http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38667591/ns/us_news-security/

They booted this guy off the jury because "he had 'pre-conceived' views that might jeopardize their case". His views? Gitmo should be closed.

Now, whether or not you agree with him, what about the remainder of the jurors? Assuming that some of the other potential jurors hold the same feelings and also get booted off, doesn't this sound like the prosecutor is stacking the deck?

What blasted difference could it possibly make to the defendant whether or not a potential juror agrees with the existance of Gitmo?

Shouldn't they rather be looking to see if jurors can be fair and impartial towards to defendants?

This is just wrong.