Apparently you have to believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace™ to serve on this jury -- which suggests that the trial itself will tread only very, very lightly, if at all, into territory concerning the motives and goals of these men. Fort Dix Jihad Update: "7 qualified jurors so far in Fort Dix case," by Geoff Mulvihill for The Associated Press, October 7 (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
CAMDEN, N.J. - The complex and sometimes tedious process of probing the biases of prospective jurors began Tuesday in the case of five men accused of planning to attack soldiers on Fort Dix.Lawyers on Tuesday morning asked questions of 11 potential jurors, examining whether they could be fair even if they thought Islam encouraged violence or they had family in the military. [...]
The first one may have been one of the hardest cases.
The woman said she is the wife of a retired New Jersey National Guard member who served about a year in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay, where the U.S. is holding suspect terrorists rounded up abroad.
Assistant U.S. Attorney William Fitzpatrick asked if she could keep an open mind in light of that.
"I think I would have some difficulty," said the woman, whose name, like those of others called on the case, is not being made public , even to the attorneys questioning her.
For 45 minutes, lawyers on both sides grilled the woman on a number of topics, including her opinion of Islam, whether she would hold it against the defendants if they did not testify, and whether she could separate the case from the people she's known who have served at Fort Dix....
She had "too many biases" and was excused.
Would having read the Qur'an, or a collection of the Hadith, or knowing the Life of Muhammad, have been used, or will it be used in the voir dire by lawyers defending Muslim clients as a reason to object to them? On what basis? Is a knowledge of the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, for some reason likely to make potential jurors less favorably inclined toward Muslims charged with crimes? What is that reason?
Again, it should be repeated, that trials of those accused of Islam-based terrorism require special knowledge, by those involved, and that specia knowledge is too hard to acquire, apparently, in the setting of a particular trial. The government must recognize that as with cases involving patent and tax law, the subject matter is sufficiently complicated as to require special courts, presided over by judges who have been specially trained in the relevant material. It is doubtful that jurors can be brought up to the necessary level of knowledge and understanding, unless every such trial is to be lengthened by many expensive weeks or months of mental preparation.
If you answer "Yes" then you would be prejudiced. If you answer "No" then you should also be prejudiced. The only way you could be truly objective is if you stated "no opinion."
I have a feeling that the judge in this case requires that jurors have the correct opinion that Islam is a peaceful religion, and therefore be informed of what he considers to be objective truth.
Time for potential jurors to practice a little Taquiya.
When in Rome ... oops, when in Mecca ...
;-)
I predicted this would happen. And, of course, when the "islam-is-peace" qualified jury has a hard time figuring out a motive (even though motive is not an element of the crime charged) many on the jury will find implausible explanations for defendant's actions to be plausible, many on the jury will find it difficult to conclude the defendants to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and dangerous people are more likely to walk away.
Why are we as a society so ignorant? Nobody wants to believe Islam is anything but the Religion of Peace because nobody in high office does anything but parrot that view, nobody teaches anything but that to our students K-12 or college, and nobody in the main stream media dares to take a hard in-depth look at the dark side of Islam.
Islam is using our liberal laws and our liberal open-mindedness to its advantage.
Americans did not realize the price they would be paying for this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Then again, this treason is POTUS is no different from the previous POTUS's: http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Embracing%20Islam%20selling%20out%20children.htm
Voir dire can make make or break a case taken to trial.
Requiring that jurors have no knowledge of Islam or opinions on jihad is like demanding that jurors in a forgery trial not know how to read.
As proffered by several here in the past, jurors a/o judges in terrorism cases need to be dedicated to only those types of trials, and duly and objectively trained along the lines of that which is offered here by Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and Raymond.
What is going to happen when the 'tipping point' is reached - when the majority of kafir citizens, due to the unremitting efforts of the intelligent and curious (such as the millions who have visited this site since its inception, many of whom have as a result been scattering its web address, and copies of Mr Spencer's books, and of other books, and of 'Fitna', and of many other things, hither, thither and yon, like so many Johnny Appleseeds), simply *know* what Political Islam is about, what jihad is and always has been, what sharia is, and that their societies are facing a Clear and Present Danger?
What are the lawyers and judges going to do when they discover that every batch of prospective jurors for any trial involving a Mohammedan, contains people who have read, for example, Surah 9 of the Qur'an, and who have used their common sense?
Alert: Thank you very much for your links. I hope many readers will explore them. Your links demonstrate and explain an awful lot as to how we came to be sold out by our leadership, both Democrat and Republican, while we were too busy to notice.
I suppose the defense attorneys are looking for prospective jurors who have a knack for Fantasy-based Analysis, like bush & a few regulars on this board.
In order to conform to the ‘business as usual’ PC dictates that are to be met before a 'fair trial'may take place, there seems to be a real need for 'imminent ignorance' on the part of all prospective jurors. Mr. Orwell must be dancing on his grave about now.
This is of course the legal system in America demanding a fair an impartial jury on behalf of the defendents.
What should be the biggest concern after a unbiased jury has been seated is what the judge will allow in regards to the evidence that needs to be put forward. Will he allow references to the teachings about jihad found in the Quran and hadiths, or will the defense object to that on the basis of insulting the teachings from a religious book even though the Quran is the instrument that promotes jihad against all non Muslims.
If the collective or inclusive evidence is shown to be more than ample for a conviction maybe the Quranic passages can be avoided.
The problem though is that judges should allow testimony from experts on Islamic teachings with these terrorist cases so that an ex post facto can be established that will, or could apply to case law later in other similar cases.
Now Now Hugh, we the public have no right to impose
our "biased interpretations" of the material and events contained within those sources you cite, those are private "revelations" not intended for the prying eyes and minds of Infidels. Or so we are told verbatim by the agents of either misdirection or triumphant ignorance.
"Requiring that jurors have no knowledge of Islam or opinions on jihad is like demanding that jurors in a forgery trial not know how to read."
From the story, it seems they are not requiring prospective jurors to have "no knowledge" of Islam -- they are only requiring that whatever "knowledge" they have is favorable to Islam. If that grilled woman had responded that she thinks Islam is okay, that "jihad" is mostly in "inner spiritual struggle", and most Muslims are good people and only a tiny minority are trying to "hijack" the religion of peace -- in other words if she simply parroted what Pres. Bush has said many times about Islam -- then she would have been a shoe-in.
>>
Mackie said,,
This is of course the legal system in America demanding a fair an impartial jury on behalf of the defendents.
>>>>
I could not believe what I read at TROP just now,,
check this out,,
http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/a-new-way-of-gaining-jihadi-americans/
A selected quote from the link,,
>>>
This is the very nightmare scenario I warned about. The courts’ steps are outrageous, but predictable and inevitable. A lot of the blame here, however, goes to the administration and the military. They have long taken the position that radical Islamic ideology is not the problem, and that we need only worry about actively those taking up arms against the United States. They don’t want us to talk about jihad — the better to keep us in the dark about jihadist ideology.
>>>>>
Feel sorry for the residents, near where they will release these "pious muslims".
Sorry OT, but important:
Assam Jihad: “the people who are being attacked and killed are all Indian citizens”
* In Assam, that means non-Muslims: “The authorities are completely biased. They are protecting immigrant Muslims while blaming the (native) Bodos for the violence.
* “Muslims hoisted the Pakistani flag after burning three of my houses completely,” said schoolteacher Jiten Boro of Bakhalpara.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/10/07/assam-jihad-the-people-who-are-being-attacked-and-killed-are-all-indian-citizens/
An important part of a defense is for the defendant's attorney to dismiss anyone who has the slightest detail of knowledge about his client's guilt, or innocence for that matter.
Without this knowledge to clutter up the brain, they are free too smokescreen, distact and otherwise confuse the dummies...and believe me, there are a lot of them to choose from.
We have seen the same here Down Under:
Judge in Australia jihad terror case: "You must not start reading about Islam or Muslims or terrorism or anything of that nature"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019927.php
The unanimous-jury system is no longer viable. One juror with an agenda can thwart justice. As Muslims become more numerous in the USA, it will soon be impossible to keep them off the juries of terror-related trials.
Cornelius,
Good point, and of course, in the selection process, they need merely to state 'no' to the violence question.
And, as Muslims, they'll be taken at their word.
We should learn to practice taquia too in these cases where a grilling lawyer asks if we believe Islam teaches violence. The following questions should be answered as in quotes while we keep our private thoughts in bracket [private thoughts]:
Q - Do you believe that Islam teaches violence?
A - No! I do not think so. [Imams teach violence].
Q - Do you Think Islam is religion of peace?
A - Absolutely. [Peace for believers only]
Q - Do you associate terrorism with Islam?
A - No I don't. [Only 10% of Muslims are terrorists]
Q - Do you know what jihad is?
A - Self struggle to do better. [Plot to kill or convert non believers]
Q - Do you know anyone who is serving the military forces?
A - No I don't. [I can forget for now...]
Q - Do you believe Muslim women should wear hijab?
A - Yes I do. [To hide their terrorist faces]
Q - Do you believe one can be inquisitive to read about explosives for safety reasons?
A - Of course I do. [History has proven that Muslins are gravitated to suicide bombing]
Q - Do you believe explosives are fireworks?
A - Yes I do. [But not when they are found next to pipes and nails]
Tell the grilling lawyers what you think will get you on the jury by separating your beliefs from the answers you give and keep the negation [private].
Don't let these lawyers select Muslims only as they will insure acquittal even to the worst terrorist.