"In his reply to a questionnaire that was distributed among the potential 100 jurors May 16, this particular juror reportedly wrote 'Terrorists are mainly Muslims, or am I wrong?' He was promptly excused by the judge in the interest of a fair trial for Rana....Juror number 15, apparently of South East Asian origin, was also excused because she said she could not be fair given her strong views about Islam."
But on what basis does Judge James Leinenweber think that a rosy, fact-free belief in Islam as a Religion of Peace and a "respect" for Islam will help ensure that Tahawwur Hussain Rana will get a fair trial? Why should this make any difference one way or the other? If a juror who knows that jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism would be more likely to convict Rana, why wouldn't it also be true that a juror who thinks that Islam is a peaceful religion that has been hijacked by a Tiny Minority of Extremists be more likely to acquit Rana?
Courtroom dhimmitude: "Rana jury selection faces bias against Muslims," by Mayank Chhaya for IANS, May 18 (thanks to Twostellas):
Chicago, May 18 : From a tooth and shoulder pain to displaying a clear bias in favour of the government, there was a diversity of reasons why some 20 potential jurors were excused May 17 by a federal judge here from participating in the trial of Mumbai terror plot suspect Tahawwur Hussain Rana.Judge James Leinenweber spent the entire day questioning possible jurors, keeping the main thrust of his inquiry on establishing whether they had demonstrably negative views about Islam as a religion and Muslims as a community. While by and large the jurors said they had no particular antipathy towards either, some, such as juror number 14, said he did not respect Islam.
In his reply to a questionnaire that was distributed among the potential 100 jurors May 16, this particular juror reportedly wrote "Terrorists are mainly Muslims, or am I wrong?" He was promptly excused by the judge in the interest of a fair trial for Rana.
Jurors are identified only by their numbers in order to guard their privacy as well ensure personal safety. Juror number 15, apparently of South East Asian origin, was also excused because she said she could not be fair given her strong views about Islam. [...]
Rana is a Chicago businessman charged with providing a cover to his Pakistani-American high school friend David Coleman Headley for scouting targets for the Mumbai terrorist attack that left 166 people dead. [...]
That's what respecting nazism would have been like at the Nuremberg trials. Period.
Stereotypes don't develop out of thin air. There are reasons.
This juror's assessment of Muslim behavior was wrong? Of course not. But it does run afoul of the PC mindset that all cultures are equal.
Consider the recent example of another Asian who, using her powers in observing human behavior - disregarding the instructions of her PC betters ("Who ya gonna believe, us or your lyin' eyes?") - answered the following to a question asking three people she least admired, "African-Americans, Hispanics and Haitians.” When the judge asked why she answered the question that way, she replied, "You always hear about them in the news doing something." She also declared that cops are all lazy, claiming that they sound their sirens to bypass traffic jams.
Because she THOUGHT this way, this judge punished her with jury duty of an interminable length.
http://www.originaldissent.com/node/1410
This Chicago incident is similar. If you think non-PC, you're the lesser. "We will make you THE OTHER."
It is well known that with a guilty client a defense lawyer typically wants the dumbest and most ignorant jury he can get. Since more and more intelligent people are becoming aware of the horrific political & moral ideology of Islam it will be even much less likely to have an intelligent jury when Muslims are defendants if having a negative opinion of Islam becomes a disqualifying justification. Our Islamic enemies must be very pleased.
Suppose I were to say that I believe:
"Self-declared Muslims who are not terrorist themselves or who do not support the use of the zakat to promote Islamic Supremacist terrorism are not really Muslims, but rather they are apostates from Islam and need our protection."
In which case, the Islamic Supremacist bias -- pro or con -- of a particular juror can be severed from the issue of whether any given self-declared Muslim is motivated by evil or has done evil things. All self-declared Muslims face the ever present threat of death for openly renouncing their "faith" in favor of anything remotely supportive of an embrace of a faith in American notions of "liberty and justice for all".
If this were a case involving spousal abuse then the judge's reasoning could be used to exclude all females from a panel for acknowledging (or even asking rhetorically?) that men are more violent than women, regardless of the gender of the defendant.
I'm a 67 year old indigenous Englishman and highly qualified. I have never been called to Jury Service in the UK and in less than 3 years I shall be excluded. In the meantime recent immigrants ARE called to Jury service. Am I missing something?
I don't believe that I will EVER have to serve jury duty. I have too many strong opinions on controversial issues.
I'd love to have the chance to speak my piece at the voir dire at a muslim-involved trial, though.
Well, a little bit of jury applicant 'taqqiya' would help. Me? Anti-muslim. Naw! Not a bit of it. Now, show me the guilty accused.
Know what I mean? :))
Lowering yourself to their standards seems to be the only way to circumvent their underhand methods of stacking juries.
The method of jury selection in the US does seem to bias in favour of the accused a bit too much, but I do understand the reasoning behind it.
Respect Islam? Respect the root cause of these atrocities?
Did we forget what happened in Mumbai? Rana and other terrorists should not be put on trial, Islam should.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/06/never-forget-mumbai.html
The unanimous-jury system is broken. One recalcitrant jurist with an agenda can thwart the dispensation of justice. We need to change to a super-majority system...an 8 or 9 vote majority on a 12-jurist panel needed to convict or acquit.
I value the sanctity of life, may I be excused?
"In his reply to a questionnaire that was distributed among the potential 100 jurors May 16, this particular juror reportedly wrote 'Terrorists are mainly Muslims, or am I wrong?' He was promptly excused by the judge in the interest of a fair trial for Rana....Juror number 15, apparently of South East Asian origin, was also excused because she said she could not be fair given her strong views about Islam."
........................
I can see excluding the last juror here—you can't have jurors who specifically state that they cannot be fair. After all, Tahawwur Hussain Rana *as an individual* may or may not be guilty as charged, and the trial must be a fair one.
But writing "terrorists are mainly Muslims, or am I wrong?" should not disqualify anyone—this just shows that this juror is vaguely paying attention.
As for positing that one "must respect Islam", nothing could be more grotesque.
If, say, a neo-Nazi were charged with an assault, it would indeed be an issue if a juror hated Fascism in so irrational a manner that they could not believe that *any* neo-Nazi could be innocent of *anything*.
But clearly, one might hate Fascism with a passion, and still find this particular defendant not guilty if it were proven that he was twenty miles away from the scene of the crime at the time.
Judge James Leinenweber never should have allowed the defense lawyer to necessitate "respect for Islam" as a qualification for jurors. Likely, he is over-sensitive at any suspicion of "Islamophobia" in his courtroom.
He seems to have no awareness that having "respect for Islam" is a bias of its own, and shows that the holder of such views is either wholly ignorant of Islam, willfully naive—or an actual supporter of Muslim ideology.
Judge Leinenweber is conflating religion with state here, which is unconstitutional. But I ain't complaining, we're patently no longer a nation of laws anymore, so what's the big deal with one little ole Jihad terror war trial.
*** 33:31 ***
Leinenweber, an actual law school alum wearing a black robe, is turning a neat trick here: if you don't disrepect Islam then you respect Islam. If you respect Islam, then you respect its mandate for mass murder as a religious rite, a sacrament even, to be passed over in the name of religious freedom.
This is jury rigging at its most shamless. Eric Holder must be burning with jealousy. But I'm sure, with his proven track record for lawlessness and incompetence, that Eric has a federal bench seat in his future. Maybe even a seat on the Supreme Court bench, what with his disdain for the Constitution.
" she could not be fair given her strong views about Islam. [...]"
The basis of a jury trial is that the jurors are unbiased in their initial view of a particular defendant.
There are millions of US Muslims who have not been accused of crimes. I would have answered truthfully that my view of Islam is independent of my judgement of this particular defendant: his religion neither convicts nor exonerates him of the crimes for which he has been charged.
I agree that the jurors who do not think they could judge the individual involved fairly should be excused. "Fairly" means based solely on the evidence presented. In fact, the religion of the defendant, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the matter.
If the actions of the defendant can be shown to be illegal, or to have contributed to an illegal action, why bring religion into it at all?
I respect the sanctity of life. May I be excused?
By the same logic, the prosecution should see to it that no Muslim gets on that jury. Or anyone who has a positive view of Islam or Muslims.
D E A D L O C K !!!
So impartiality and objectivity are outlawed. I thought Hitler lost WW2.
This is ridiculous! It would be somehow understandable if he wanted jury who are unbiased, neutral or ignorant about islam.
But actually picking jury who 'respect' islam?! How the hell is that unbiased?
"Twelve Angry Men" certainly wasn't set in Chicago, which is now in Rahm Emanuel's pocket. Remember him? Now elected mayor? Once the advisor of our Islam-friendly president?
"Judge James Leinenweber spent the entire day questioning possible jurors, keeping the main thrust of his inquiry on establishing whether they had demonstrably negative views about Islam as a religion and Muslims as a community." And who was chosen for the jury? Anyone who had "positive" views of Islam? What business had the judge to question anyone about his feelings or thoughts on Islam? Will the judge ask Tahawwur Hussain Rana if he has any "negative" views of non-Muslims, atheists, Molly Norris, Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl, et al.? I can see it now, the filming of "Twelve Angry Jihadists," chosen to judge the guilt of a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, an atheist, an agnostic.
Judge Leinweber ought to be removed from the bench. He clearly violated the First Amendment. Or maybe he's like Obama, a "professor" of law at the University of Chicago.
I'm curious- would a prospective juror in an organized crime or espionage trial during the Cold War have to "respect" the Cosa Nostra or Soviet style Communism( for "respect" read have an attitude of uncritical subservience to either the Mafia or the USSR)?
Terry
I'm curious- would a prospective juror in an organized crime or espionage trial during the Cold War have to "respect" the Cosa Nostra or Soviet style Communism( for "respect" read have an attitude of uncritical subservience to either the Mafia or the USSR)?
Terry
I'm curious- would a prospective juror in an organized crime or espionage trial during the Cold War have to "respect" the Cosa Nostra or Soviet style Communism( for "respect" read have an attitude of uncritical subservience to either the Mafia or the USSR)?
Terry
I'm curious- would a prospective juror in an organized crime or espionage trial during the Cold War have to "respect" the Mafia or Soviet style Communism( for respect of course, read uncritical subservience to either La Cosa Nostra or the USSR, just as we are meant to "respect" Islam)?
Terry