How is the jury pool NOT tainted if the POTUS and the AG both said they have more than enough evidence to convict and put to death (and that's they expect to happen) the Gitmo detainees? How can a fair trial outcome come to pass with these statements by two of the most powerful men in the USA and world?

By careful voir dire of the jury and the exclusion of jurors, either "for cause" or the use of a pre-emptory exclusion. The available panel of prospective jurors is going to be huge and take a long time to seat.

Any other questions about jury selection?

Again- could you be any more glib? You infer this is not a serious subject.

I did not take it as glib. I took it as factual statements by a person familiar with the process of picking a jury.

There are a surprising number of folks out there who really don't give a flying fart about gitmo or any other current events!

(My lovely, well educated teacher wife for example would probably have a hard time explaining what all the fuss about Gitmo is.) (She loves '24' though).

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

How effective, labeling a response based on long standing procedures in American jurisprudence as "glib."

Oh wait, it is Sunday and there's the possibility that exposure to morning news interview shows can result in misinformed judgment.

Is there a likelyhood that the defendants will be able to get the case dismissed because of this? I've watched no "news shows"- your attempt to insult is glib again. You infer that there will be no issue with this matter at all. I find that hard to believe- since tainted jury pools do happen- and the POTUS and AG stating what they have this does not seem likely to come to pass at all to you?
The chances are small but the consequences are high.

No, it is not likely given the sheer number of available jurors in the greater NYC area; and the alternative that the court has to change venue if indeed the task of seating a jury is overly burdensome or prejudicial.

As long as the scum end up dead, I don't really care what sort of show we put on with them before hand.

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.

The defense would like to thank, and excuse, prospective juror Skippy . .

Ditto.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

There have been trials of this nature before and they were able to seat a jury. McVeigh and the guy who bombed the towers in '93 come to mind.

We are a nation of laws and I really do not see what all the fuss is about. We advertise our selves as being a free and just nation to the rest of the world. Now it is up to us to put up or shut up.

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

I'm not sure that those statements would prevent me from making up my own mind. It will be interesting to see how many are released because the government is unwilling to present "classified" evidence against them.

Would the g'ment stamp "scant evidence" as "classified evidence" to avoid embarrassment?

... Or maybe "no evidence"?

IMO, it was another oops (aw $hit) moment for the prez.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw9OJJCU5y4

I'm beginning to think he can't think too well on his feet or on the fly and should stick to the telepromter.

BTW, he's come 180 on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO7klxulzaY