Would You Serve On a Jury, Judging a Terrorist?

Current Events | Uncle George

[Uncle George]

How will jurists be protected from intemidation from terrorists groups? I believe some other system MUST be installed or Tribunals will be the ONLY answer.

[Uncle George]

I am sure the Government will welcome ALL constructive input on this very trying question. Remember they all read Free Republic so your ideas will be noticed.

[Keith]

No question....bring it on, Osama, you horse's patoot.

[homeschool mama]

Tribunals are the only answer...imho.

[randog]

I would be proud to serve my country by serving on a jury in the trial of a terrorist, which would immediately disqualify me in the eyes of the defense attorney.

[NC_Libertarian]

As long as we protect the right to keep and bear arms, I would.

[Tauzero]

Shouldn't be any more difficult than protecting jurors in mob cases.

[boomop1]

Tribunals are the only answer...imho.

I agree.

[KSCITYBOY]

I would serve on a jury for any terrorist trial. I doubt the defense attorney would let me.

[princess leah]

I'd serve if I get to bring my rubberbands in and barrage the accused at every opportunity!

[putupon]

Yes. and I'd be totally objective.... no kidding....honest...snicker, snicker

[Attillathehon]

The defense lawyers will demand that terrorists be judged by a jury of their "peers," meaning fellow Muslims.

Can you say "jury nullification."

[SamAdams76]

Isn't this why President Bush imposed military tribunals in the first place? So that citizens jurists would not be made targets of terrorist reprisals?

I say that all those who are against the military tribunals for terrorists be called upon to serve in the jury for these trials.

[hattend]

I probably wouldn't survive the selection process anyway. When asked if I couold send him to the gas chamber I would ask why we are even having a trial..."Nike" him (Just Do It).

They could always do like OJ's 1st sham trial, never show the jury.

[Tauzero]

"I say that all those who are against the military tribunals for terrorists be called upon to serve in the jury for these trials."

Why, I'd be happy to.

But that's probably unnecessary now. According to last Sunday's New York Daily News, the tribunal rules will be changed to incorprate more protections for the accused:

"Leaked portions of the draft regulations are more in keeping with federal court standards. Terrorist defendants would be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a unanimous verdict would be needed to impose the death penalty and a three-judge panel, possibly including retired civilian judges, would hear appeals of all convictions."

It's good to see the latent fascists who drafted the original EO thwarted by public outcry.

[Uncle George]

OK I'll buy the Semi-Tribunals as long as the crooked lawyers cant set the standards of what is "beyond reasonable doubt"

[Tauzero]

Well, the lawyers can't set that standard in any case. The jury can have a mind of its own about anything, including the standard.

But it's good to have the standard written down for presiding judges and judges who might hear appeals, and this is a better standard, IMO, in the absence of a formal declaration of war.

[Uncle George]

I wonder how the jurors will be protected in this terrorist case that is going to be tried in US fed court? I can see no way to protect them or their familys from the psyco terrorists.