See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:23 pm, terrig said:

   This is not good.

2. #2
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm, Boomer said:

   I find most members of a jury are not rocket scientist. Another reason terrorism should not be treated as a criminal matter because our courts continue to fail us. Terrorism is an act of war these people are aiding and abetting the enemy who want to destroy our way of life.

3. #3
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 pm, sivapragasam said:

   From the very beginning after following Dallas local news and LGF and Frontpage, I was a bit worried and skeptical. why could not the prosecution nail the defendants’ claims and silly arguments or is it because of dumb jury members. Do you have the racial breakdown of the Jury, MM?

4. #4
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm, josetheguerilla said:

   What the hell is going on in Texas? First they put border patrol agents in jail for enforcing the law. Second the cowboys loose against the patriots, and now maybe a mistrial. I hope its not turning into San Francisco down there. Is it Miller time yet?

   Que Pasa, Texas?

5. #5
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:

   Is it any wonder why they wish to be tried under our laws?…

   Liberals can’t get lawyers to the detainees in Gitmo fast enough.

   Freedom for thee, but not for me…

6. #6
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 pm, JoAnn in VA said:

   Please don’t ask for a racial breakdown of the jury- it looks bad. Plus I have noticed that stupidity comes in ALL colors.

7. #7
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm, josetheguerilla said:

   Update: Mistrial declared…

   What?

   I guess it is Miller time down in Texas. Bring your leather suit and chains.

8. #8
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm, Bob68 said:

   Have there been any ‘alleged terrorist’ attempts in CA or TX? Do all the active attempts only happen on the East Coast?
   Terrorists aren’t dumb; why attack, at this time, those that appear friendly!

9. #9
   On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 pm, yt1300inHtown said:

   On October 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm, josetheguerilla said:
   What the hell is going on in Texas? First they put border patrol agents in jail for enforcing the law

   Its not all of my friend. Not even most of us.

10. #10
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm, greenfairie said:

    Why we can’t try captured terrorists in civilian courts…

11. #11
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm, feebiebabe said:

    Jury tampering?

12. #12
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:26 pm, infidel4life said:

    Pretty scary when even our own citizens refuse to recognize the threat we face.

13. #13
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm, Lan Astaslem said:

    Any reports of dancing in the streets in the Middle East?

    Hopefully they will be tried again, and hopefully the prosecutors will be able to make a better/simpler case. 197 counts? That’s just ridiculous! Maybe they were all valid, and maybe you have a better chance of conviction when you try to hit all the bases, but can’t we pare it down a little bit so the jurors have a better chance of understanding exactly what is at stake?

14. #14
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm, Rusty said:

    Blaming the jury here is ridiculous. We have no idea what happened during this trial.

    I had a friend on a federal terrorism case. Hung jury. He told me the government’s case was shamefully bad and they couldn’t prove a thing. And he’s a paralegal working for a major law firm and applying to Ivy League law schools. He’s no dummy. And, since sivapragasam is probably very interested, he’s white too!

    Just because you think someone is guilty of funding terrorists doesn’t make it so. These cases are usually very difficult and if the government can’t make its case, then a hung jury or acquittal is appropriate.

    And anyone who wants to just throw people in Gitmo without a trial…no. If you can’t convince 12 people that this group was funding terrorism, then you can’t lock em up and throw away the key.

15. #15
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm, JHSII said:

    Just remember, to a liberal, a conservative is guilty regardless of the lack of evidence; while a liberal or terrorist is totally innocent no matter how high the mountain of evidence against them is.

    This is why the left wants to fight the war in the courts – they use the same rhetoric, and want the same results.

16. #16
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 1:58 pm, coffee260 said:

    I think it’s not unreasonable to ask the racial makeup of the jury. Just as you would ask the gender makeup of a jury. The knee-jerk rejection of such an inquiry shows the problems with trying terrorists in our justice system. If political correctness has infected the basic of questions, what does that say about trying to get a guilty verdict on a perceived “victim” group?

    More specifically, I think it important to know if there was any Muslims on the jury. It wouldn’t be out of the question, being that a jury is supposed to be a jury of your peers. What more of a peer could the accused have than a brother or sister in faith?

    Just because somebody is Muslim doesn’t mean they wouldn’t vote to convict. But one has to be curious when reports leak about one juror refusing to vote at all. Only someone with strong convictions could be expected to so fervently go against the system.

17. #17
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm, infidel4life said:

    Gee Rusty, Osama Bin Laden would be presumed innocent given your ridiculous criteria for culpability. In case you hadn’t noticed, we are in a war. Our enemies do not deserve the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

18. #18
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm, feebiebabe said:

    Rusty:

    If you can’t convince 12 people that this group was funding terrorism, then you can’t lock em up and throw away the key.

    I am so glad you have so much faith in our judicial system, even after the OJ trail. far be it from us to not preclude the possibility that some of the jurors here perhaps had their own agenda.

    On the flip side, just because a jury of 12 DOESN’T convict you, doesn’t mean you are innocent.

19. #19
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:12 pm, sivapragasam said:

    JoAnn in VA
    Please don’t ask for a racial breakdown of the jury- it looks bad.

    Rusty
    And, since sivapragasam is probably very interested, he’s white too!

    Nice try Rusty, what makes you think I am white. I am Indian, you know…. the India in the other side of the world in Asia… that Indian.

    sorry JoAnn, thanks to John Grisham, I have a reasonable exposure to the process of Jury Selection. In the recent past we have had a classic case on copyright, piracy laws where a juror was a computer illiterate, don’t we?.

    Also, since Jury Selection is part of the legal process, both the prosecution and the defendants tend to choose the Jury Members whom they perceive favourable to their stand, there is no harm is looking at the race.

    I rest my case.

    If you guys still insist that I am wrong, please say so. I will then be more guarded in my comments. Any legal eagles out here, your opinions matter the most.

20. #20
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm, scooter56 said:

    #17 infidel4life said: In case you hadn’t noticed, we are in a war. Our enemies do not deserve the same constitutional protections that we enjoy.

    Our citizens do!

21. #21
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm, infidel4life said:

    scooter56 said:

    Our citizens do!

    If citizens collaborate with the enemy they are traitors, and deserve to be treated as traitors.

22. #22
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm, judybeth said:

    Islamo-facists in the almost 2500 mosques in North America that teach radical Wahhabism – hatred of Jews,Christians, and anyone who isn’t Muslim – have not a shred of respect for the Constitution of the United States! Unfortunately, the Islamo-facists who have received Medical Degrees, Science Degrees, Political Studies Degrees, Engineering Degrees, Teaching Credentials, and especially LAW Degrees from American Universities USE and abuse the Constitution to their advantage. Look at the extremists groups that are opposing David Horowitz and the experts who are trying to educate the citizenry about the REAL threats by our sworn enemies! NY Rep Peter King has been severely maligned by CAIR and their well entrenched organizations for trying to alert Americans about the growing Islamo-facism extremist threat to the USA. In the 2006 election, a Muslim took office in Congress by swearing on the Koran which teaches the overthrow of democratic institutions! When will we wake up? Another problem is that tax-payers are footing the bill for terrorists to be set free to start all over undermining the American way of life. Want to know where the mosques are in America and those under construction? Check out: GaramChi.com That site will tell Muslims if their name appears on the Homeland Security Blacklist! Columbia University started a blog “The Islamic Workplace”: ribl9@columbia.edu and Islamicity.com will send anyone a booklet on “Strategic Planning & Implementation of Islamic Organizations” if you request it! Americans and our Government have completely “underestimated the determination of our enemies” right in our homeland! jb

23. #23
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm, judybeth said:

    Correction for Columbia University blog site: rib19@columbia.edu jb

24. #24
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm, Speakup said:

    But even under Bush and Ashcroft, they went after the HLF only after FBI Special Agent Robert Wright–who’d been begging for this prosecution for years–went on ABC News and publicly expressed his disgust. Finally, after that, John Ashcroft decided to indict HLF and a few of its minions. But Agent Wright was persecuted, demoted, and nearly fired as a result.

    “It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.” —Voltaire

25. #25
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm, Rusty said:

    Nice try Rusty, what makes you think I am white. I am Indian, you know…. the India in the other side of the world in Asia… that Indian.

    I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about my friend who voted to acquit someone in a federal terrorism trial.

    Gee Rusty, Osama Bin Laden would be presumed innocent given your ridiculous criteria for culpability.

    Ridiculous criteria? You mean the burden of proof? You really have a problem with burden of proof? If we’re going to take the trouble to lock someone in prison and throw away the key, surely the government should prove that we’re doing that to the right people. It’s the government’s responsibility to make a good case. They obviously failed here.

    Just because a jury didn’t buy the government’s charges doesn’t make them dumb, Muslim, or out to get America. As I said before, my white Christian politically independent law student friend voted to acquit a “terrorist.”

    Because the government had no case. Which is the problem. If the HLF is really so bad, don’t be pissed at the jurors. Be pissed at the prosecutors.

    And are you really advocating throwing people in jail with no trial? Because that’s a pretty frightening precedent to set.

26. #26
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 3:53 pm, sivapragasam said:

    Rusty #25
    My bad!

27. #27
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm, lgm said:

    The jury found them not guilty on most charges. We haven’t followed the trial and don’t really know what the evidence was. It is possible that they actually are innocent.

    Making the situation more complicated is the fact that much of Hamas is in fact a charity. They run schools and hospitals supported by donations from abroad. This might make it harder for the prosecutors to prove that the donations were intended to support terrorism. They might have been intended to support education.

    Ironically, the acquittal may make us safer. If Muslims around think America is truly a land of justice, fewer of them will want to attack us.

28. #28
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 9:27 pm, Rusty said:

    I don’t know LGM, even I think that’s pretty optimistic.

29. #29
    On October 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm, infidel4life said:

    On October 22nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm, lgm said:

    Ironically, the acquittal may make us safer. If Muslims around think America is truly a land of justice, fewer of them will want to attack us.

    Perhaps you were on that jury… What alternate universe are you living in? This is Islam we are talking about. They hate us in part because we are a land of justice. Wake up and smell the Jihad.

30. #30
    On October 23rd, 2007 at 12:15 am, Jim M. said:

    Also, since Jury Selection is part of the legal process, both the prosecution and the defendants tend to choose the Jury Members whom they perceive favourable to their stand, there is no harm is looking at the race.

    Close. Actually it is the reverse. The prosecution and the defense go through a process not really of selecting, but of eliminating potential jurors they feel will be prejudicial to one side or the other.

    Each side gets a set number of “preemptory challenges” which means they can dismiss the jury candidate as unfit with no reason or explanation. Those are like wild cards, so in clear cases, they will challenge “for cause”, and dave their preemptory challenges if they can.

    A for cause challenge must be backed up with a thorough explanation as to why the person is unfit, i.e., why there is little chance that this particular person will be impartial. And it has to convince the judge it is a legitimate call.

    And just because a jury deadlocks does not mean the defendants are innocent. All it takes is one person to deadlock a criminal jury.

    What happened today is rare indeed. The jury announces that they have a verdict, and then no less than 3 of them say they were not in agreement in open court. I have heard of this happening before 3rd or 4th hand, but this is the first time I have seen it in a particular case. Sometihng very strange was happening in the jury room.

    And yes, 197 counts against multiple defendants is more than slightly confusing. The legal issue is that if you do not bring all the counts in at one trial, the government can be deemed to waive some or all of those not charged. What they can do is try each defendant individually to cut down on the confusion, but since the trials are public, the lawyers for the remaining defendants get to essentially copy the prosecutors playbook.

    At this point I think no one criticize the jury for anything, particularly in light of 3 of them swearing in open court they the foreman misrepresented their decisions regarding the verdict. No one knows what went on.

    The case will be retried.

31. #31
    On October 23rd, 2007 at 9:49 am, Rusty said:

    And just because a jury deadlocks does not mean the defendants are innocent. All it takes is one person to deadlock a criminal jury.

    Here it was the opposite. The jury found acquitted on almost all of the counts before three jurors objected.

    My friend’s terror case also had a majority voting for acquittal before the deadlock.

    I suspect it’s very difficult for people in terror cases to get fair trials.