A Jury of Peers

As mentioned in an earlier posting, the forthcoming trial in a civilian court of the mastermind for the 9/11 attack on America presents several dangerous issues.

The Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury - a jury of peers of the one on trial. So, what is a peer? According to dictionary.com, these are definitions for "peers": 1-a person of the same legal status, 2-an equal in civil standing, 3-one of the same age or social set.

Not even considering the fact that this guy was not read his Miranda Rights, so that all confessions and some evidence used previously are inadmissible in court for this trial; just take this one issue and examine it - a jury of his peers.

The accused is a foreigner, a Muslim, a radical Islamist extremist who believes that all people who do not believe as he does should be killed. Who are his peers?

1-a person of the same legal status. His legal status is a foreigner, a non-American.
2.an equal in civil standing. His civil standing is that he is hear illegally and should have no Constitutional rights.
3.one of the same age or social set. Age may not be a problem from the jury pool, but the same social set may be an issue. What is the social status of a radical, Islamist terrorist? To guarantee his "rights" for a jury of his peers would mean there should be strong consideration to including those who he would socialize with if he were free to walk around America.

How do you seat a jury of 12 (more with alternates) who meet this requirement of being his peers? It almost seems that you would have to find Arabs who are also radical Islamists who have no legal status in this country. To make the process a lot easier and faster, we should waterboard this guy and get the names of his buddies who are already here and just use them. Our US Attorney General would probably be fine with granting them all immunity from prosecution or deportation in order to get their assistance for this trial.

If the defense attorneys do their job, they will insist of jury selection of those most favorable to the cause of their client. Remember, it only takes one juror to not go along with the other eleven in order to have a hung jury. To convict this guy will mean that all 12 are unanimous. We have to prosecute this guy, using a jury of his peers, not being allowed to use his confession or any other information we got from him from our "interrogation techniques".

Germany, who holds some of the evidence against him, is against the death penalty and may insist that the death penalty is off of the table before they will cooperate.

The jury, judge, prosecuting attorneys and their families will all be subject to threat or intimidation or violence from other radicals sympathetic to this guy.

As I warned you earlier, there is a good chance this guy will walk out the courthouse doors as a free man.

BO and his AG are well aware of all of this and they do not have a problem with any of it. This IS their agenda for us!

Remember, they were at war with us but we were not at war with them. It is A.R.II.