assume the 1 or 2 dissenters were dhimmi's rather than Muslims? From an old Fox article about the jury selection:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185100,00.html

"Eight men and seven women were cleared to serve Wednesday; nine were dismissed. Many others from the initial jury pool of 500 already have been eliminated based on their responses on a 50-page questionnaire they filled out on the first day of jury selection Feb. 6. Among those qualified to serve: two Muslims — a woman born in Pakistan and a man born in Kabul, Afghanistan — who said their national origin and religion would not bias their views."

I have no idea whether any Muslims actually made it to the final selection, however.

I've written on these pages on more than one occasion that the unanimous-jury system is entirely antiquated, that a lone jurist with an agenda or an axe to grind can single-handedly thwart the dispensation of justice in America.
We need to move to a system where a super-majority...of 8 or 9 out of 12, is sufficient for a conviction or an acquittal.

Meanwhile, Caroline's point is well-made; Muslims are a fast-growing population in America. Without resorting to blatant discrimination, there is no way to keep them off juries, even those cases involving Islamic terrorism. Once it becomes impossible to convict terror cases because of recalcitrant jurists, it will be open-season on America. The super-majority system is a MUST.

BTW - I don't recall JW covering this story about Moussaoui trying to withdraw his guilty plea after being sentenced to life:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060509/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui

I take it he's mighty unhappy about the sentence.

There are several assumptions in this post which strike me as dubious:

1. That death was objectively required i.e. the facts & law support it without question.

2. That death would have been politically wise i.e. such a sentence would not have created another martyr.

3. That someone not inside the jury room has much credibility to judge the situation i.e. if one wasn't there and didn't hear the evidence....etc etc

Reasonable people can and do disagree about #1 and #2, particularly (even if #2 is probably not a legitimate reason for the jury to decide one way or another.)

It strikes me as unfortunate and somewhat presumptious that this post chooses to characterize people with whom there is disagreement as "dhimmi."

While the jury may well have been wrong -- I'll easily concede that -- tracing it to dhimmitude is not justified on the basis of what we know. Putting it another way, people can screw up for a variety of reasons.

Thank You Caroline;

Your post helped to prove the point that I was trying to make during Lil' Zach's sentencing. Death would've been too good for him. But then I was also wrong about him wanting death. Now he's in a position to where he is stuck in a hopeless existance without little to no human contact. His choice of food if he behaves himself. And only one hour of sunshine and air. The fact that he has recieved a taste of the rest of his life and is now begging for a retrial proves that the jury did the right thing. It's laughable. Just a week ago he was teasing the U.S. justice system. "America, you lost!" he said. But now he sees who really lost.

"But let judgment run down as waters,
and rightousness as a mighty stream."
Amos 5:24

Will Muslims, or those who have demonstrated some sympathy either for the real Islam or their own private version of Islam, carefully cultivated by outside apologists, be kept off juries in such cases?

If not, why not? If so, why?

Raw Data - strangely, given our disagreement on the other thread, I think you are quite right.

Hugh, I don't know if you would write it like this but I'll give it a try:

Those who wage war, holy war or jihad against the west, or against a western host country, a civilized nation state that foolishly allowed them to settle behind enemy lines, a nation & a people that has given them welfare, schooling, equal rights and the rule of law, all of which they hold in contempt, have for-fitted the right to being tried in a court of law.

A military court and a firing squad is the most they deserve.

No two ways about it.

Dear all,

I think Moussaoui can be used as a tool of the *Zionist-Crusader Occupying Front* (that's the United States & Company) like many prisoners before him. Take cues from Ho Chi Minh and other politically minded propagandists. Here's how the US could use Moussaoui and his life for the benefit of the world.

Keep him in confinement most of the time but occassionally bring him out to a mock-up of a pig stye, kept in the corner of the prison yard. Strip him to his waist, smear mud & pig dung all over him, have him slopping the pigs with chains on his hands and feet ( if he doesn't comply, just tape a bucket to his wrists and have a fine looking woman in bikini pulling his chain) Have a cadre of other girls in bikinis ( adorned with US & other flags ) beating on him with high-heeled shoes.

Make some streaming video clips & still pictures of it and blast them all over the world.

Do it over and over.

Also - we need to get some of the rightly-guided creative types out there to get busy with PhotoShop and various 'video maker' and 'movie maker' software. We need to make some clips showing bin Laden worshipping in front of crosses and wearing a kippa in front of the torah and other, nastier things. Make the videos & stills and put them out there - they'll spread as fast as the latest virus.

We need other videos showing 'what's behind the curtain' at Mecca and how that mosque has been sprayed with pig dung... this type of thing is easily made in the modern world. We need to start using the tools we have to strike more confusion and fear into the minds of members of the Ummah.

Make things which play to their fears, insecurities, superstitions and inner 'desires'. One of my teachers told me once the way to get your point across and to get people to buy into your viewpoint is to get them to 'visualize' the outcome. I agree with that.

Make some movie magic and Move Muslims Minds.
It doesn't have to 'make sense'. They more irrational and outlandish - the better!

Let's produce some 'big lies' The ummah is programmed to accept them without question.

Show them just how pervasive the zionist-crusader conspiracy REALLY is.... show the Grand Ayatolla al-Sistani and other imams working with and loving Jews! The possibilities are endless, can be done cheaply and would be really fun & entertaining.

Someone out there can do it!

My instinct is that there is a stronger case for treating Muslim terrorists as enemy combatants who should face a military court than there is for tinkering around with the jury system.

The law should be changed, not the system of law enforcement. Juries are a way of limiting the power of the State. If the State, if judges and those who educate judges, understood Islam better than ordinary people do, there might be a case for taking decisions away from the people. But they don't.

Hugh,
Such won't happen until the Islamofascists have won and we have perverted our own system so that even the military court (as suggested by the sheik, above) is seen as superfluous.

•••

I have been reading this blog for a while now and have started to become persuaded that much of the problem is in fact Islam itself etc etc.

But then you and Robert go off the reservation with intemperate remarks about jurors and dhimmis etc etc and I have to wonder if you are really all that credible. I hate to put it so bluntly, but we all have our little indicators and Robert's post on the juror hold-out bothers me.

I do hope you will re-consider i.e. that the juror's position -- assuming the story's basic accuracy -- might have been based on something besides attitudes toward Islam, such as the evidence presented and the Judge's instructions.

Just as an aside, have you read the Judge's instructions, btw? (I assume that they are available.) I would think that anyone who wants to comment on the jury's decisions would have read them carefully.

Interested - I agree - the civil court system is not the place to try a terrorist case.

Our problem one which needs to be defined in military terms, not criminal/civilian terms. This is the crucial hurdle to overcome in defining the threat against us.

But I do agree with Raw Data - we are not equipped to know why the decision turned out the way it did. We weren't there and don't have all the facts & parameters of the suit. Once the jury trial started we had agree to live with the outcome. this is called 'rule of law' and is what we're fighting for. But taking Moussaoui to trial in the civil courts was as mistake. He is NOT a citizen of the united states and this is NOT a problem to be framed in criminal terms.

He is an 'enemy' not a 'criminal'.

Once the jury trial started we had agree to live with the outcome. this is called 'rule of law' and is what we're fighting for. But taking Moussaoui to trial in the civil courts was as mistake.

Quite. None of us is in a position to comment on the reason for that juror's decision. It is a mistake, in my view, to disparage that one juror, let alone the whole jury system, on the basis of a decision which did not go the way most people want it to have gone.

That said, it seems strange to me that juries in the US decide the sentence. Here in England, it is just the verdict: guilty or not guilty. Scotland also has: not proven, which means, in effect, not guilty but don't do it again.

Bingo Intrested;

Moussaoui should have recieved trial by military tribunal. It didn't happen, thus the end result that materialized in the court of law. Your instincts serve you well. Any and all terrorists are enemy combatants and should never see the light of day in a U.S. court of law but in a court of the Uniform Court of Military Justice. Military justice is cold but it's fair. No one can be represented by any kind of lawyer. The accused must have a lawyer that is familiar with military law. Fluent, if you will, in military rule of law. No liberal shyster legal eagle. In a military court there is very little, if no, room for a mistrial. When you're before the Judge Advacate General, all evidence is presented. And given Moussaoui's boldness before the civilian court in pleading guity, he most definitly would have gotten the death penalty.
The thing is, terrorism isn't a crime. It's an act of war, and should be treated as such. That's why the war on terror is fought by soldiers and Marines. Not the police, the county sheriffs, or the FBI. Jihadists are not criminals. They're enemy combatants. Now, if only we could get the democrats in Congress to understand this fact.

If "we will never know the reason", according to the jury forewoman, how can it be assumed dhimmitude? Where is the critical analysis? It may be that this juror is morally opposed to the death penalty. I do not agree, but I understand this has nothing to do with Islam or dhimmitude. Posts like this make the publishers of this blog look irrational. This is no way to influence the public discourse on Islam.

I have posted several times about separating the exposure of Islam's canonical texts from other issues, to avoid alienating people who might not agree with ideas peripheral, or even irrelevant, to that of Islam. This is the same blunder the left makes, egregiously, at every opportunity. It would be a shame to alienate people who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, particularly because if they were aware of what the canonical texts of Islam say about it, they would be influenced toward our point of view.

I'm with Raw Data on this one.

If unwarranted accommodation of Moslem demands constitutes dhimmitude, that still leaves the motives of the "hold-out" juror open to wide interpretation.

Many posting on this site feel that the suitable punishment for Moussaoui is life imprisonment, for a number of arguable reasons. It is possible that the dissenting juror felt the same way. This does not make them a dhimmi. I agree with Ironman Hondo: I believe that Moussaoui will find that his days grow long and heavy. He will go out with a whimper, no "glory," no "martyrdom," no grandstanding to the press. Just cold silence.

As for changing the legal system to get the "right" result, No thank you! While I strongly believe that a military tribunal would have been the correct forum for Moussaoui's trial, the decision was -rightly or wrongly- made to try him in civilian court. There was then no choice consistent with Western tradition but to allow civilian law to abide.

The danger of the Islamofascism threat stems from the possibility that it may stampede the West into some form of counterfascism. Civil liberties have been suspended before during times of war, but we also want to be careful and circumspect when doing so.

Raw Data

Spot on.

It really is too bad they didn't build a few round cells at the supermax prison. The first day, the guards could tell Zachie that Mecca is "that way", the next day apologize and point him in a different direction. After spinning around for a few decades not knowing if his face or heinie is pointing at Mecca, he could THEN claim insanity.
Let jihadists know this is their fate, not matrydom, oh, and a good pork fry-up breakfast, lunch and dinner. And only books from Oprah's bookclub as entertainment.

Can someone help me with basic facts about US (& Geneva) law here?

Three Questions:

1) Why was Moussaoui not tried by a US military tribunal? who made that decision?

2) If Moussaoui had been tried by a US military tribunal,

a) under what provisions would he have been subject to the death penalty?

b) under what provisions would he have avoided the death penalty?

3) Is there any provision in US military law and/or the Geneva Convention whereby the US military has the authority to shoot an enemy and/or enemy prisoner without benefit of a trial of any kind?

My question #3 was a little ragged. Allow me to rephrase:

3) Is there any provision in US military law and/or the Geneva Convention whereby the US military has the authority to execute an enemy [obviously, outside of a situation of mortal combat] and/or enemy prisoner without benefit of a trial of any kind?

In an UK company, Muslims and dhimmis wanted to have privileges - only the worshippers of Allah were supposed to have the right of praying in a reserved room...

(...)
The case of Royal Mail Group PLC versus Donald Holden, which was heard in the Manchester Industrial Tribunal on 9 and 10 March, pitted a large, wealthy corporation, with a multi-million pound turnover, against a sole individual, Donald Holden, whose only resources were his honest integrity and his dogged determination to stand up for his rights. Donald is a member of the Odinist Fellowship, and we were able to put him in touch with a first-class barrister, Adrian Davies, an observer member of the Fellowship, who, I have to say, made mincemeat of the Royal Mail’s witnesses in court. I, myself, was present on both days of the two-day hearing, and presented evidence as a witness on Donald’s behalf.

Whilst listening to the tribunal proceedings, I could not help thinking of Franz Kafka’s disturbing, German-language novel, “The Trial”, in which the hero gets embroiled in a surreal nightmare of paranoia-inducing, legal proceedings and insane bureaucracy. But by comparison with Kafka’s narrative, it is the Holden case, which reads like far-fetched, surrealist fiction. Yet, sadly, the sorry society, in which we live, produces such travesties week in, week out.

What are the facts of this case? Many of you will be surprised, as I was, to learn that, increasingly, employers with a large proportion of Muslim staff are being obliged to set aside rooms in the workplace for Muslim prayers, and to allow their employees to take time away from their duties to engage in these prayers. At the Mail Centre where Donald worked, there was just such a room, which was designated as a “Multicultural Room”. That is important, because never, at any time, did the Royal Mail claim that the Room was solely for Muslim use, or that non-Muslims might not use it for their own purposes.

And the simple point, that Donald was evidently trying to make is that he too, as an Odinist, and as a non-Muslim, had the right of access to the facilities, which, in theory, the management had set aside for all staff, but which, in practice, were being used as an exclusive Muslim Club Room. Donald had the audacity to enter the Room, as if he had an equal right to it as any other employee, in order to spend a few moments in silent prayer; and just as the Muslim employees used the Room to store their Korans and prayer calendars, Donald, himself, presumed to have the right to leave his sheets of paper, containing the text of our introductory booklet, “All About Odinism”, downloaded from the internet, and some images of Odin, in the Room, on a couple of plastic chairs placed next to a sink.

One item of evidence, which I have seen, is a book used to sign in and out for the key to this Multicultural Room. Donald’s visits to the Room were always of short duration, and mainly took place on a Saturday, when the Mail Centre was almost empty, and when his security duties obliged him to patrol the building to check all was in order. I was able to see for myself, that certain names and signatures, evidently belonging to Muslim employees, recurred time and time again in the signing-in book, sometimes three or four times in a single shift, and that the duration of their stay was often half an hour, or more. Some would call this “skiving”. It is true that pious Muslims are obliged to pray five times a day, and those times are usually considered to be dawn, morning, noon, evening and nightfall. So it seems remarkable that some of the Muslim employees were trying to fit them all into one shift. But the Royal Mail’s managers weren’t interested in that! They were more interested in what Donald was getting up to in the Muslim Club Room – sorry, Multicultural Room!

The man was obviously threatening the cosy arrangement between management, unions and Muslim leaders, that prevailed at the Mail Centre – and so he had to be stopped! An anonymous complaint was made – this goes back to October 2004 – to the effect that a muddy footprint had been left on the carpet of the Multicultural Room. What could this mean? There could only be one possible interpretation: quite clearly, the culprit had intended it as an attack on the Muslim religion. And not only was it, self-evidently, an anti-Muslim footprint, but on closer examination it became obvious that it must have been made by an anti-Islamic boot; and, no doubt, that anti-Islamic boot had been wielded by an Islamophobic foot. And who else could that Islamophobic foot belong to? The principal suspect had to be Donald Holden, of course! (...)

Continue reading here:
http://www.wcer.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=101

I think it's important to note that the jurors were tasked with deciding whether the government had made case for the death penalty, according to "evidence, fact, and law," as the forewoman points out in the article.

In the juror selection process, those who say they can't or won't sentence someone to death are excused from the case, since it's not the place of the jury to legislate.

Needless to say, something's wrong here if, as the article says, the dissenting juror was never called out and questioned on why he/she voted no. That, after all, is what deliberation involves.

I wrote up a short letter to the editor of my local newspaper and have confirmed it will be published.

the internet and email are stellar for speeding up the back & forth process

the whole process took about 1 1/2 hours from conception to confirmation.
...

Many people are disappointed about Zacharias Moussaoui's sentencing to life in prison. I'd like to defend that sentence by stating the fact that the rest of us aren't equipped to know why the decision turned out the way it did. We weren't in court and don't have all the facts and parameters of the suit.

Once the jury trial started we had to agree to live with the outcome.
This is called 'rule of law' and is precisely what 'The War on Terror' is defending.

The mistake in the Moussaoui trial is fundamental. He should have been tried in a military, not civilian, court. He is not a citizen of the United States and jihadi terrorism is NOT a problem to be framed in criminal terms.

Terrorist actions need to be defined in military terms, not criminal/civilian terms. Moussaoui is an 'enemy' not a 'criminal'.

Even the improper label 'War on Terror' indicated a military trial for Moussoui. We are already in a world war whether we acknowledge it or not. Jihadis in the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Europe understand the nature of this war. We need to face facts regardless of our desire for peace.

Correctly defining the enemy and the nature of this war is THE crucial obstacle we need to overcome before we can remove the global threat of jihad.

Obviously US law is different (you have the "Grand Jury" which concept I have never quite understood) but in the English Crown Court the confidentiality of the jury room is near sacred. Were a juror to talk so openly to a newpaper, and the paper to report that discussion it would be contempt of court. When verdicts are made by a majority there are careful rules about the circumstances when the vote ratio can be made known.
And while a jury has been known to urge mercy sternness on the defendant when returning their verdict they have no input into the sentence whatsoever.
What we are experimenting with in some criminal courts, and I have no idea how this will work, it being 20 years since I was in the criminal field, is the victim, or surviving family being allowed to address the court about how the crime has affected them, to assist the Judge in deciding the sentence. This is very recent, 3/4 weeks and nothing has filtered through to me yet.

"Raw Data".

Spot on. Nail on head. This is the sort of coverage that "real newsources" will cover when they want to dimiss jihad & dhimmi watch as a rabid bunch of racists. I didn't think better of hugh, but you robert? shame on you.

"Interested"

Ditto. The US system seems a bit odd. I'm pretty sure it would get better with "majority vote".

Angry Americans.

This guy is more useful alive than dead.

Corrent me if I've watched to many American films, but my mental image of the American penal system includes lots of solidarity confiment, frequent beatings (guards AND inmates) and regular non-censoral buggery.

We all may find that this simple minded hateful buffoon might be useful yet, if he'd been killed he would not hold that poptentual.

it being 20 years since I was in the criminal field

You kept that quiet. Youthful indiscretions?

the confidentiality of the jury room is near sacred...

That's as it should be. I'd love to talk to people about my recent jury service, but it's not allowed.

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses wrote:

"Also - we need to get some of the rightly-guided creative types out there to get busy with PhotoShop and various 'video maker' and 'movie maker' software. We need to make some clips showing bin Laden worshipping in front of crosses and wearing a kippa in front of the torah and other, nastier things. Make the videos & stills and put them out there - they'll spread as fast as the latest virus."

So right! And so easy. I like the way you think. Get their achilles heel - because they can't tolerate feeling laughed at. Creative mockery is like a nuke for them. And watching their raving responses could be quite entertaining, wouldn't you say?

Right.

Television, I'll answer what questions I can.

Question #1. The answer to this question is too easy. Politics made the decision as to whether Lil' Zack would recieve trial by civilian court. Washington politacans see this as a criminal act rather than an act of war. This is due to the liberal mindset in Washington and the Republicans lack of intestinal fortitude to the fact. Moussaoui should have been tried by military tribunal. Caes closed!

Question #2. I don't have my military law book in front of me right now. Maybe some else can answer this question for before I can.

Qusetion #3. The answer to this qusetion is murky at best. There are provisions if an enemy combatant lays down his weapon and surrenders, then he must be taken as a prisioner of war. An enemy combatant that is taken while fighting or wounded and still fighting is fair game.
The Geneva Convention has rules governing combat, such as you can not fire at an enemy combatant if he is falling by parachute from the sky and is not engaging by fire from above. But as most experienced soldiers and Marines returning from Iraq will tell you this enemy dosen't honor the Geneva Convention and will hide amoung the populace being incomspicuous and will use civilians as human shields from fire. This is an instant violation of the rules of engagement.
Thus the reason why all terrorists should never see the civilian judge due to the fact that a vast majority of civil judges don't know military law and the Geneva Convention Rules of Engagement.

WestwardHo/A_Plague:

Actually, there was a bit of that early in the war in Afghanistan:

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/afg_17_02.jpg

Shinolite we need MO MO MO ! We need it everywhere & all the time. Think of the vast resources of script kiddies, serious hackers and just plain misfits and miscreants looking for meaning in life. If we could just harness their destructive energies and focus them on the target... think of what we'd produce! I can't even image how funny & good some of it would be.

I've seen the clips and the apps some of these guys put together and I'm impressed. Why don't more of them go SouthPark (pre censor) on the whole jihadi world? We could really have some fun and do something meaningful AND destructive at the same time. What a perfect use for all those internet dudes out there. Hack away at them.

Thanks Ironman. One #1, who actually made the decision to try Moussaoui in civil court? Who has the authority -- only Congress? Could the President have overridden the decision if he wanted to?

T.V.;

I'd like to think that the President could've overrided Congress in a case like this. He has that power as Commander in Chief. But with the political climate in Washington on Capital Hill, I don't think that the President wanted an all out war with the liberal dems on the hill. And the Republicians haven't been too helpful as far as this matter is concerned either. But never the less, in a simpler time, Lil' Zach would have recieved a military trial. Very quick, very just, and very fair. In time of war ALL political parties backed the President in his role as Commander in Chief.

T.V.;

I'd like to think that the President could've overridden Congress in a case like this. He has that power as Commander in Chief. But with the political climate in Washington on Capital Hill, I don't think that the President wanted an all out war with the liberal dems on the hill. And the Republicians haven't been too helpful as far as this matter is concerned either. But never the less, in a simpler time, Lil' Zach would have recieved a military trial. Very quick, very just, and very fair. In time of war ALL political parties backed the President in his role as Commander in Chief.

Corrent me if I've watched to many American films, but my mental image of the American penal system includes lots of solidarity confiment, frequent beatings (guards AND inmates) and regular non-censoral buggery.

We all may find that this simple minded hateful buffoon might be useful yet, if he'd been killed he would not hold that poptentual.

Posted by: Moderation_is_key at May

You've watched too many American films which believe it or not, do not depict real life in America. God, can't people tell the difference between fact and fantasy any more?!

Hollywood is where they make "make-believe." OK?
We still have the infamous chain gangs, where poor innocent convicts are tethered together and forced to chip away at granite mountains in the searing heat with mini-pick axes, deprived of water until they produce their quota of chipped stone. When they slack off, the brutal "boss" gets out his whip and beats them to a pulp and at dusk, they are carried back to their cells by their fellow inmates to have salt rubbed in their wounds.

"Television" asks:

1) Who made the decision not to try Moussaoui by military tribunal?

According to President Bush's Military Order of 13 November 2001, the decision whether to try a terrorist by a military commission is made by the President (Bush).

2) If Moussaoui had been tried by a US military tribunal, under what provisions would he have been subject to the death penalty?

The military commission trial is conducted by the Military Commission Panel, which consists of a Judge Advocate plus at least three other military officers. If the defendant is convicted, they can impose any sentence they deem fit (that's right!). If it's a capital case (and terrorism that directly kills Americans sure is), that sentence can include the death penalty. But to impose death requires a unanimous vote from the entire Panel.

For more information, download:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/d20050915factsheet.pdf
(you need Adobe Acrobat Reader)

3) Is there any provision in US military law and/or the Geneva Convention whereby the US military has the authority to shoot an enemy and/or enemy prisoner without benefit of a trial of any kind?

Yes (though many civil libertarians and Bush's critics are uncomfortable about this point).

First of all, the U.S. Constitution (including its Bill of Rights) does not apply to foreigners captured fighting on a foreign battlefield. The Constitution applies only to either U.S. citizens anywhere on earth, or to any persons (citizens or not) within the territory of the U.S. So an Arab (non-American) terrorist captured by our troops in Iraq is not protected by the U.S. Constitution and is hence not entitled to a trial by jury.

Likewise, the protections of the Geneva Convention are applicable to enemy soldiers. They do not extend to enemy civilians ("partisans") who fight us without a flag, ID, uniform, or other insignia identifying them as part of a military army. That captured civilian partisans are not entitled to the same rights as captured soldiers goes all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War (at least), when they were called "francs-tireurs" (literally: "free shooters").

So if these terrorists/partisans have no rights under our Constitution, and they have no rights under the Geneva Convention either, ergo, they have no rights.

So in Iraq, our troops must treat captured uniformed Iraqi soldiers (of the Iraqi Army) according to the Geneva Convention; but not captured non-American civilian terrorists.

And something like this actually happened back in World War II. Go read about Operation Greif. During the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans sent some of their troops, dressed in American uniforms, behind our lines to stir up trouble. When our troops captured these Germans, those Germans were not wearing German uniforms or German ID tags. Hence our troops did not treat them as German soldiers, but as partisans. That meant death. Despite the Geneva Convention, our troops threatened to shoot those Germans right then if they didn't confess what they knew about the operation. They confessed--and then our troops executed them anyway. No POW camp, and no trials. Killed.

Steven -- Thanks for the info and the link. Much appreciated.

How the euros missed the opportunity to show
Americans blood lusting for the imposition of the death penalty.
And the comparisons with civilsed europe which had done away with such barbarity long ago.
They were loathe to portay the Jury as humane.
After all had not the americans recently executed "Tookie" williams, the "gentle" murderer who wrote children's books? And all those "adopt a tookie" celebrities from Hollywood who held a candle lit vigil and sung songs of peace.
But surely rather than accept the jury as enlightened euro style individuals, would it no be better to imply that they were all blood lusters bar ONe -who upheld human decency?
One should see propaganda when it hits. No wonder the BBC grabbed that story!
Wait for the follow up articles in the euro press or the Hollywood release starring Clooney as the humane Juror faced by blood thisty rednecks.

Raw Data has advanced a strong argument with some apparent support from others. We're all waiting for the counter-argument, but the silence from Robert and Hugh is deafening.

Its okay he will be getting 72 thumbs up his virgin ass instead. Death would be too easy for him.

Why assume the 1 or 2 dissenters were dhimmi's rather than Muslims? From an old Fox article about the jury selection:

Why assume the 1 or 2 dissenters were dhimmi's rather than Muslims? From an old Fox article about the jury selection:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185100,00.html

Among those qualified to serve: two Muslims — a woman born in Pakistan and a man born in Kabul, Afghanistan — who said their national origin and religion would not bias their views."

Posted by: Caroline at May 12, 2006 08:16 AM

... and Dubya (Commander-in-chief) wants to send Americans to the hounds (barbaric muslims). Go figure!

Terror trials are a National Security issue, rather than a judicial issue. Hence, terror terials should be tried by a Military court, and we all seem to agree on that. How do we go about this change? I am not sure about the path, but pressing senators, comes to mind. Preferably at JW level.

What do JW followers think?

"...and we all seem to agree on that."

Not me, Kemo Sabe.

I have heard your claims many times -- that "National Security" issues should be in some "other system" -- but that way lies fascism. So if that is what you want. please go to some Islamic country where they don't care about rights.

I won't even try to discuss the practical issues with a person like you, but they are very real...small things such as how one knows it's a "National Security" issue before you even have a trial? Just a statement from a prosecutor?

Let's also put it this way for those of you who hate Hillary Clinton -- how do you like the idea of Hillary being in charge of a national security apparatus in which there is no habeas corpus for people accused of a "National Security" violations. I'm a liberal and it gives me the shivers; and she's on my side. You? You wouldn't stand a chance.

The US jury system is not perfect. It's imperfections are/will be exploited by muslims.
Jury selection, instead of being straight forward, is full of curves and tricks. A muslim lawyer could easilly select muslim jurists to try a muslim defendant.
The desenting jurists refusal to identify themselves is suspicious, but not illegal.
This trial should never been done in a civilian court to begin with...unlike civilian jurys, the military dont play around...

BTW Raw Data, I think that a jury that is nullified or an individual that nullifies him/herself, can ignore the judges instructions and vote their conscience. They can also ignore the evidence on such a basis, as the jurist does not like that law, or does not like the way it is applied in this case. This is a citizens only way to get rid of bad or abusive law (except for voting). If the authorities cant get a conviction, they will eventually abandon or change the law. There is no penalty for voting your conscience...that may irritate some people, but it is your right...It is possible that the hold out juror was voting their conscience for some unknown reason. It's also possible that this juror was indeed a dhimmi, or even a muslim. Most of it is speculation and academic. What was done was done...and thats the end of that tune...have a good day...

Raw Data seems to have painted himself into a corner:

Alert wrote:

"terror trials should be tried by a Military court, and we all seem to agree on that."
Posted by: Alert [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 13, 2006 10:21 AM

Raw Data responded:

"...and we all seem to agree on that."

Not me, Kemo Sabe.

I have heard your claims many times -- that "National Security" issues should be in some "other system" -- but that way lies fascism. So if that is what you want. please go to some Islamic country where they don't care about rights.

I won't even try to discuss the practical issues with a person like you, but they are very real...small things such as how one knows it's a "National Security" issue before you even have a trial?"

My response:

1) First of all, how one knows it's a "National Security" issue before you even have a trial?" -- this rhetorical question of Raw Data's would effectively exclude all military tribunals, since they all circumvent a civilian trial.

2) Second of all, and in apparent contradiction to #1, Alert was referring to a military trial -- yet Raw Data seems to frame his rebuttal along the lines that somehow a military trial circumvents the trial process and paves the way for "fascism" and "becoming like a Muslim country"; if that's so, the USA has already become a "fascist Muslim" country long ago, since we have had military trials for over 100 years!

Television;

Steven L is right. I managed to get some more information on the subject. I had forgotten that President Bush had placed the order for a civilian trial. This was very grave mistake on his and the administration's part. This give more gravity to what I told you in my first post to this question. The President was pretty much playing politics with the Moussaoui case to keep the democrats and the media from making a big stink about fairness.
But the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the National Security Agency could have made a play for placing Lil' Zach under military jurisdiction. Thus making a military tribunal possible! All they had to do is petition the President and press the issue of terrorism being an act of war. Moussaoui under the right circumstances would have gotten a military tribunal!! Politicians be damned!
Steven L. mentioned some things that I really didn't want to get into. A thing called "troop justice." If you remember the scene in "Saving Private Ryan" where the German soldier was spared after giving the "good guys" information, you'll note that they let he go and let him live. But yet this same German spldier rewarded the troops by giving away their position. The whole squad was almost killed with the exception of the one troop that supported his being released. It was this troop that administered "troop justice" when this German soldier tried to play again on his sympathy. This happens in times of war. Don't think that war is fair. It's not. September 11th, 2001 should prove this out to ALL Americans!
Steven L. mentioned another important point, Terrorist don't wear uniforms, thus the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. And seeing as they're not American citizens, the United Sates Constitution does NOT!!! apply to them. They are more than fair game to ALL who should engage them! Does the term, "militia, well regulated" mean anything to you!? Any terrorist captured on our soil is subject to "troop justice" as it should apply to the situation. The terrorist that our soldiers and Marines engage in Iraq that try to use the non-combatants as natural shields not only jepardize the people but the possible diplomatic ending ofthe conflict. This is also what the soldiers and Marines had to deal with during the Viet Nam Conflict. Our forces had to shoot everybody that they engaged because of this type of warfare. They couldn't trust anyone, including children!
Thus the supidity of the Islamofeces /terrorists. Sonner or later, one of the two things will happen. Our military forces will finally start to fire upon mosques or the civilians will start participating in their own fight for freedom. But this is a subject for another time.
If the issue had been pressed and if the President wasn't so afraid of democratic reprisal, Lil' Zach would've gotten a military trial.
My brother, who also is a former Marine, gave me the added information concerning the Joint Chiefs and the NSA. He is one of the browsers that likes to read this website, but has yet to respond. I guess this was his way of responding. Through me.