Part of the reason for bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters to stand trial in New York is, ostensibly, to prove that our faith in our legal system hasn’t been shaken by acts of senseless mass murder, that the terrorists haven’t won, and all that. And yet actually finding unbiased New York jurors seems fairly impossible, as 9/11 was an extremely traumatic and horrible experience for basically everyone in the city, either directly or indirectly. There won’t be a lot of people saying, “Perhaps this confessed 9/11 mastermind has an understandable explanation for the whole thing. Let’s hear him out first before jumping to conclusions.” And while, from what we’ve witnessed, admitting a bias is a pretty great way to weasel out of jury duty, there will be plenty of folks this time around who actually want to serve. Maybe they crave the chance to personally dole out justice to the terrorists, or they want a front seat at a history-making trial, or they’re a Daily Intel blogger who would totally blog the entire thing. Whatever their motivations, the twelve jurors who are eventually chosen will, unavoidably, likely be selected largely for their ability to lie about their objectivity. The guy who tells the Washington Post that he wants to serve on the jury “just to get vengeance for my dead friend who’s not here anymore” probably has his work cut out for him.
