Ziyad Yaghi and Mohammed Omar Aly Hassan: What the US Media is Hiding
According to the News Observer, it quoted Judge Robert King,“Of course, their argument ignores that the jury found – as it was required to do in order to convict – that the appellants had, in fact, agreed to take action in furtherance of violent jihad,” appeals court Judge Robert King wrote in the unanimous opinion.”Their convictions rest not only on their agreement to join one another in a common terrorist scheme, but also on a series of calculated overt acts in furtherance of that scheme,” King wrote. The media omits that the jury of the litigants’ peers had not one Arab or Muslim, one ‘attentive’ juror was caught napping, and the majority were elderly southern remnants of the ‘calm’ Cold War and ‘fair’ segregation. Likewise, the trial of the 7 defendants were under a modern McCarthyist-Red Scare witch hunt vis-a-vis the War OF Terrorism and the trial was also held on the week of the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks -which defense attorney Dan Boyce complained about at the appeals conference- wherein the American public, including the jurors, were re-indoctrinated with massive propaganda of the War Of Terrorism. Contrary to Judge Robert King’s assertion that “the appellants had, in fact, agreed to take action in furtherance of violent jihad” in what he describes as a “series of calculated overt acts in furtherance of that scheme,” there was no explicit agreement nor overt acts. I personally and publicly impugn the honorable Robert King and the media’s credibility and honor, sincerely, to refute my challenge publicly via replacing media censorship with pertinent facts from the case in regards to Yaghi and Hassan. One insouciant appeals judge chimed in, ”after a certain point, don’t these pieces of evidence begin to add up to a point where the jury can draw a perfectly reasonable inference that we allow them to do all the time?…shouldn’t we at the end of the day, give some, ummm, credit to the conclusions that they came up with? I mean sometimes we have trials that maybe last half a day or a day, but this one went on for a whole month.”I retort that declaring generalizing weak platitudes with fallacious assumptions as a jury’s unanimous decision is 100 percent immutably correct, was insufficient as a heuristic for justice with the boys of Scottsboro or in the trial of the Haymarket Riots, as it is now.