So... if these individuals are found not guilty, does that mean that they can go on doing what they were not guilty of doing?

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 22, 2007 11:26 AM

What?

I am pretty sure HLF should have been found guilty.

Posted by: mike trivisonno at October 22, 2007 11:32 AM

Troublingly, a victory for jihad rendered by an infidel jury.

A battle lost. But not the war.

Posted by: dgene at October 22, 2007 11:35 AM

So far, that is.

Posted by: dgene at October 22, 2007 11:39 AM

The world is at war and only the aggressors seem to be aware of that fact. These people are not committing crimes, they are engaged in acts of war. Instead of writs of habeas corpus, search warrants, jury deliberations and 5th Amendment rights, we should be talking about which Geneva Conventions should apply.

Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at October 22, 2007 11:44 AM

Another victory for nonjudgmental multiculturalism

Posted by: GrennBeck at October 22, 2007 11:52 AM

The multiheaded snake of Islime obstructs jury's full view, infidels shoot themselves in the foot. Indeed, only one battle in the war.

Posted by: tsarbomba29 at October 22, 2007 12:03 PM

I smell jury-nullification...again.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 22, 2007 12:08 PM

All it takes is one True Believer on the jury- a jurist that believes the lies emanating from the hub of hypocrisy. One who believes statemnets like:

"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."

"All of us here today understand this: We do not fight Islam, we fight against evil."

"The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace."

"America rejects bigotry. We reject every act of hatred against people of Arab background or Muslim faith America values and welcomes peaceful people of all faiths -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and many others. Every faith is practiced and protected here, because we are one country. Every immigrant can be fully and equally American because we're one country. Race and color should not divide us, because America is one country."

"Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion."

All from President Bush.

Of course those on the left would tend to be even more sympathetic to the cause of Jihad. It's a wonder all the verdicts wern't "not guilty". 9/11 wasn't enough of a wake-up call.

Posted by: Charles Bogle at October 22, 2007 12:13 PM

This is horribly depressing news especially coming on the back of that dhimmi weasel, Ron Paul, ‘winning’ the Florida Republican Debate last night. What are things coming too in a world seemingly gone mad?

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at October 22, 2007 12:16 PM

From the blog

"Still, a former Justice Department official who pioneered the government’s anti-terrorism financing effort believes that even without guilty verdicts, the government can still claim a victory. “They’re creating a deterrent,” said Dennis Lormel, who spearheaded the FBI’s Terrorist Financing Operations Section and now is a security and terrorism consultant. “There is disruption caused by these kind of cases. The bottom line is that money did go to Hamas. If [the Holy Land defendants] weren’t willing participants, they were unwittingly used.”"

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 22, 2007 12:17 PM

...i guess the bombings (a short time back) around the corner from the courthouse did have some effect....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 22, 2007 12:19 PM

All further proof that our cultural and legal systems have an unlocked back door and the enemy has wedged himself in. We need to re-write our legal standards for a "religion" or this death cult will romp across America with impunity.

Posted by: JohnAdams at October 22, 2007 12:21 PM

Here's a little hope J.A.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018535.php

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 22, 2007 12:35 PM

If anything, this will make terror funding organizations more confortable.

What does it take for a terrorrist to be convicted these days?

Posted by: Crusader at October 22, 2007 12:41 PM

DALLAS (AP) - The trial of five former Muslim charity leaders was thrown into turmoil Monday when jurors acquitted three of them of funding terrorism—but some members of the panel disputed the verdict announced against the two others.
U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish sent the panel back to resolve the differences, and because of the confusion, did not officially accept any of the jury's findings.

The verdicts were announced after a two-month trial and 19 days of deliberation. When they were read in court, three jurors said they were incorrect.

The jury forewoman said she was surprised by the three jurors' actions.

"When we voted, there was no issue in the vote," she said. "No one spoke up any different. I really don't understand where it is coming from."

This will be retried, so....

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 22, 2007 12:46 PM

A careful reading of WFAA'S blog reveals some "light" in spite of the overall down tone of the mornings events.

They are closed down-- its cost them millions--there focus was all on this trial--some fear will probably remain that they could be re-tried--an awakening to the fact that the Gov. is closly scrutinizing all like orgs.--etc.

I call it a win with an asterisk!

Posted by: guide inside at October 22, 2007 12:49 PM

A mistrial has been declared by the judge as three of the jurors said they did not agree with the verdict on two of the defendants. The prosecution plans to retry the defendants. What I don't understand is how there could have been a unanimous verdict announced when three jurors did not agree.I'd rather see a hung jury then acquittal, the government might also be able to get some of the defendants to plead guilty rather then face another trial.I think there is also an intimidation effect as Muslims know they are being watched and can find themselves brought to trial facing fines, prison or deportation.

Posted by: Roxane at October 22, 2007 1:11 PM

Roxane,

Having been on a Jury, I'm pretty sure that the three who disagreed were bullied by the foreman into voting not guilty, when they really didn't want to.

Then, after the pressure was off and the Judge queried them, they spoke their mind.

Cheers
Doctor Bulldog

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at October 22, 2007 1:21 PM

Doctor Bulldog,

I'm glad the three jurors spoke up and said they did not agree with the not guilty verdicts. Given the length of deliberation I had expected a hung jury not a verdict. The forewoman claims the three jurors agreed with the verdict and doesn't understand why they said something different to the judge. Clearly the judge did not agree with this forewoman.

Posted by: Roxane at October 22, 2007 1:31 PM

Another potential difficulty with jurors could have been the dual nature of Hamas. The group may have been deemed a terrorist group by the U.S., but among the majority of Palestinians, its social work in the region, which ranges from building schools and hospitals to food and housing aid, is well-known and appreciated. This is evidence by the fact that Hamas-backed candidates won a majority of seats in the Palestinian government early last year. - From article, Dallas News

It was very well written, this journalist is not fooled, nor is Justice. The irony here is that by Hamas also doing charitable work, while it kills and maims and is supported politically by a majority of Palestine-Arabs, it can hide under the ‘social sharity’ umbrella. Does this get other crime syndicates off the hook if they do some charitable works? How about drug lords, maybe they provide some cheap housing for their addicts as charity? It won’t fly, and hiding behind the cloaks of either ‘religion’ ROP or ‘charity’ should not work either. Justice must do better at presenting a strong case against these deceitful jihadists, or else our legal system is broken and needs fixing.

Yup, the warlord Mo said it, “war is deceit”, and it works.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 22, 2007 1:33 PM

As long as the govt. keeps the pressure up, these worms will squirm. Their supremacist egos will keep them in trouble from now on.

I'm sure if they are retried, they will be found guilty wheather the govt has a provable case or not. Americans after a while vote guilty on the fact of if it looks like a duck, its a duck.

This is where the supremacist islamic always looses. He thinks it will go his way no matter what.

Posted by: credit man at October 22, 2007 1:46 PM

This was precedented by the Al-Arian trial as referenced here:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1374

“…the war on terrorism should neither be fought, nor can it be won in the courtroom.”

-and-

"...Terrorists, unlike other criminals, do not seem overly concerned with being placed on trial and punished for their acts. Incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation -- three of the main goals of the criminal justice system - do not seem have a noticeable impact on terrorists..."

Between the possibility of just one true “peer” being on the jury and that these kind don’t worry too much about our court system...it's no big surprise, really.

-XRDC

Posted by: XRDC at October 22, 2007 2:39 PM

Any Muslims on that jury?

Posted by: aynrandgirl at October 22, 2007 4:59 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303842,00.html

From one of the clowns at CAIR...

The government "failed in Chicago, it failed in Florida, it failed in Texas," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations — one of those unindicted co-conspirators. "The reason it failed is the government does not have the facts; it has fear."

"It has fear"???...

...I wonder why.

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 22, 2007 5:10 PM

What a shame. It's not over yet. There is evidence that can't be denied, no matter how blind certain members of a jury may be.

Posted by: Prickzilla at October 22, 2007 6:39 PM

Speaking of fear, I wonder how many of the jury members were subtly threatened? The whole thing with the three members saying one thing in the court room and another to the judge is beyond weird.

Somebody better protect the witnesses too, before they all go BOOM!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 22, 2007 8:42 PM