Depressing

[Huckleman2000]

You don't know what the decision was based upon Huck. You wanted him not to get the death penalty so you extrapolate the jury did the right thing. Half the trial testimony is still blacked out. The count of jurors who favored vs. those who didn't isn't known. The reasons for their decision aren't known.

I'm not trying to be a bitch, but you can't say, Oh they decided the trial on it's merits, when you don't even know hat the merits were. You got the verdict you're comfortable with. It does not neccissarily follow that the verdict was correct just because it's the outcome you wanted.

I'm kind of giving the jury the benefit of the doubt, I guess, and going by what I think are knowlegeable commentators' observations.

I have to agree, though, that much of the information in this trial has been withheld, on the basis of jeapordizing the trial outcome. Now that the trial has reached its outcome, I hope the information becomes public, and we will all be able to make a better determination for ourselves.

Let's just say that I'm not expecting much of this secret information to reinforce my faith in this government's ability to prosecute the so-called War on Terror without compromising the very ideals it claims to protect.

[edit to add] LOL, we're posting one mesage behind each other. Im' going to bed now, though. Tag, you're it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm kind of giving the jury the benefit of the doubt, I guess, and going by what I think are knowlegeable commentators' observations.

I have to agree, though, that much of the information in this trial has been withheld, on the basis of jeapordizing the trial outcome. Now that the trial has reached its outcome, I hope the information becomes public, and we will all be able to make a better determination for ourselves.

Let's just say that I'm not expecting much of this secret information to reinforce my faith in this government's ability to prosecute the so-called War on Terror without compromising the very ideals it claims to protect.

Frankly, I don't expect the details to prima force dispute your claim. They may well support it. I was just pointing out we dont know what evidence was presented.

On one point though, I'll conceed right now. If you are going to say you have faith in our system, then you must accept the decision was based on the evidence. To claim otherwise is admission you don't trust our system.

 

[S-Des]

It's worse than that

RG just nailed it for me.

This guy wants to die so he can be a symbol. The fact that he wants to die is all the more reason to let him live out a looooong, boring life, alone in a 10x10 concrete box, forgotten by everyone.

They interviewed a guy about his cell and the information was chilling. 23 hours a day locked in a 7' x 8' room without a window. No TV, radio, or newspapers (although there's a small monitor that shows rehabilitation programming . . . if he's a cooperative prisoner). No contact with any other prisoners or guards. Three meals a day slid through a small slot in the door.

Sounds like my definition of Hell. I know a lot of people want 'revenge' but I personally don't get how it makes any difference either way. Let him rot in there until he dies of old age. Personally, I wish they'd put him in a cell with a 350lb gang-banger who had a problem playing well with others, but you can't have everything.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It seems strange to me that people keep saying oh, if you had killed him you would have given him what he wanted. So what? Since when has the desire of the convicted been the basis for judgement of the fitnes of sentence?

He pled guilty to consipracy to kill over 3000 people. i don't care if his ultimate goal was to get Santa to bring him a pony. It's like your saying look, Santa dosen't visit prisons, so he can't have his pony, so he isn't getting what he wanted.

Am I missing something?

I think they're looking at it more in the global sense - the one that entails "and a whole lot of other people don't get what they want either." Other zealots don't get a martyr, other terrorists don't get the impression that they will die in glorious and media-drenched defiance, other countries don't get an excuse to point fingers at us over how he was dealt with or keep alive for the next fifty years a theory that it was simply the public baying for his blood that did it. It's not just that Moussaoui doesn't get to achieve his personal goals, but that the cause for which he committed these hideous actions will not be advanced.

Personally, I'm torn. I'm an ambivalent supporter of the death penalty; I believe that some people are too dangerous to live and must be put to death so that no other lives are risked, but I don't believe it right to kill purely for vengeance. "Utter moral repugnance" is the thorny ground for me. I have difficulty deciding if it is ever right to kill because what someone has done is so repulsive and morally abhorrent that death is the only response that can adequately reflect the severity of the transgression and the depth of depravity that spawned it.

I've been mulling that thought a good bit lately, since reading an article in which a prison warden commented that he'd had to get to grips mentally with the fact that some prisoners, under the excuse of desiring such materials for the assembly of appeals, had procured crime scene photographs of their dead victims so that they could use them as masturbatory material. They could not legally be denied the photographs, as the evidence could conceivably be needed to file an appeal. One does then begin to wonder if a bullet would be the best answer.

Shanglan

 

[impressive]

It's not just that Moussaoui doesn't get to achieve his personal goals, but that the cause for which he committed these hideous actions will not be advanced.

If that one little piece would be a significant deterrent to terrorism, I would feel differently -- but it won't. No plans will be altered. No one's gonna shrug and say, "I give up on this terrorist gig."

On the flip side, I think about what the cash spent on him could do if directed elsewhere. Real, doable things like pulling a couple dozen homeless off the streets.

*shrug* That's just me.

 

[rgraham666]

I will once again state that favourite Taoist aphorism of mine, "What you resist, you become."

If we executed Moussaoui it will not be for reasons of justice, it will be because he is the enemy and we are screaming for his blood. Which would make us just like him, taking another's life because we don't believe they are fit to live.

If we act in this manner, the war on terror is over. And we will have lost.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I will once again state that favourite Taoist aphorism of mine, "What you resist, you become."

If we executed Moussaoui it will not be for reasons of justice, it will be because he is the enemy and we are screaming for his blood. Which would make us just like him, taking another's life because we don't believe they are fit to live.

If we act in this manner, the war on terror is over. And we will have lost.

Is your position Rob, simply that we cannot execute anyone without it being wrong?

Or is your position that this particular erson, for some reason, has not comited a crime henious enough to warrant the death penalty?

 

[R. Richard]

If we executed Moussaoui it will not be for reasons of justice, it will be because he is the enemy and we are screaming for his blood. Which would make us just like him, taking another's life because we don't believe they are fit to live.

I must disagree with you Rob. If the decision were mine, I would execute Moussaoui. First, Moussaoui pled guilty to charges that he conspired to kill several thousand people. Conspiracy to kill several thousand people might just be a rational reason for putting someone to death. Second, it will probably cost the government something on the order of $50K per year to keep Moussaoui in prison. [There will be lesser costs cited, but they are average costs, not the costs for a high profile prisoner such as Moussaoui.] The sum of $50K per year could be much better spent on pressing needs, rather than keeping Moussaoui alive. Third, it is argued that killing Moussaoui will make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. I have bad news for those who subscribe to that theory. Putting Moussaoui in prison will make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters.

Rob, if you believe that Moussaoui is, on some level, fit to live, you should correspond with those family members who lost loved ones in the 9/11 murders. They could certainly use the insight.

Moussaoui is less than nothing to me. The $50K or whatever it costs to keep him alive is a problem for me. The possibility that some other whacko might decide to try to kill more Americans because he might get life in prison and then later get out with legal maneuvering is also a problem for me.

 

[rgraham666]

Is your position Rob, simply that we cannot execute anyone without it being wrong?

Or is your position that this particular erson, for some reason, has not comited a crime henious enough to warrant the death penalty?

The first position, Colleen. Inflicting death darkens your soul. No matter how righteous your cause killing others damages you, hardens you. You do not come out the other end unscarred. And human life becomes a less valuable thing to you.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think they're looking at it more in the global sense - the one that entails "and a whole lot of other people don't get what they want either." Other zealots don't get a martyr, other terrorists don't get the impression that they will die in glorious and media-drenched defiance, other countries don't get an excuse to point fingers at us over how he was dealt with or keep alive for the next fifty years a theory that it was simply the public baying for his blood that did it. It's not just that Moussaoui doesn't get to achieve his personal goals, but that the cause for which he committed these hideous actions will not be advanced.

Personally, I'm torn. I'm an ambivalent supporter of the death penalty; I believe that some people are too dangerous to live and must be put to death so that no other lives are risked, but I don't believe it right to kill purely for vengeance. "Utter moral repugnance" is the thorny ground for me. I have difficulty deciding if it is ever right to kill because what someone has done is so repulsive and morally abhorrent that death is the only response that can adequately reflect the severity of the transgression and the depth of depravity that spawned it.

I've been mulling that thought a good bit lately, since reading an article in which a prison warden commented that he'd had to get to grips mentally with the fact that some prisoners, under the excuse of desiring such materials for the assembly of appeals, had procured crime scene photographs of their dead victims so that they could use them as masturbatory material. They could not legally be denied the photographs, as the evidence could conceivably be needed to file an appeal. One does then begin to wonder if a bullet would be the best answer.

Shanglan

You underestimate zealots Shang. For them, a long prison sentence a martyr makes.

If we are going to sentence them in an effort to make no martyrs, then you have to let them go scot free. Even a slap on the wrist is "martrydom" as far as those who want one is concerned.

From my perspective, conspiracy to commit 3000 plus counts of murder is easily henious enough to deserve the death penalty. If actively working to assist in the murder of 3000 plus people isn't grounds, I have to question what exactly is grounds.

I also believe this verdict strongly bolstered the case for rendition to "allies" who aren't as sqeamish as we are and for places like Gitmo. In the minds of a lot of people, this is proof positive giving thse detestable pieces of shit the benefits of our court systems is akin to just letting them go. Up until this verdict, the argument has been laughable. After this verdict, even someone like myself, who passionately believes in our system, is left with a lot of doubts. It's a very forceful reminder that it only takes one Rob, or one Huck, or one Sher, one person to whom capital puniment is moral anathema, and you can't get a federal death sentence, no matter how henious the crime, because the jury has to be unanimous in those cases. I do not doubt that to a large portion of the people who wante dhis head, it now seems secret prisons and closed military tribunals are the only way to see that such prisoners get what's coming to them.

I am not forgetful of the class B war crimes trials in the pacific. Stalin had nothing on MacAuthur when it came to show trials. But most people don't have the historical background I do, to put that particular solution in perspective. And to them, I think it will have a much stonger appeal now. It's going to be very hard to argue that prisoner X deserves a fair trial under US law, when those pushing for a tribunal can retort, just like Moussaoui got right?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The first position, Colleen. Inflicting death darkens your soul. No matter how righteous your cause killing others damages you, hardens you. You do not come out the other end unscarred. And human life becomes a less valuable thing to you.

I thought as much. So your position isn't based on the crime or the statutes in place, it's a moral stand against the death penalty.

That isn't to denigrate you or your position. It's just to say the circumstance then and the heniousness of the crime are not points I can argue with you, because no crime is henious enough to warrant the punishmnet.

 

[rgraham666]

My opposition is based on other than morality, Colleen.

Look at the thread I just started.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I must disagree with you Rob. If the decision were mine, I would execute Moussaoui. First, Moussaoui pled guilty to charges that he conspired to kill several thousand people. Conspiracy to kill several thousand people might just be a rational reason for putting someone to death. Second, it will probably cost the government something on the order of $50K per year to keep Moussaoui in prison. [There will be lesser costs cited, but they are average costs, not the costs for a high profile prisoner such as Moussaoui.] The sum of $50K per year could be much better spent on pressing needs, rather than keeping Moussaoui alive. Third, it is argued that killing Moussaoui will make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. I have bad news for those who subscribe to that theory. Putting Moussaoui in prison will make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters.

Rob, if you believe that Moussaoui is, on some level, fit to live, you should correspond with those family members who lost loved ones in the 9/11 murders. They could certainly use the insight.

Moussaoui is less than nothing to me. The $50K or whatever it costs to keep him alive is a problem for me. The possibility that some other whacko might decide to try to kill more Americans because he might get life in prison and then later get out with legal maneuvering is also a problem for me.

The money is misleading. From what I have heard, it is more on the order of $75,000 per year but that is the fully amortized cost. That includes the a share of the cost of the guards' salaries, depreciation on the prison, electricity, clericaql staff, etc. The marginal costs, the actual additional expense of his being there, is negligible.

On the other hand, a death sentence, which would entail multiple frivolous appeals and these would involve court time and fees paid to court-appointed lawyers, and other direct expenses. By "frivolous appeals" I mean appeals for frivoulous reasons. Maybe somebody farted during testimony so the testimony should be thrown out because jurors were distracted. Crap like that, which sometimes gets taken seriously.

 

[Liar]

Third, it is argued that killing Moussaoui will make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters. I have bad news for those who subscribe to that theory. Putting Moussaoui in prison will make him a martyr in the eyes of his supporters.

Huh. Since that's the opposite of what I've been lead to believe about the way exteme jihadism works, wouldja please explain what you mean?

For instance, the gitmo prisoners are supposedly not hailed as martyrs, while suicide bombers are. Living prisoners are political fodder for the movement's external communication (on the rare occations they have any), while dead heroes are effective fodder for politics within the movement. And that's where the motherload of damage can be done. The extremist leaders desperately want to unify the arab world against the great Satan in the west.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Huh. Since that's the opposite of what I've been lead to believe about the way exteme jihadism works, wouldja please explain what you mean?

For instance, the gitmo prisoners are supposedly not hailed as martyrs, while suicide bombers are. Living prisoners are political fodder for the movement's external communication (on the rare occations they have any), while dead heroes are effective fodder for politics within the movement. And that's where the motherload of damage can be done. The extremist leaders desperately want to unify the arab world against the great Satan in the west.

Slight disagreement here: It's the MUSLIM world, which includes Iran and Pakistan and Indonesia and those in other countries too.

 

[BlackShanglan]

You underestimate zealots Shang. For them, a long prison sentence a martyr makes.

If we are going to sentence them in an effort to make no martyrs, then you have to let them go scot free. Even a slap on the wrist is "martrydom" as far as those who want one is concerned.

It wasn't wholly my own position I was enunciating. I was mostly answering the earlier question about why we should care whether death was what he wanted, and partly spelling out the argument for that rather than necessarily my own position. I think you've got fair points on what makes or doesn't make a martyr; I'm not wholly convinced, but that's mostly because it's just so difficult to know how other people will perceive things or what affect something will have on a human's thought process.

I don't deny that a living prisoner can have immense power; Nelson Mandela is an excellent example of the fact. But a death can have an immense effect on peoples' memory as well, as can its timing. Pearse and Connelly have many songs about them; they died in the Easter Rebellion in 1916, shot by British soldiers. Who but Yeats remembers Jonathan O'Leary, imprisoned and exiled? Sean South and Fergal O'Hanlon have ballads to their memory; who knows the names of anyone involved in that raid who wasn't killed? Bobby Sands, first to die in the H-Block hunger strikes, is long remembered, but who recalls the other nine? It's true, people living or dead can serve as martyrs; the dead, though, do seem to have a special power. Perhaps it's that we can make of them anything we like.

I also believe this verdict strongly bolstered the case for rendition to "allies" who aren't as sqeamish as we are and for places like Gitmo. In the minds of a lot of people, this is proof positive giving thse detestable pieces of shit the benefits of our court systems is akin to just letting them go. Up until this verdict, the argument has been laughable. After this verdict, even someone like myself, who passionately believes in our system, is left with a lot of doubts. It's a very forceful reminder that it only takes one Rob, or one Huck, or one Sher, one person to whom capital puniment is moral anathema, and you can't get a federal death sentence, no matter how henious the crime, because the jury has to be unanimous in those cases. I do not doubt that to a large portion of the people who wante dhis head, it now seems secret prisons and closed military tribunals are the only way to see that such prisoners get what's coming to them.

I am not forgetful of the class B war crimes trials in the pacific. Stalin had nothing on MacAuthur when it came to show trials. But most people don't have the historical background I do, to put that particular solution in perspective. And to them, I think it will have a much stonger appeal now. It's going to be very hard to argue that prisoner X deserves a fair trial under US law, when those pushing for a tribunal can retort, just like Moussaoui got right?

I do worry about this, for I think the renditions a very grave and terrible violation of our integrity and morality as a nation. If we stoop to torture, under whatever guise, then what are we, really? But I see your concerns as well. I only pray that in the case of that argument, that even those bitterly disappointed by the lack of a death verdict will take comfort that he was not simply let off, and that life in solitary confinement (as it seems likely to be) is itself, while short of death, only a very little short of death.

I'm glad, by the way, that you've not made the monetary argument. I don't mean to ignore the practical cost of keeping a prisoner alive, but I think that once one starts down that path, there's really nowhere it can't lead. Nearly everyone who has committed a crime will end up consuming resources that we would much rather spend on other things; if we start executing people based on the consumption of resources, an awfully large number of things will become capital crimes. That, or we end up following the model that does not seem to be working very well in England at the moment: decline to imprison non-violent offenders (particularly burglars for some reason) and end up with people with twenty and thirty convictions for burglary walking free.

Shanglan

 

[R. Richard]

Huh. Since that's the opposite of what I've been lead to believe about the way exteme jihadism works, wouldja please explain what you mean?

For instance, the gitmo prisoners are supposedly not hailed as martyrs, while suicide bombers are. Living prisoners are political fodder for the movement's external communication (on the rare occations they have any), while dead heroes are effective fodder for politics within the movement. And that's where the motherload of damage can be done. The extremist leaders desperately want to unify the arab world against the great Satan in the west.

I am not too surprised that the gitmo prisoners do not have a lot of attention paid to them. Most of them were taken in Afghanistan aand the resistance there is not making too much of martyrs.

There are convicted murderers who are in Israeli jails. There is no argument that they are not murderers, in fact most of them are revered for killing Jews. It is my understanding that the prisoners are regarded as martyrs, since they are no longer able to roam around and kill Jews. If I am wrong, I would like someone who is very familiar with the situation to post. [In the case of Marwan Barghoutti, his wife is supposedly pleading with anyone and everyone she can get to in order to release him from his martyrdom.]

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It wasn't wholly my own position I was enunciating. I was mostly answering the earlier question about why we should care whether death was what he wanted, and partly spelling out the argument for that rather than necessarily my own position. I think you've got fair points on what makes or doesn't make a martyr; I'm not wholly convinced, but that's mostly because it's just so difficult to know how other people will perceive things or what affect something will have on a human's thought process.

I don't deny that a living prisoner can have immense power; Nelson Mandela is an excellent example of the fact. But a death can have an immense effect on peoples' memory as well, as can its timing. Pearse and Connelly have many songs about them; they died in the Easter Rebellion in 1916, shot by British soldiers. Who but Yeats remembers Jonathan O'Leary, imprisoned and exiled? Sean South and Fergal O'Hanlon have ballads to their memory; who knows the names of anyone involved in that raid who wasn't killed? Bobby Sands, first to die in the H-Block hunger strikes, is long remembered, but who recalls the other nine? It's true, people living or dead can serve as martyrs; the dead, though, do seem to have a special power. Perhaps it's that we can make of them anything we like.



I do worry about this, for I think the renditions a very grave and terrible violation of our integrity and morality as a nation. If we stoop to torture, under whatever guise, then what are we, really? But I see your concerns as well. I only pray that in the case of that argument, that even those bitterly disappointed by the lack of a death verdict will take comfort that he was not simply let off, and that life in solitary confinement (as it seems likely to be) is itself, while short of death, only a very little short of death.

I'm glad, by the way, that you've not made the monetary argument. I don't mean to ignore the practical cost of keeping a prisoner alive, but I think that once one starts down that path, there's really nowhere it can't lead. Nearly everyone who has committed a crime will end up consuming resources that we would much rather spend on other things; if we start executing people based on the consumption of resources, an awfully large number of things will become capital crimes. That, or we end up following the model that does not seem to be working very well in England at the moment: decline to imprison non-violent offenders (particularly burglars for some reason) and end up with people with twenty and thirty convictions for burglary walking free.

Shanglan

There really is no comfort to me in his sentence. His vitims are dead. Every simple pleasure he enjoys, is denied them. And he is culpable in everyone of those three thousand plus deaths. But that is, at the end of the day, my problem, not socieity's.

I guess my real problem boils down to the fact we have the death penalty on the books. If plotting the death of over 3000 people and aiding those who carry it out, even if you aren't one of the shooters isn't henious enough to warrant the penalty then what crime is?

I will probably just have to content myself with asking questions i have no answer to and darkening my soul a little by hoping he comes down with some horrible, intensly painful and slow acting degenerative disease. One so that every moment is agony and he gets to look forward to years of it before it eventually kills him. In that eventualyity, i might actually agree a life sentence was more fitting than death.

 

[BlackShanglan]

There really is no comfort to me in his sentence. His vitims are dead. Every simple pleasure he enjoys, is denied them. And he is culpable in everyone of those three thousand plus deaths.

Yes. It's true. But then, I don't think anything we could do to him would really give me comfort. The only thing that could possibly appeal to me would be to somehow make him realize, deep in his heart, the terrible thing he had done, and to make him feel as honestly remorseful for it as a person of any character or decency would. I know that nothing we can do is likely to accomplish that. It's conceivably possible that, if left alive and isolated from propagandists long enough, he might eventually see it - but truly, I do believe that some people do not have the capacity for that sort of understanding or repentance. In some ways I wish that they had not had the relatives read out their statements in court; it is painful to think of Moussaoui aping them, unmoved by their suffering and utterly insulated within his own mind. We cannot touch the part of him that to me would be the only victory; we cannot touch his conscience.

Given that, I suppose I think of the punishment then being more about us than about him. If he's not likely to be rehabilitated, then he can only be contained, punished, or made an example of. I tend to see life in prison as roughly as useful for those things as death, but I do see that the death penalty has a certain value in expressing depth of outrage and indicating in the most final way possible our abhorrence for the acts committed. At heart, I find either option such a final admission of the utter failure of society and the depths to which a human being can sink that I see little difference between them; either means that the convicted is a complete loss as a human being, and that's a depressing enough thought in itself.

I guess my real problem boils down to the fact we have the death penalty on the books. If plotting the death of over 3000 people and aiding those who carry it out, even if you aren't one of the shooters isn't henious enough to warrant the penalty then what crime is?

I think this is a good point. I wonder if it's going the same way as the recent debates on immigration law. Sometimes the impetus for change to a law comes from mass disregard for the law - Prohibition, for instance, seems a likely example. I was under the impression that jurors for potential death-penalty cases were excluded if they said that they could not impose a death penalty at all, but our law is such a patchwork of state and local issues that I have no idea if that is true across the board, or if it's limited in any way. I think you're right that there is a problem when we have a law that can't be enforced; I'm not sure which needs to change, though, the law or the enforcement.

I'm also not certain what evidence the jurors saw or what specific issues they weighed when making the decision. As you pointed out earlier with Huckleman, it's tempting to see one's own beliefs in the decision, but it's very difficult really to know why it was made. I hope that at some point transcripts of the trial might be made public; then perhaps we will know more, although I suppose that we will never know what we said in the actual deliberations.

I will probably just have to content myself with asking questions i have no answer to and darkening my soul a little by hoping he comes down with some horrible, intensly painful and slow acting degenerative disease. One so that every moment is agony and he gets to look forward to years of it before it eventually kills him. In that eventualyity, i might actually agree a life sentence was more fitting than death.

*nuzzle* It's still a beautiful soul. And I suppose that ultimately, that is where I look for justice - to the soul, and to things after death. There, I think, all meet judgement according to their natures. It gives me a little more peace for the failings of human justice.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Bumped to preserve discussion

 

[Boota]

It will cost less to allow him to rot in that tiny little cell for 23 hours a day until he dies than it will to grant him all his appeals, whether he wants them or not. Bullets are cheap, but that's not how we do things.

Living in the supermax facility he is going to will be far worse than death, if he survives long enough to really suffer. He declared that he "won". I bet in about six months he won't feel like he won anything.

Don't get me wrong. I am pro death penalty. But there are things worse than death. His crime merits a sentence worse than death if you ask me. That supermax he's going to is Hell on Earth. He gets to die in obscurity rather than being a call to arms for his fellow terrorists.

You cannot possibly kill this guy enough to make up for what he did. If at some point we can revive criminals from death and kill them over and over again the death penalty in a case like this will be the way to go.

 

[3113]

*bump* (escaping crazy n-word posts)

 

[Liar]

Slight disagreement here: It's the MUSLIM world, which includes Iran and Pakistan and Indonesia and those in other countries too.

Standing corrected.

 

[WyoD_S]

When I first heard the sentance on the radio I about drove off the road because I was so stunned.

As others have said, if what he did doesn't warrant the death penalty, what does?

I'll supply the bullet and the gun.

After I place said bullet in his brain, just give me the 75 grand or so each year for the remainder of what would have been his natural life.

 

[Guest]

When I first heard the sentance on the radio I about drove off the road because I was so stunned.

As others have said, if what he did doesn't warrant the death penalty, what does?

I'll supply the bullet and the gun.

After I place said bullet in his brain, just give me the 75 grand or so each year for the remainder of what would have been his natural life.

Wouldn't it cost more to go through the entire appeal process before they executed him?

I, too, was stunned with the verdict, and am attempting to understand.

But I did read a quote from his mother who said:

"We die once, but now he is going to die little by little. This is terrible, this is terrible, for a mother this is terrible", she said. Moussaoui's mother added: "Now he is going to die in little doses. He is going to live like a rat in a hole. What for? They are so cruel."

http://www.eitb24.com/portal/eitb24...mId=D29368&cl=/eitb24/internacional&idioma=en

So perhaps this is the best punishment for this man. He has lost everything, and in essence, will be shut away from the rest of the world forever. No voice, no hope, no - whatever.

They may wish to use him as a martyr, but they'll never be able to broadcast a video.