Depressing

[kendo1]

No, all is not lost, but me loving them is immaterial when it won't be accepted and is, in fact, an insult and a sting to their pride.

By whatever road, I would enjoy peace. However, we are not at a bargaining table right now, and me sending energy their way will only have it be twisted against me. When both sides cooperate, then we'll have cooperation. I'm willing to talk and understand, they are not.

Is this the right attitude to have? Are you sure 'they are not' ?
I think 'some are not' is probably more accurate.

There will be peace and understanding one day.
I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

Ken

 

[Recidiva]

Is this the right attitude to have? Are you sure 'they are not' ?
I think 'some are not' is probably more accurate.

There will be peace and understanding one day.
I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

Ken

Of course some are, which they are doing. The ones strapping bombs to themselves aren't using words as a communication medium for compromise. They're using them as a weapon.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Shrug. Kill him, grant him the martyrdom he seeks and set him up as an icon for other severely disturbed individuals.

Or leave him to rot in a cell forever and let him fade into obscurity like the useless slime he is.

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

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.

 

[impressive]

I think the long jail sentence is much better than the death penalty for this guy. If I was his warden I'd make sure to slip some pork into his meals everyday. And keep him in a round, windowless cell so he can't find Mecca.

And allow the other prisoners free reign on raping him. Especially if there are any big, mean, incarcerated Jews with an eye for a martyr.

But that's just me.

I'd prefer not to have to pay for his care & feeding for the rest of his life.

 

[Belegon]

the only thing I am cognizant of in not being disappointed in this sentancing is that he wanted death. It would have made him a martyr and more of a hero to those whose opinion he cares about...and he believes paradise is waiting for him.

I am sorry that he will not be put in general population save for the fact that he would not survive long enough to really be punished by it. I do feel that being made to be someones "bitch" and becoming a valuable commodity for sexual uses would be something he would hate enough that it would be punishment.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Is this the right attitude to have? Are you sure 'they are not' ?
I think 'some are not' is probably more accurate.

There will be peace and understanding one day.
I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

Ken

I fear the only peace you will see in the mideast is the peace of the grave.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Not to piss in the penal punchbowl, but Moussaoui didn't actually commit a terrorist act or kill anyone. By his own organization's admission, the guy was a nutjob who they didn't trust to be able to carry out a complex terrorist mission such as 9/11. That assessment seems to be borne out by his nonsensical behavior during the trial. What the jury was asked to put him to death for was withholding information from the FBI that MAY have helped to prevent the attacks from occurring. As 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser pointed out on Hardball yesterday, if the threshhold for seeking the death penalty is withholding information about the possible commission of an impending terrorist attack, there are several people in various government agencies that are culpable of criminal negligence, yet have not been held accountable.

BREITWEISER: Yes, I have to say two things really. No. 1, now that the Moussaoui penalty phase is over, I certainly hope that the information will be flowing freely to the American people. For four years, I and many other 9/11 family members have fought very hard to have information released go the public, information about governmental failures. We were always told that we couldn‘t have that information because it would harm Moussaoui‘s right to a fair trial.

Having said that, I would appreciate someone asking either Senator Biden or former Mayor Giuliani, if their standard for death is withholding information from the FBI that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks—how then are we excusing FBI agents Maltbie and Frasca, who were accused, or allegedly accused in the Moussaoui penalty phase itself, of being criminally negligent with regard to giving a FISA warrant. How would you explain George Tenet, who withheld information about two of the 9/11 hijackers for 18 months from the FBI—information that certainly would have gone a long way into preventing those attacks. And I‘d like to know, where are we drawing the line here, what is the threshold, and why are we not holding those types of people in our own government accountable?

Lock this Moussaoui nut away for life, and good riddance - but realize this has been nothing more than a show trial to try to satisfy the country's bloodlust for revenge. The actual 9/11 "mastermind", Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is in a secret prison somewhere. He will never be brought to a court of law in this or any country because he has been denied any lawful rights due suspects in legal procedings in the US and International courts of law, and in all likelihood been tortured in violation of US and International laws. He is incarcerated in an American-sponsored gulag.

Civilization depends on the rule of law, not the rule of men.

 

[R. Richard]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rgraham666
Shrug. Kill him, grant him the martyrdom he seeks and set him up as an icon for other severely disturbed individuals.

Or leave him to rot in a cell forever and let him fade into obscurity like the useless slime he is.

Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me.

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.

The problem is, alive the POS is a target. If a terrorist organization can kidnap someone of enough importance, maybe they can swap the captive for him. Dead, he is not a target.

 

[R. Richard]

Not to piss in the penal punchbowl, but Moussaoui didn't actually commit a terrorist act or kill anyone. By his own organization's admission, the guy was a nutjob who they didn't trust to be able to carry out a complex terrorist mission such as 9/11. That assessment seems to be borne out by his nonsensical behavior during the trial. What the jury was asked to put him to death for was withholding information from the FBI that MAY have helped to prevent the attacks from occurring. As 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser pointed out on Hardball yesterday, if the threshhold for seeking the death penalty is withholding information about the possible commission of an impending terrorist attack, there are several people in various government agencies that are culpable of criminal negligence, yet have not been held accountable.

The actual indictment of Moussaoui can be read at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

Moussaoui was NOT convicted of withholding information. Moussaoui was convicted of conspiracy, conspiracy that resulted in the deaths of many people. Read the indictment.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just to be a Devil's Advocate:

Does this reaction seem to be revenge?


More to the point, how is terrorism going to be stopped?
Making war does not solve the problem of terrorist attacks.
Diplomacy is far cheaper than war and generally works better too.

So, from the terrorists point of view, how will they be happy/ safe? What is it that they require that will stop the attrocities, from a diplomatic viewpoint?

In fifty years time will we look back at these times and wonder why we didn't do 'some such thing' before?

The Irish situation existed for roughly a century, but now things are looking up. Not through war/terrorism/ antiterrorism, but through diplomacy.

Surely this will happen in the Middle East too, eventually, if we can only find the way.

Ken

It is revenge, unquestionably. HOORAY FOR REVENGE!!

Letting him rot in jail for forty or fifty years until his miserable death might be better than making him a martyr. As for rape by other prisoners, I understand there is no communication between prisoners. He will spend the rest of his life in a 7 X 12 foot cell. Too bad they can't make it smaller.

As for terrorism, diplomacy can't stop it, at least in the current situation. The IRA was and is the military arm of a political party, and there was somebody to talk to. Here, there isn't.

Diplomacy is better, and nobody doubts that, but it doesn't always work. It sure flopped in December, 1941.

What would make the terrorists happy would, essentially, be everybody from the West killing themselves. Since that won't happen, they will never be satisfied.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...The problem is, alive the POS is a target. If a terrorist organization can kidnap someone of enough importance, maybe they can swap the captive for him. Dead, he is not a target.

All indications are that "they" aren't exactly mourning their loss to the cause.

How long has the "Blind Sheik" (or whoever that cleric in NY was called) been in prison? He was the guy involved in the first WTC bombing, and he had an actual following.

Moussaoui is cannon fodder to them. There are far more important leaders of terrorist organizations incarcerated all over the world - no Al Qaeda leader is going to risk a high-profile kidnapping operation to free this idiot. No Al Qaeda operative is going to risk themself over it either.

Get a grip.

 

[Guest]

.....

 

[Huckleman2000]

The actual indictment of Moussaoui can be read at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

Moussaoui was NOT convicted of withholding information. Moussaoui was convicted of conspiracy, conspiracy that resulted in the deaths of many people. Read the indictment.

An indictment isn't the same as a conviction, as I'm sure you realize.

As a matter of fact, the government charge of conspiracy in 9/11 was not proven to the jury's satisfaction. From the AP report: :

One of the jurors, who spoke with The Washington Post on condition of anonymity, said some members of the panel voted against execution because Moussaoui "wasn't necessarily part of the 9/11 operation." The juror called Moussaoui "a despicable character," someone who "mocks and taunts family members whose loved ones died," the newspaper reported.

A day earlier, the nine male and three female jurors could not unanimously agree to the government's demand for Moussaoui's execution. Their tally for or against death was not divulged.

They could not unanimously agree that Moussaoui, who was in jail in Minnesota on immigration charges, caused the nearly 3,000 deaths that day, and three believed he had only limited knowledge of the Sept. 11 plot - despite his dramatic courtroom testimony that he was to hijack a 747 jetliner that day and fly it into the White House.

And despite graphic images and sounds of the carnage and pain of Sept. 11 put into evidence, the jurors rejected the government's contentions that Moussaoui himself acted "in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner."

For a bit more commentary, try this piece, excerpted below.

The jury unanimously found two of three key aggravating factors to be true: that Moussaoui "knowingly created a grave risk of death" for innocent victims beyond just those who perished on Sept. 11, and that he committed his acts with "substantial planning." But in refusing to find what seemed the most obvious of the aggravating factors, that he "committed his crimes in an 'especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner'," or that Moussaoui—in jail on 9/11—was responsible for nearly 3,000 deaths, the jurors seemed to be acknowledging that while Moussaoui wanted 9/11 to happen, wanted many more innocents to die, and that he plotted and planned for a future 9/11, he wasn't sufficiently central to this particular plot to be credited, or killed, for its hideousness.

And that's the message we can also glean from the jury's findings of mitigating factors—revealing that three separate jurors believed Moussaoui had "limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans" and three believed he played a minor role.

In the end, the only real link between the acknowledged fact that Moussaoui was a terrorist who was willing to die in a suicide attack and the actual attacks of 9/11 existed in the minds of the prosecution. And, at the last minute, these links sprang to life in the fantasy world of the terrorist himself, who cooked up a strange Forrest Gump plot—starring himself and Richard Reid—that the judge herself considered to be hooey and that even the prosecutors didn't believe.

This case was about a conspiracy, about some factual connection, however attenuated, between Zacarias Moussaoui's jihadi heart and the events of 9/11. And although the government has steadfastly stood by its legal claim that it was enough for Moussaoui to have wanted to be on those planes on 9/11, enough for him to have delighted as those planes went down, the jurors recognized this afternoon that a conspiracy to aid in a terror plot requires more than just a bad heart, and more than mere willingness to participate in the next one.

For someone who is so quick to call for the death of another human, you show a remarkable willingness to ignore or forego the legal steps necessary to ensure that the execution is according to the laws of the nation.

We've had our day in court, and our Government failed to make its case.

 

[BlackShanglan]

The actual indictment of Moussaoui can be read at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

Moussaoui was NOT convicted of withholding information. Moussaoui was convicted of conspiracy, conspiracy that resulted in the deaths of many people. Read the indictment.

An indictment isn't the same as a conviction, as I'm sure you realize.

Yes, but I believe that R. Richard does have the right of this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/22/moussaoui.profile/index.html

I think the key element is the charges to which he pled guilty -

Guilty pleas related to the conspiracy behind September 11, 2001, closed a three-and-a-half-year prosecution Friday for the only person publicly charged in the United States in connection with the attacks.

Zacarias Moussaoui admitted to six counts of terrorism conspiracy in U.S. District Court.

-

although Moussaoui does seem either mentally uncertain or attempting to portray himself as such, as he then claimed, according to the article, that "nothing in the statement he signed declared he was 'specifically guilty of 9-11.'" Still, those are the charges to which he pled guilty.

I'm ambiguous on the "small fish" theory. Moussaoui had flight training at the same school as a number of other Al Queda operatives (despite pursuing no career in aviation); he was supported financially to the tune of over $10,000; he appears to have been in phone contact with a relative of one of the highjackers, or at least someone whose phone number was recovered from the wreckage of flight 93. There's much we'll never know about the evidence presented at that trial, but it seems to me that there's at least enough in the public realm to suggest more than a casual connection. He certainly appears to be no mastermind, but I don't think the trial without purpose or merit, or his behavior without reason for very substantial punishment.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yes, but I believe that R. Richard does have the right of this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/22/moussaoui.profile/index.html

I think the key element is the charges to which he pled guilty -



-

although Moussaoui does seem either mentally uncertain or attempting to portray himself as such, as he then claimed, according to the article, that "nothing in the statement he signed declared he was 'specifically guilty of 9-11.'" Still, those are the charges to which he pled guilty.

I'm ambiguous on the "small fish" theory. Moussaoui had flight training at the same school as a number of other Al Queda operatives (despite pursuing no career in aviation); he was supported financially to the tune of over $10,000; he appears to have been in phone contact with a relative of one of the highjackers, or at least someone whose phone number was recovered from the wreckage of flight 93. There's much we'll never know about the evidence presented at that trial, but it seems to me that there's at least enough in the public realm to suggest more than a casual connection. He certainly appears to be no mastermind, but I don't think the trial without purpose or merit, or his behavior without reason for very substantial punishment.

Shanglan

Unless I misunderstand, the guilty plea to consipracy makes him culpable in each of the 3000 plus deaths that day.

He should have had his guts torn out and set on fire while he watched. At the very least.

But there are people who are happy he didn't get death. Which is probably the way it will be in any captial case. I hope they sleep bvetter knowing he's alive while those he helped kill are gone. For my part, I'll have to deal with knowing he's still drawing breath, can still read a book, can still sleep and dream and jerk off and any of a million tiny things that are so much more than the sum of their parts in being alive.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Yes, but I believe that R. Richard does have the right of this one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/22/moussaoui.profile/index.html

I think the key element is the charges to which he pled guilty - ...

Shanglan

You're right - I should have said "capital conspiracy" or something like that. For it to be a capital crime, there are apparently three aggravating factors that have to be proven, and the jurors found the government proved only two of the three.

Moreover, the government's argument shifted over the course of the trial from one that said he was a participant in the 9/11 conspiracy to one that claimed he was culpable by his non-actions while in custody of the FBI (where he was on 9/11).

I'm not saying that he doesn't merit substantial punishment, or that he committed no crime. But I don't think that justice was denied in not putting him to death, and that's not a function of my opposition to capital punishment.

It just appears that the government overreached in its zeal to provide a cathartic trial for a public that wanted blood for blood. The judge was dubious of the death penalty very early on; the prosecution took extraordinary steps in reckless witness tampering. Except for the defendent's bizarre behavior and self-aggrandizing claims of his own importance, the government did not seem to have much of convincing substance.

While you may be dubious of the 'small fish' argument, the apparent truth is that we will never see the 'big fish' we have apprehended ever come to trial, due to the willing and sanctioned disregard of established laws in his incarceration thus far.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You're right - I should have said "capital conspiracy" or something like that. For it to be a capital crime, there are apparently three aggravating factors that have to be proven, and the jurors found the government proved only two of the three.

Moreover, the government's argument shifted over the course of the trial from one that said he was a participant in the 9/11 conspiracy to one that claimed he was culpable by his non-actions while in custody of the FBI (where he was on 9/11).

I'm not saying that he doesn't merit substantial punishment, or that he committed no crime. But I don't think that justice was denied in not putting him to death, and that's not a function of my opposition to capital punishment.

It just appears that the government overreached in its zeal to provide a cathartic trial for a public that wanted blood for blood. The judge was dubious of the death penalty very early on; the prosecution took extraordinary steps in reckless witness tampering. Except for the defendent's bizarre behavior and self-aggrandizing claims of his own importance, the government did not seem to have much of convincing substance.

While you may be dubious of the 'small fish' argument, the apparent truth is that we will never see the 'big fish' we have apprehended ever come to trial, due to the willing and sanctioned disregard of established laws in his incarceration thus far.

The prosecution didn't prove anything because he pled guilty. They couldn't present any evidence of his actual guilt or of what he did because he essentially asmitted to doing what he was accused of doing.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You're right - I should have said "capital conspiracy" or something like that. For it to be a capital crime, there are apparently three aggravating factors that have to be proven, and the jurors found the government proved only two of the three.

Moreover, the government's argument shifted over the course of the trial from one that said he was a participant in the 9/11 conspiracy to one that claimed he was culpable by his non-actions while in custody of the FBI (where he was on 9/11).

I'm not saying that he doesn't merit substantial punishment, or that he committed no crime. But I don't think that justice was denied in not putting him to death, and that's not a function of my opposition to capital punishment.

It just appears that the government overreached in its zeal to provide a cathartic trial for a public that wanted blood for blood. The judge was dubious of the death penalty very early on; the prosecution took extraordinary steps in reckless witness tampering. Except for the defendent's bizarre behavior and self-aggrandizing claims of his own importance, the government did not seem to have much of convincing substance.

While you may be dubious of the 'small fish' argument, the apparent truth is that we will never see the 'big fish' we have apprehended ever come to trial, due to the willing and sanctioned disregard of established laws in his incarceration thus far.

Personally Huck, I think this decision will strengthen the case made my the government that terrorists need to be treated under a different set of rules. You're anti-capital punisment and you're pleased with the outcome, but there are a fuck load of us who are not. And while it isn't reasoning I would personally buy into, the argument that is being made by the super hawks is that this is proof bringing them to trial is useless. All it takes is one liberal pansy and you can't get a unanimous verdict. I know a whole lot of people who will buy into that now that they have seen a man who pled gulty to conspiracy to kill all those people get off.

 

[Huckleman2000]

...
But there are people who are happy he didn't get death. Which is probably the way it will be in any captial case. I hope they sleep bvetter knowing he's alive while those he helped kill are gone. For my part, I'll have to deal with knowing he's still drawing breath, can still read a book, can still sleep and dream and jerk off and any of a million tiny things that are so much more than the sum of their parts in being alive.

Although you didn't accuse me of it, I'm not "happy" that he didn't get death. It gives me no solace regarding the loss of so many citizens of the world on 9/11. I hope that wherever the souls of the innocent victims are, they are in a better state than in a 9x12 cell, isolated from most human contact.

However, I do sleep better knowing that a jury, in the face of a nation's lust for vengeance, decided the case on its merits and not on its cathartic value.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Personally Huck, I think this decision will strengthen the case made my the government that terrorists need to be treated under a different set of rules. You're anti-capital punisment and you're pleased with the outcome, but there are a fuck load of us who are not. And while it isn't reasoning I would personally buy into, the argument that is being made by the super hawks is that this is proof bringing them to trial is useless. All it takes is one liberal pansy and you can't get a unanimous verdict. I know a whole lot of people who will buy into that now that they have seen a man who pled gulty to conspiracy to kill all those people get off.

I'm a very strong suporter of the death penalty too but I think this might be the best outcome. Instead of being a martyr, this scum rots in prison for a long time. I hope no bleeding hearts ever get him released. Besides, the jailers may be able to drug his food and get him to give up a lot of info. He is a rather small fish and probably doesn't really have much, but they might be able to tie other bits of info with it and learn a lot.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Although you didn't accuse me of it, I'm not "happy" that he didn't get death. It gives me no solace regarding the loss of so many citizens of the world on 9/11. I hope that wherever the souls of the innocent victims are, they are in a better state than in a 9x12 cell, isolated from most human contact.

However, I do sleep better knowing that a jury, in the face of a nation's lust for vengeance, decided the case on its merits and not on its cathartic value.

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.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

If this piece of shit didn't get the death penalty, what do we even have it for?[/QUOTE]

He will spend 23 hours of every day for the rest of his life locked in a cell with no windows. The door is soundproof, his meals will be passed to him through a double door system. He will basically have no interaction with another person. He will have a 13 inch black and white television that broadcasts only religous and educational programming.

I would welcome death before an existence like this. By giving him the death sentence you would have only turned him into a martyr....

 

[Huckleman2000]

Personally Huck, I think this decision will strengthen the case made my the government that terrorists need to be treated under a different set of rules. You're anti-capital punisment and you're pleased with the outcome, but there are a fuck load of us who are not. And while it isn't reasoning I would personally buy into, the argument that is being made by the super hawks is that this is proof bringing them to trial is useless. All it takes is one liberal pansy and you can't get a unanimous verdict. I know a whole lot of people who will buy into that now that they have seen a man who pled gulty to conspiracy to kill all those people get off.

Thanks, Colly. I didn't see this message before my last one.

I think you're probably very insightful in this. Or rather, I think you're very insightful, and probably right, though only time will tell.

I'm not exactly pleased with the outcome, though. My sense of schadenfreude is mostly limited to affliction of the powerful.

By accounts, it wasn't nearly unanimous on the last aggravating factor. Still, that's pretty much beside the point in a case as emotionally volitile as this one.

This is just one of those where I think I need to hold my nose, take a step back, and concentrate on the larger virtues of justice, freedoms, and the rule of law. And, when I do, I find that there are more targets for my sense of injustice than just this flea Moussaoui.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thanks, Colly. I didn't see this message before my last one.

I think you're probably very insightful in this. Or rather, I think you're very insightful, and probably right, though only time will tell.

I'm not exactly pleased with the outcome, though. My sense of schadenfreude is mostly limited to affliction of the powerful.

By accounts, it wasn't nearly unanimous on the last aggravating factor. Still, that's pretty much beside the point in a case as emotionally volitile as this one.

This is just one of those where I think I need to hold my nose, take a step back, and concentrate on the larger virtues of justice, freedoms, and the rule of law. And, when I do, I find that there are more targets for my sense of injustice than just this flea Moussaoui.

We're argueing on the fringe of something that presents a paradoxx. Neither you nor I am necissarily wrong and neither is neccisarily right. We can both be both wrong and right at once.

Your base assumption, based on your opposition to Cp is that any verdict of death is revenge instead of the rule of law. My base assumption is that death is the correct penalty in some cases. With opposite base assumptions, we are constrained to find antictical outcomes correct.

I would like to say here, for clarification, when I said you wre happy or pleased with the outcomes, I did not mean to imply that you felt he didn't deserve punishment et al. Merely that your anti-cp stance was upheld and thus you were pleased that revenge wasn't taken under the guise of the law.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm a very strong suporter of the death penalty too but I think this might be the best outcome. Instead of being a martyr, this scum rots in prison for a long time. I hope no bleeding hearts ever get him released. Besides, the jailers may be able to drug his food and get him to give up a lot of info. He is a rather small fish and probably doesn't really have much, but they might be able to tie other bits of info with it and learn a lot.

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?