Dallas HAMAS trial verdict : Lone Star Times

Dallas HAMAS trial verdict

by David Benzion · 10/22/2007 9:37 am

BREAKING, NOON: Mistrial declared; see last update.

I got a bad feeling about this one.

The evidence was overwhelming and compelling.

But American juries have shown themselves time and again (in general and specifically in terrorism-related trials) to be incapable of wrapping their brains around obvious facts and coming to a coherent conclusion.

This jury deliberated for 19 days… supposedly with a single juror REFUSING TO DELIBERATE at all.

My hopeful bet– unable to agree on all 35 counts, the jury was at least able to reach a finding of guilty on SOME of the counts.

Please may it be so.

UPDATED– Like I thought– totally nuts.

Four defendants– for two of them, no verdict whatsoever. Just couldn’t decide whether they were guilty or innocent. Too hard, too hard!

One defendant– not guilty, across the board. At least there is some clarity to the stupidity here.

One defendant– guilty on only 2 of 32 counts.

Guess the other three simply had the bad luck of hanging out and doing business with a terrorist.

Argh.

UPDATED– Classic September 1oth thinking… so many seem incapable of understanding that what terrorism is and how it works, so unless you actually strap on a bomb yourself, you aren’t a terrorist.

And even if you do, there are those who want to try in you in court instead of defeating you on the battlefield.

The “snooze” button has been hit, and many Americans have rolled over and gone back to sleep.

Enjoy it while you can. The inevitable wake-up call will come soon enough.

UPDATED, NOON– A mistrial has been declared; as I understand it, when the jury came back in to announce their “verdicts,” a couple of jurors voiced disagreement, and the judge threw the whole thing out.

Thank God. What a mess. Try again.

Filed Under Uncategorized ·

Comments

13 Responses to “Dallas HAMAS trial verdict”

Dov on October 22nd, 2007 at 9:59 am

Thats about 10 minutes away and I have no radio or tv here at work. Keep us posted
Rastus on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 am

Why do you think the Dims want to try all these Gitmo folks in court - more “not guiltys” which enhances America’s chance of losing the war.
duhmoose on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 am

Maybe it is time to hire Israel to come teach some common sense ways to deal with terrorism.
houstondem on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 am

“Sept. 4, 2007: Defense calls its first witness, Edward Abington. Formerly the U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and the State Department’s second-highest-ranking intelligence official, he testified that during his years in the region, which included daily CIA briefings, he was never told that the Palestinian charity committees the Holy Land Foundation is accused of illegally funding were controlled by Hamas.”

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/longterm/stories/092707dnmethlftrialdates.1125dc9f3.html
bweldon on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 am

It does not come as that big of a surprise to me. it is as it has been called around here many times… The Sheeple mentality… The people of the jury are so wrapped up in their lives that if it does not directly come back to harm them then they fail to learn the truth, or are unwilling to get informed.
dcgirl on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:56 am

Is there some law regarding a juror refusing to deliberate? It would seem that the expense to the government and defense plus the time that the other jurors, witnesses, etc. put in would deem some penalty for someone that seems to be obstructing justice.
David Benzion on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:58 am

#4 Houstondem– Ed Abington is a paid lobbyist for the PLO.

And the CIA whose judgments you so approvingly cite also briefed government officials that the case for Saddam Hussein posssesing WMDs was a “slam dunk.”

I find the evidence uncovered by the IDF when actually raiding HAMAS offices in the West Bank to be much more persuasive.
Dov on October 22nd, 2007 at 11:59 am

David. Was the government allowed to use any of the stuff from the IDF raids ?
Bannable Lecturer on October 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm

7

you mean onsite has more weight than insight?

this is why there is a Guantanamo Bay and Military Tribunals
Fasternu 426 on October 22nd, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Wow. Speechless….
american woman on October 22nd, 2007 at 3:40 pm

I am getting more concerned and more concerned about jury trials. Is it the trial lawyers and their consultants who weigh each prospective juror, that are causing us to get less justice?
left-2-right on October 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm

They blow us up. We kiss their ass. Wonderful.
Adee on October 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Wow. Certainly does pay to poll the jury. Maybe the delay in announcing the verdict was to double-triple check things on suspicion of something amiss in the jury room.