Brilliant , why not screen for anti crime bias?

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at March 23, 2007 10:18 AM

Doesn't the very fact of infidel existence on planet earth constitute anti-Muslim bias?

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 23, 2007 10:33 AM

Who develops this questionnaire? Who validates the questionnaire to insure that it really identifies anti-muslim bias? Who interprets the results? I think we know who, don't we. What a farce.

Posted by: ARAKIS at March 23, 2007 10:35 AM

Were I a potential juror, I would be writing a lot of (PBUH)'s and (SWT)'s on my questionaire. "War is deceit", said the child-rapist 'prophet'.

Posted by: Infidel33 at March 23, 2007 10:38 AM

Now if you take the Qur'an at its word and believe Muslims follow the Qur'an faithfully, do you have an anti Muslim bias?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 10:41 AM

I've served on a Federal court jury and the funny thing is that during the jury selection process [voir dire] the more a candidate raises his/her hand and answers in the affirmative, the less likely he/she will be selected to the jury. In this way it seems the two legal teams look for people most ignorant of the issues at hand, either through previous contact or experience in similar situations.

They like to fill the jury with people who don't know anything about the issue at hand.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 23, 2007 10:53 AM

"Jurors to be screened for anti-Muslim bias"
translation: anyone with IQ over 70 need not apply. shades of OJ jury.

Posted by: desidude at March 23, 2007 11:01 AM

What might be signs of "anti-Muslim bias"? Would knowing what the words "hadith" and "sira" mean constitute anti-Muslim bias? Could one be asked if one has read Robert Spencer's book on Muhammad rather than, say, or in addition to, that of Karen Armstrong? If asked to name an expert on Islam, would the answer "John Esposito" allow you to survive the Muslim lawyer's voir dire, but not the answer "Bat Ye'or"?

Fascinating.

In any case, no one should volunteer any information of the sort.

"War is deception." Learn from the masters.

Posted by: Hugh at March 23, 2007 11:05 AM

It's OK to profile people for anti-Islamic tendencies but it's not OK to profile Muslims for terrorist tendencies?

As Yakov Smirnoff once said-what a country!

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 23, 2007 11:08 AM

Of course this is nothing new, as we saw in the OJ Simpson trial. Simpsons Lawyers hired a skilled jury screener to seek out a jury that did not have any bias about defendent Simpson. Most of us who have been called up to serve on a jury know that jury selection is an ardous task that sometimes takes weeks to select especially for felony defendents.Defence attorneys will routinely screen out potential jurists who may have some degree of familiarity with the case or the type of crime that was alledged to have been committed.

Police officers are routinely cancelled out of jurys on a regular basis. In California if you are a sworn law enforcement officer you are automatically exempt(probably the same in other states) from jury duty apparently on the assumption that you will automatically show a bias because of your law enforcement experiences, never mind that fair is fair and if the evidence does not show a conviction than so be it.

This is the weakness in the system when it comes to actions in US Civilian Courts when you are trying to prosecute potential enemies of our country. But this is the kind of court that you will get if you are an American Citizen whether you are found to be a traitor,terrorist Etc. against your country.

Posted by: Mackie at March 23, 2007 11:10 AM

Does "jury of peers" mean muslim jury?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 23, 2007 11:20 AM

If "anti-Muslim" bias is meant to indicate informed aversion to Islam, then it is safe to assume that the selected jurors will be uninformed concerning Islam. If the prosecution knows its business, this is an opportunity to provide a complete tutorial on jihad, taqiyya and da'wa; the tools of the trade, as it were. This is potentially a great opportunity, if only the prosecution seizes it with both hands and makes sure that the full light of day is directed towards what is to be found living underneath the rocks.

Posted by: Chatillon at March 23, 2007 11:22 AM

@ interestinconundrum

Dhimmis and socialists are allowed I believe

Posted by: Elric66 at March 23, 2007 11:24 AM

At the trial of islamic preacher of hate El-Faisal in the UK, Jews and Hindus were not allowed on the jury because he did not want them on. The prosecution agreed to this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F02%2F25%2Fnfais125.xml

Excluding Jews from public life was acceptable in Nazi Germany, but it's a little disappointing to see it in the UK.

Posted by: Celsius at March 23, 2007 11:39 AM

Ok, so the jury doesn't know anything about Islam, and does not have a bias. Fine.

The lawyers should submit into evidence the Qur'an, as motivation for the accused. Then lay out every single passage that could have been a motivator for wanting to support terrorism.

Give the jurors the education, right there in the court in front of the world.

With any luck there will be a couple of Muslim jurors, offended, angered, and who will no doubt begin to act more irrational as the process takes place. The deliberation room conversations would be a interesting. Hung jury, and we might even get lucky enough to have a few "Allah Ackbar" chants out of the gallery.

This can be made into something larger, that is not about one case. If it can be used to awaken more people as to the threat, and irrationality of those to cause that threat, then guilty or no, it would serve a positive purpose.

Posted by: Lorgan at March 23, 2007 11:57 AM

The defense may have a hard time coming up with acceptable jurors, especially if one of the questions is: "Who do you believe committed the 9/11 acts?" Hopefully, someone who did not make the jury cut will be able to remember the questions he/she was asked on the survey.

Posted by: maryrose at March 23, 2007 12:09 PM

"Jurors to be screened for anti-Muslim bias"
translation: anyone with IQ over 70 need not apply. shades of OJ jury.

Posted by: desidude

DD you beat me to it!

This is almost as bad as in Germany where we don't even need a jury to get things wrong. The judg/ess who denied a bbeaten and abused woman a speedy divorced because the KKKoran allows men to beat women.

By that logic - since our Western judiciaries love to dabble in foreign Law for some reason - it's OK to kill since the KKKoran MANDATES killing!

So you should just let them KILL and MAIN and create MAYHEM -

BECAUSE the KKKoran MANDATES these things???!!!

So this biased judge in Boca will allow the moslem lawyers to force potential jurors to fill out questionnaires. Remember this is South Florida we are talking about - Land of the Hanging Chads.

You won't have much problem finding plenty of folks with an IQ below 70, Dude!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at March 23, 2007 12:17 PM

I'm going to mail this to Court TV; this would be an instructive trial for them to broadcast...including the jury selection...especially if the prosecution takes Lorgan's suggestions.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at March 23, 2007 1:07 PM

Goering to go on trial. Jury to be screened for anti-Nazi bias.

Posted by: MP at March 23, 2007 1:43 PM

So... , anyone with a skullcap does not qualify?

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 23, 2007 2:04 PM

Cannot comment

Posted by: Briars at March 23, 2007 2:51 PM

In my experience I would simply say that many muslims are in denial about what their religion actually says on many topics. I have muslim friends from my time in the Middle East who have never made any attempt to convert me and who explain in all honesty when confronted with some of the less savoury actions of their coreligionists that that is not 'real' Islam. I am referring here to stonings, beheadings carried out as part of the judicial process in some countries. Where terrorism is concerned I admit the denial is deeper. If you look at what ex-muslims many say that they abandoned their faith after actually reading the Qur'an in a language they understand or finding out what the 'scholars' of Islam have opined over the centuries on matters such as jihad, infidels, true Islamic punishments for various offences. They are just as much in denial as many in the West. Then there are those who speak quite openly - especially in islamic countries, less so in the West - of what the islamic texts say, and then there are those who lie.
I suspect the first group is much larger than most people think. This is our strength. It is the reason that extremists need to resort to terrorizing their own communities and keeping them segregated, where they can persuade them that hostile reactions in the West are due to inherent islamophobia and not to the segregation, the demands for special treatment, the supremicism, the calls for jihad etc. As with all abuse the reaction to it is turned in to the justification for it. Over time the reaction is argued to be the cause.
Their self-appointed spokespersons in the West do not represent most muslims. But the more influence they have with the powers that be here, the more influence they will be able to gain over others in their community.
Western societies have a great feal to offer muslim immigrants. That is why many came in the first place. It is the second and third generations who are radicalized and also, of course, many more recent immigrants, products of a more radicalised society in their home countries.
For much of the twentieth century there were many moderate and secular voices to be heard in the Arab world and religion was in decline. This changed from the late 60's, early 70's.
For me the question is why has Islam ALWAYS defeated any incipient trends towards enlightenment and secularism. I think the answer lies not in the Qur'an or ahadeeth, but in the nature of islamic societies - the family, clan, tribe mentality, the mentality that outsiders are never to be trusted and are out to get the better of you.
Now, I happen to think that books such as John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty' and Karl Popper's 'The Open Society and its Enemies' are much more important works than the Qur'an on the basis of what they SAY, not on the basis of their influence. There the Qur'an trumps everything other than the Bible.
I also know that there is only one viable ideology in the world today that threatens all the values I hold - and that is (political) Islam.
Now, there are moderate and tolerant interpretations of muslims of their faith. They stand beside the intolerant and violent interpretations. Islam has no authority to decide between these, no authority which can definitively declare the totalitarian interpretation inappropriate to the modern age. But historically the radical interpretations have been favoured and they are the ones making the running in today's world, both East and West.
So overall, I must be anti-Islam. But I am not anti-muslim, per se. But please, if you think you are inherently superior to me because of the god you choose to worship and think infidels and their property in the dar al-harb are fair game and yours for the taking then do not expect me to like you much.

Posted by: kevin at March 23, 2007 5:58 PM

What offends these muslims the most is that kaffirs are going to be on the jury. Under islamic law, a nonmuslim cannot testify against a muslim. It is an insult too islam..It seems eveything is an insult to islam.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at March 23, 2007 6:55 PM

Robert Spencer, Hugh F etal

This is a fine mess you have got us into. If you continue to educate people about Islam, it will be virtually impossible to find anyone in the US, suitably un-qualified about Islam, to do jury service when a Muslim is on trial.

Posted by: DP111 at March 23, 2007 8:22 PM

The islamophobia phoniness becomes institutionalizd.

Well, well, well ...

Rot at the top.

Posted by: joeblough at March 24, 2007 4:11 AM

The east coast of South Florida is often referred to as "Baja New York" because of the large number of retirees from the New England area.
This elder population is necessarily made up of large numbers of liberals, including many who are anti-Israel and are sympathetic to Palestinian and Islamic agendas.
Surely even the most incompetent lawyer could find a jury sympathetic to anything pro-Muslim, anti- Bush, and anti-capitalistic America.

Posted by: cactus at March 24, 2007 1:27 PM

I read some years ago that STD's are becoming very common amongst the retirees in Florida, who have no conception about the inherent dangers of unprotected sex, and for whom sleeping around is a new way of passing the time in the later stages of their existence.
To have a jury of senior citizens such as these would make convictions an impossibility. But such is life for the sunshine boys and gals.

Posted by: meekee at March 24, 2007 10:16 PM

Go away, meekee muslim.

Posted by: CGW at March 25, 2007 7:30 AM

Kevin!

If you look at what ex-muslims many say that they abandoned their faith after actually reading the Qur'an in a language they understand or finding out what the 'scholars' of Islam have opined over the centuries on matters such as jihad, infidels, true Islamic punishments for various offences.

What translation of the Qur'an have they read? Is one better than the othersfor making this point? (ie., Bibles are not all the same -- Qur'ans probably aren't either)

Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at March 26, 2007 12:45 AM

@ allahfanculo

‘So this biased judge in Boca will allow the moslem lawyers to force potential jurors to fill out questionnaires.’

@ cactus

‘The east coast of South Florida is often referred to as "Baja New York".’

FYI – This case IS out of NY!!!! The doctor was arrested in Boca, but the judge was out of NYC.

@ interestinconundrum

‘Does "jury of peers" mean muslim jury?’

I have 3 questions:

1) Does that mean that if the prosecution presents female witnesses, they’ll need to prerequisite 2 male witnesses to equal?

2) Will 1 of the questions on the survey include: “Did you survive/perish in, or did you know anyone who survived/perished in, the 9/11 attacks?” (The idiocy of this should not be lost on the reader.)

3) Until Sharia fully overtakes our country through the backdoor, can I insist on juries of my peers? Can oil companies? Can anyone else who’s most likely been screwed previously by the system to make it balance out for the OJs, et al? Can anyone who NOT been screwed by said system? CAN ANYONE?

I’ll have to remember to begin specifically asking for agnostic, conservative women who received their Liberal Arts degree and MBA, speak Russian, love football and shooting guns, and have studied the Civil War for 4 years for my jury pool!

Oh yeah, that’s right, I’m not a criminal defendant…not until Sharia hits, anyway.

Posted by: kafir_kelbeh at March 29, 2007 3:53 PM