« Venezuela's Slide Toward Communism Continues | Main | Laurie David Wants the Goracle to Adopt Her »
May 4, 2007
Potential Jose Padilla Jurors Don't Know Who Was Behind 9/11
This should give you an idea of what we're in for when libs get their way and foreign terrorists are treated like common criminals. Being an American citizen, al-Qaeda's wannabe dirty bomber Jose Padilla is getting a normal criminal trial. That is to say that like O.J., he is to be tried in a circus, by a jury of clowns.
Many potential jurors in his case don't know who was behind the 9/11 atrocities. Thanks to the deranged moonbattery the public is fed by vermin like Rosie O'Donnell, some suspect it was the work of Republicans. Others just don't care.
Yawns one prospective juror:
I'm oblivious to that stuff. I don't watch the news much. I try to avoid it.
The jury selection process is weeding out anyone with "strong views about Sept. 11" — i.e., anyone who hasn't been in a coma the last six years, and whose brain activity would register on an electroencephalogram. Fortunately the trial only covers Padilla's application to attend an al-Qaeda training camp, not his plot to set off a radioactive bomb in a US city.
Hat tip: NewsBusters, on a tip from V the K.
Posted by Van Helsing at May 4, 2007 6:39 AM
Comments
Tip of the Day: Hypocritical Eco-Nut Laurie David (She of the Private Jet and Building Palatial Home Additions on Protected Wetlands Fame) "begged" Al Gore to Adopt Her.
We often say that the lefties are immature whining children. I give you Exhibit A.
Posted by: V the K at May 4, 2007 8:02 AM
No doubt the defense lawyers want a jury full of Laurie Davids (and Sheryl Crows) -- immediate acquittal on all charges, an apology from these 12 nincompoops "on behalf of the evil United States of America," and a leg up on the civil action to be filed thereafter seeking $100 trillion from the federal government (i.e., you and me) for "grievous and permanent injury" to poor Mr. Padilla's mental and emotional states for having been subjected to all these false, even fabricated, accusations (plus attorney fees and court costs, of course!).
Such is the state, with precious few exceptions, of our judicial system these days. Why we have not yet gone to a "loser pays" system of civil litigation, I can't tell you, but that in itself would eliminate 90-95% of frivilous lawsuits, instantly.
Posted by: jc14 at May 4, 2007 2:03 PM
In response to jc14 - Sometimes the looser does have to pay. My boss caught this guy (who happened to be on the town council) running a program trying to 'harvest' E-mail addresses from us for who knows what. After being arrested his name ended up in the local paper. The decision was later made to not prosecute him. He said his character was trashed for announcing him as the perpetrator (even though he was and that was later proven in court) and tried to sue us. He was so full of s*** that the judge stopped the trial before it went to a jury and ordered him to pay for all our legal fees which came to over $100,000.
Posted by: MB at May 4, 2007 3:27 PM
