Judicial Selection Coalition

 
By Michael Webster: Syndicated Investigative Reporter. Nov 14, 2009 3:00 PM PST
 
 
Op/Ed
The Obama administration Friday decided to transfer five of the Guantánamo detainees, such as the self-confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to the US mainland for trail.

The decision apparently is part of Barack Obama’s promise to close Guantánamo Bay by January 2010; with the 200-plus detainees either tried or released a timetable that he is now unlikely to meet. Several of the cases are still under review.

The New York trial in federal court in the southern district will see the appearance of Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al-Hawsawi, all charged with conspiracy to carry out the 9/11 attacks.
It will be one of the trials of the century, the suspected plotters of the 9/11 attacks in a civilian court only half a mile from the scene of the crime, Ground Zero.

I love this country, I contemplate myself a true patriot. But I do think America’s so known as juridical justice system stinks. The only justice one gets in America is the justice 1 can afford.

As far as the monster terrorists are concerned I want those bastards to burn in hell, but not at the expense of our constitution and our own Bill of Rights.

What concerns me about the terrorist being tried in our court system is it will defy many of the very critical things that Americans are suppose to stand for and will tarnish the constitution and a lot of what it stands for.

For President Obama and Attorney General to say that the terrorist will receive a fair trail is not very realistic.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans and other people (yes, even terrorist) specific rights in the form of the “Bill of Rights.

Many of those rights have been gradually eroded since our founding fathers wrote them and by trying the terrorist in Federal Court will only erode them further.

One of the cornerstones of what separates the free of charge world from the rest of the world is our rights under the constitution. Those constitutional rights guarantees a fair trail for all Americans and the terrorist, which means they need to be afforded an attorney to represent them, be able to confront their accusers, present evidence on their own behalf, present witnesses and items of physical evidence, and use subpoena power to subpoena witnesses, records and other documents and to force witnesses to appear. Further throughout trail cross-examine the witnesses. Be allowed to object to testimony or exhibits on the basis of the rules of evidence, and the judge will then decide whether or not the material in question might be presented to the jury. They ought to be able to see all the charges and evidence against them, have a speedy trail and have an unbiased jury of their peers.

If that is true than how can the terrorist have a fair trail? If they do not have a fair trail than it will produce a mockery our wonderful constitution and will do far more damage to America’s image around the world and will weaken the constitution even far more and likely harm Americans attempting to get a fair trail in the future. If the President and the Attorney General are so sure they will get a conviction against the terrorist than the fix must be in.

Appropriate out of the shut will be jury selection. Jury selection is likely to be an additional deeply complex concern. According to the jurors’ handbook for the southern district, prospective jurors ought to be asked whether they “have any personal interest in the case, or know of any reason why they can not render an impartial verdict”.
Other questions are designed to determine “whether any panel members have a prejudice or a feeling that may influence them in rendering a verdict”. The correct of jury selection is designed to work to come across an unbiased jury. Where in the United states will they be able to discover an unbiased jury much much less in New York City where the horrible attacks took place.

In law, the act or process of questioning prospective jurors is called Voir dire and consists of oral questions asked of prospective jurors by the judge, the parties, or the attorneys, or some combination thereof. It is used to figure out whether or not prospective jurors are qualified and suitable to serve on a jury. The purpose of voir dire is not to educate jurors but to allow the parties to select an impartial panel. For that reason, voir dire questions ought to test the capacity and competency of the jurors without intentionally or unintentionally planting prejudicial matter in their minds. Trial judges have wide latitude in setting the parameters of questioning, including the abilities to determine the materiality and propriety of the questions and to set the time allowed for voir dire.

A prospective juror ought to answer questions fully and truthfully. The questions are developed to weed out any bias or preconceived notions of guilt or innocence on the part of any prospective juror and determine whether a prospective juror is biased, has any knowledge of the case, has heard about the case by means of the media, knows any of the parties, counsel, or witnesses, and if so need to otherwise be excluded from jury. Voir dire is a tool used to attain the constitutional right to an impartial jury.
Attorneys could dismiss a juror for cause, such as when bias or preconceived notions of guilt or innocence are in evidence; but have a limited number of peremptory challenges that they can use to dismiss a juror for any or no reason. Which means when they run out of challenges, persons selected may possibly very well have bias and preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. In all of New York City is there anybody much much less twelve jurors of the terrorist peers that are not bias and/or have preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. I think not, so where is the guaranteed of a fair trail in all this?

A Jury of your Peers

A jury of your peers means anyone in your peer group. Back when this was produced it meant that if you were a farmer your jury would be filled with farmers. If you had been a peasant, your jury would be full of peasants. Considering the demographics of the population where these terrorist defendants lived, what type of men and women would constitute a jury of their peers?

Your peers can also mean individuals of your skin color, religion etc. such as: An African- American defendant means his peers are fellow African- Americans, or in this case would the jurors be Muslims? Or what if all the jurors selected are Christians?

Will the terrorist defendants have a valid claim for appeal? Did they receive a fair trial if their “jury peers” had been all Christians?

The 6th Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The phrase “jury of one’s peers” is not included in the Constitution, even so, the courts interpret peer to mean equal, i.e., the jury pool must contain a cross section of the population of the community in terms of gender, race, and national origin. The jury selection method need to not exclude or intentionally narrow any specific group of folks.

A jury of one’s peers does not mean a black defendant must be tried by an all black jury or a Muslim defendant must be tried by an all Muslim panel. But it does mean the objective is to select an impartial jury from a randomly selected juror pool who will be fair, listen to the facts of the case, and render a just verdict based on the 14th Amendment.
The issue than is does the selection process offer an unbiased and impartial jury, not if it failed to ensure a jury selected from a cross section of the community since Muslims would not be fairly represented in that jury pool. All potential jurors will have knowledge of the case and the questions of being able to select an unbiased jury will be impossible.

According to the government Manhattan, is 1 of the most experienced US jurisdictions in trying terrorists, but such a high profile case, so close to the scene of the crime on of 9/11, will not only involve significant security considerations but will also have to consider how to present really sensitive U.S. classified evidence that the prosecution will try to present even though the government claims they will not need the classified info in order to get a conviction. The Government says they of new and distinct evidence. Even so the defense may possibly be able to raise sensitive U.S. classified evidence problems as part of the defense.

“KSM”, as he the principal defendant has come to be recognized, and his four co-defendants have already allegedly admitted to their guilt and have described themselves “as terrorists to the bone” in a filing prior to a military commission at Guantánamo in March and have referred to their alleged involvement as a “badge of honor”. But the reality that Mohammed was subjected to prolonged torture is likely to reopen the thorny question of how significantly of what the men have said can be relied on not to have been tainted. U.S. courts have held that any information obtain through torture is not admissible as evidence. President Obama has already publicly stated he believes water boarding is torture.

The defense’s case is expected to try and force the US government to reveal government secrets and confront a host of tough legal issues surrounding U.S. counterterrorism tactics and other questionable behavior started after the 2001 9/11 attacks, which includes the harsh interrogation tactics, rendition and other techniques adopted by the CIA and our allies. The U.S. Government has already admitted that water boarding – or simulated drowning and other techniques was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Mohammed has already argued with a judge in the course of the reading of some charges against him and at that time refused to accept any non- sharia law or an attorney appointed by a court he does not recognize and is not governed by sharia law. He has also described the US Constitution as “evil” and said he would defend himself.

The likelihood that the procedure will be lengthy was underlined by President Barack Obama. “I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it. My administration will insist on it,” he said.
Obama’s comments follow a ban on the use of hearsay and confessions extracted under torture in military commissions – words that will surely impact the coming trial method.

Despite the fact that New York has banned the death penalty, Holder said he would be asking for the death penalty in this case, due to the fact it was a federal crime.
Addressing concerns about a fair trial, given the use of torture, he said he would not have ordered the trial unless he was confident of a prosecution and hinted that there was evidence that could be presented other than had been obtained by water boarding or other techniques.

“I am confident,” Holder said, “in the ability of our courts to supply these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years.”

While some legal experts had predicted that Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators would be charged for other offenses, Holder said that they would be prosecuted for the 2001 strikes that launched America’s war on terrorism, and that in numerous methods defined the course of Bush’s presidency.

“They will be charged for what we believe they did,” Holder said, “and that is to mastermind and carry out the 9/11 attacks.”

Still there are other issues political difficulties: What if the court system or jury finds the defendants not guilty for what ever reason perhaps some technicality? Would their Constitutional rights be violated again by re-arresting them and charging them with other and new crimes? The fallout from the Obama administration’s order to try the terrorist in the American judicial system is most likely a large mistake and will hurt this country and weaken our world image and put our Constitution in more jeopardy

For related articles go to: www.lagunajournal.com