Posted on 10/18/2001 3:55:56 PM PDT by kattracks
NEW YORK, Oct 18 (Reuters) - One of the jurors who convicted four of Osama bin Laden's followers of the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said on Thursday she was angry that the U.S. government was unprepared for the Sept. 11 attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center.
The juror, who spoke out publicly for the first time, said the evidence disclosed at the embassy bombing trial in federal court in Manhattan should have alerted officials that bin Laden's plots had been escalating in size.
"They (embassy bombers) were in training for what they were planning for the World Trade Center," said the juror, who kept her identity secret. "I was very surprised over how little attention was paid to this case. I felt the enormity of it all. On Sept. 11 I shook my head. ... I was mad at my government. ... I was very angry with them. Were they listening?
"We underestimated bin Laden. ... Why weren't we better prepared?" she asked.
The woman, known as Juror No. 7, along with another woman, Juror No. 2, spoke to reporters after the sentencing of the four defendants they had convicted in May of conspiring with bin Laden to kill Americans in a scheme that included the 1998 embassy bombings. The four men were sentenced to life in prison without parole on Thursday.
Both said they had immediately suspected bin Laden when hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center last month. The two women were members of the anonymous panel of 12 and their comments marked the first time they had spoken out since the embassy bombing trial verdict.
The trial and subsequent penalty proceedings lasted about five months in Manhattan federal court.
The jury's guilty verdict marked the first U.S. convictions based on crimes orchestrated by bin Laden, who was indicted as the mastermind behind the simultaneous bombings at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans.
He is also the prime suspect in last month's assaults on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Another plane crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers apparently struggled with the hijackers. Nearly 5,400 people were killed in the attacks.
Both women said they had not originally planned to attend the sentencing but they changed their minds after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"After the 11th it became much more important to be here ... to let them know we're not afraid of them," said juror No. 2.
"I originally had no interest in coming. I thought we did our jobs to the best of our abilities," said juror No. 7. "But on Sept. 11, it became crucial that I come here."
"Even though it was a formality, I had to be here to see it. I had to look at them one last time ... to know the months I spent here were not in vain. I'm proud as an American our system does work."
Two of the four men were found guilty of directly participating in the bombings that ripped through the embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. They could have been sentenced to die, but because the jury was deadlocked on execution they received a mandatory term of life in prison.
The two women jurors told reporters that they had voted for the death penalty. They said they did not know if jurors opposed to execution would have changed their mind if the verdict had been reached after Sept. 11.
"If anyone is called for jury service and ... the death penalty is an issue, be very true to yourself. If you can't follow the process, don't say that you can," said juror No. 2.
No, the clinton administration wasn't listening.
behold the xlinton legacy.
Clinton was more focused on seeing California go from a bastion of European based civilization, to a polyglot residential mess. (Remember his smirking announcement in his last State of the Union Message.)
To Clinton, terrorism was seen as a potential benefit, that could be used to enlarge Clinton's powers.
We will be paying a price for those Clinton years for generations. Don't expect any instant remedy for all that he accomplished in undermining our heritage and values.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Lemme see now, if memory serves, that would have been under the auspices of the Klinton/Reno Justice Department lady, just like the attack on the Cole.
We are all to blame for this, since we have sit back on our fat @sses and let other people look out for our safety.
This reminds me of an interview I heard up here in Canada with a juror in the case of a child killer a few years ago. This juror (a man in his 40s) apparently held out for an acquittal until the last minute, but finally relented and agreed to convict the defendant.
"Your fellow jurors couldn't understand," the interviewer said, "why you held out for so long when the evidence against the accused killer was so overwhelming."
"To be honest," the guy replied, "I would have convicted on Day 1 based on the evidence in the case. My problem was that I really wanted to see him acquitted. That bastard is going to spend the rest of his life in prison, whereas I was hoping he would be acquitted so I could kill him myself."
Wow.
That said, I think there's another important note in this. Had I been on that jury, I certainly would have voted for the death penalty. But, having served on many juries (in New York and California), I can tell you that many people get on juries by lying. That is, they have already decided how they are going to vote, and they lie to get on the jury. In this case, these people had decided that if they had to go for a guilty verdict, they were still going to vote against the death penalty, although of course they responded in the jury interview that they had no objection to the death penalty. It's a real problem - I have been on juries with people who suddenly announce that they "can't find anybody guilty because God told us not to judge," etc. They should have been eliminated in the first round of questions to prospective jurors, but they didn't answer honestly. Jury nullification is no joke, and anybody who suggests it or practices it for any reason is not a good American and should suffer whatever consequences there may be. Unfortunately, in many cases, the people who suffer the consequences are those later attacked by the criminals these people set free.
Had I been on the jury, it would have been hard for me to NOT apply the death penalty to these killers.
On the other hand, if they truly believe that dying for the cause gets them to heaven, maybe a life sentence is more severe punishment? Of course, as a prisoner, there is always a chance that a killer might escape or kill a guard.
With apologies to any devout peace-loving Muslims, is there any chance we could feed these prisoners bacon at breakfast, ham sandwich for lunch, and a pork chop for dinner? Probably not.
We are either against the terrorists (with all that implies) or we are aiding them and abetting them.
Any middle ground that you think you see here is sheer mirage.
B I N G O !!!!
Anyway, why am I saying this here? Because when he met Clinton, who stuck out his hand, out hero refused to shake his hand.
Feel good, my friends about the outcome of this war. Feel very, very good.
The jurors did not give a "life sentence" ... they were split as to death and we can't blame these women ... they may have voted for death. In fact, the judge gave the life sentence. These women sound okay!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.