If the question is how do you find a jury amongst a population where everyone is affected by the crime, then I think that you can make a general parallel. As far as criminal procedures are concerned, each legal team only has so many blocks when choosing a jury. Once a venue for the trail has been determined it is only a matter of time before a jury is selected.

It's not so much about everyone being affected by the crime but about preconceived notions about the crime being almost hard wired at this point.

I had been away for the weekend and I just wanted to clarify my "just kill the fucker" comment. I did not mean that we apprehend the man and then summarily execute him. I simply meant when and if our Special Forces or even Pakistan’s Special Forces find him that we kill him in combat.

As for the problems with going to trial the biggest problem I see is in trying to pick a jury. I just cannot believe that there is anyone in America that is that uniformed and would have no idea who he was or what he had done. And if, someone were that ignorant to world news and current events why would you want them on a jury in the first place.

The other major obstacle would be security. How are you supposed to secure a venue whether it is on American soil or not. I just see to many problems with even trying to apprehend him. This leads me back to killing him in combat. All is fair in love and war.

I think that the trial of Timothy McVeigh suggests that jury selection is possible even for heinous crimes that create "hard wired" impressions.

True, cthulu23. That's a hard one to argue.

Remove. Repost of prior post.

I don't think it's a question of finding 12 individuals (or several thousand) who have no knowledge of 9/11 or Osama himself.
The question is, do we want this type of individual, who is that ignorant that they don't know of this issue, presiding over something as important as Osama's trial. :crazy:

Yes Superbelt, that is my issue with the issue. :hmm: :crazy: :confused:

But that's our justice system.

And from the "gotta give him a fair trial" camp, how can you have a "fair" trial when the only people who don't have preconceived notions of his guilt are people who have been living in a hole for the last few years and/or probably think 9/11 was all a big conspiracy orchestrated by ... the government, space aliens, Mickey Mouse, or whatever.

It was a bit of a joke. The people we need exist, there are ways to find them.
You just need to find people who are for the most part detached from popular american society.
As was said earlier, we did it for Nichols and McVeigh.
I imagine the searching would concentrate around rural farm state areas.
Off the top of my head, states I would start my search: Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska.
The more west the better I imagine.

Nichols and McVeigh never had a fair jury.

OBL would not be able to get a fair jury.

ESPECIALLY in Colorado.

Why "especially" in Colorado?

First, think of all of the military bases we have here. Colorado is a military state, they don't take kindly to attacks on the U.S.

There is a lot of old-school, traditional, American sentiment here (and other places in the midwest). They don't think kindly of attacking U.S. soil as well.

The only people who would say that they could be impartial in a trial here are those that are lying so that they can get on the jury and hang 'em.

I think the original point is valid. Of all people, OBL would have an extremely hard time finding an impartial jury. The country is polarized, the majority of the people are against him and the lesser group think we caused this attack.

I don't think anybody is middle of the road on this one.

Is anyone here really worried about whether or not OBL would get a fair trial? If so, does it make sense to advocate for a tribunal, where the environment would be even more tilted against him?

I never advocated for a tribunal only pointed out that a trial can not possibly be accomplished based on our laws and the expectation of an unbiased jury to deliver a verdict.

IMO, it was an act of war and there is no criminal code to cover the acts of 9/11.

What exactly would he be charged with? Conspiracy to commit murder? Perhaps racketeering? He didn't fly the planes, he didn't personally kill those people. What's the point of advocating for a trial in the court?

As the mastermind of 9-11, he would be charged with 3000+ counts of 1st degree murder. We must keep in mind that trials such as this have come before, eg - Nuremburg.

Because I live here. I can just see it now. I'd be more famous than Jack Ruby! In all seriousness though, can't you have a trail by judge? Or is that only for minor offenses? If he has to have an impartial jury, you might be able to find people. Maybe go root around in the Appachilacians for some hill-billies?

No matter the crime every man has the right to a fair trial. I wouldnt be suprised if the ACLU plays some part.