As Muslims become more preponderant in the USA, it is inevitable that they will become part of the jury pool in terror-related trials. It will be impossible to justify discrimination against a juror based solely on his/her religion.

The unanimous jury system is broken. All it takes is one recalcitrant jurist with an agenda to thwart the dispensation of justice. We need a switch to super-majorities of 8 or 9 votes to insure convictions or acquitals.

But as we all know, these issues take time to ferment. It will take several hung juries in clear-cut cases before the public begins to clamour for such a reform.

Meanwhile, it's open season on America.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 29, 2005 7:00 AM

Let me get this straight. This pig Moussaoui has been throwing a wrench in our justice system for several years now. He's obviously backed by some powerful people with money from another country, not our country. Now our jurors have to go through some sort of psychological test to see if they are "worthy" to sit in judgement over this guy? This is akin to grilling a rape victim about their sex life. Who is on trial here? And will these people be threatened with death or will they actually be killed for participating in one of our country's most sacred practices? How is it this pig has more rights than innocent people who are asked, (actually told,) they have to sit on the jury?

Perhaps a few dead jurors will wake up the people in the U.S. to the fact that there is an Islamic threat that is no longer coming to a theatre near you... it is actually at our front door.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 29, 2005 7:01 AM

Are we at war or are we not ?

It seems strange dealing with a combatant in a criminal suit where the combatant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Must be national schizophrenia.

That we are at war should be evident to anyone who is convinced by the theme of this site.

Are we going to wear our moral superiority as a badge as we go down to defeat and subjugation ?

Posted by: dgene at November 29, 2005 7:52 AM

Good one, DGene!

The appeasers and holier-than-thou ponificators are always the last to know when they lose their country due to stupidity.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at November 29, 2005 8:04 AM

This happened a few years ago in Britain. Even in India, when Muslims are prosecuted there is always a big effort to keep all Hindus out of the process.

It is sad that the West is only taking the Muslim threat only half-seriously. Lincoln hung people who did less than Moussaoui - merely for stirring up insurrection. Now we have full legal protections for people who will kill us given the opportunity.

What a huge waste of time and money this Moussaoui process is becoming. As more and more Muslims fill our jails, we spend tens of millions defending them, housing them, etc.

Posted by: rafael699 at November 29, 2005 9:29 AM

I suspect the patriot act is a first step in common-sensifying the legal requirements to prove criminality. The amount of opposition this act has stirred is disheartening. I am not opposed to 'profiling' - racial, religious or otherwise. I believe in the maxim "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear". Opposition to profiling seems ill conceived. If what is happening is not profiling, then what is?

Posted by: voletti at November 29, 2005 10:04 AM

Keep in mind though that it was the PROSECUTORS that submitted the 89 questions. One can only surmise that they are doing so in the hope of being able to limit the number of people on the jury that will show empathy for Moussaoui when considering his fate. Were I to be on the prosecution, I would want to ensure that the jury was comprised of staunch defenders of the death penalty.

Posted by: Infidel1 at November 29, 2005 11:17 AM

INFIDEL1--Don't you know that both the prosecutors AND the defenders do the choosing?

Posted by: capner at November 29, 2005 11:25 AM

We need to impose a jizya tax on all U.S. Muslims for the costs of airport security, increased border security, paying bodyguards for our judges, witnesses, and public officials, the cost of prosecuting them, and the costs of housing their prisoners. If they are a separate society, they should get a separate bill. Penalty for failure to pay is deportation.

We also should send a 200 billion dollar invoice, payable in oil futures, to Saudi Arabia and Iraq for our services in the Middle East.

Posted by: Stendec at November 29, 2005 12:05 PM

"The unanimous jury system is broken ..."
-- posted by Cornelius

With each Moslem immigrant, with each domestic infidel's conversion to Islam, America becomes at little bit less free.

It's the nature of the Beast.

The jury system's forthcoming demise is an astute prediction, one of many chinks to be inflicted on the armor of our freedom.

Posted by: Duke Eudes at November 29, 2005 2:02 PM

Law has little or nothing to do with common sense, and thank God for that. Law is as artifical a scheme as we can make it. It's ritual and ceremony, it's drama and something akin to liturgy. It is not about justice. Justice is not something we want in our free lands. We want universal law, codified and rational, and take what you get even if it turns out against you when you're obviously right. You appeal to a higher court. Go to the Supreme Court. But don't expect justice. Justice is outside the hands of Man. The best we can hope for is rational and codified law, rules we all agree to before hand, even if they are stupid and harmful. When they are so, then we change them in light of reason. Here, though, we find ourselves ready to take blow torches to the structures of our legal systems to alter our legal nations because we've allowed Muslims to infest the works. We cannot let Islam destroy our legal systems. We cannot let them win the battle to ruin our systems because they are a danger to us. We have to fight our own to protect a flawed system so we can improve it rather than wreck it trying to get at some Muslims.

There must be laws in America that disallow a verdict based on irrational jury voters letting the obviously guilty walk. If nine out of twelve jurors are Muslims and so is the judge and the case falls apart therefore, we don't alter our jury system, we jail those who subvert it. Once Islam enters our legal system, our legal system is not legitimate. That might not be just, but that's the nature of law.

If we have to grill prospective jurors to find out if they hate the nation and the people therein, if we have to find out if they are Muslims who will subvert the jury process, then let's do so with zeal. But let's forget about fooling with the legal system and looking for justice.

Posted by: sonofwalker at November 29, 2005 2:36 PM

Give him liberty or give him death....Since he's a radical Islamic kook, he doesn't believe in liberty, so forward him on to the table and strap his carcass down.....

Posted by: DCWatson at November 29, 2005 3:48 PM

For these reasons, court appointed judges need to be
elected from the point of being an originalist that is not a ##$#@#bleeding heart liberal judge!!!

Posted by: Lulu at November 29, 2005 11:27 PM