Full Version: Zacarias Moussaoui
Wow, it's been awhile, but I should be back to posting regularly here...Anyway here's the deal:
A federal jury found Zacarias Moussaoui [or Z-Moose, as he's affectionately referred as in lockup] eligible for the death penalty, citing at least one death that his lying to the FBI led to deaths on Sept. 11th. So my questions are:
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
I'll throw in my two cents later and my answer may surprise you...
CP
A federal jury found Zacarias Moussaoui [or Z-Moose, as he's affectionately referred as in lockup] eligible for the death penalty, citing at least one death that his lying to the FBI led to deaths on Sept. 11th. So my questions are:
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
I'll throw in my two cents later and my answer may surprise you...
CP
Here's an update:
Link
I am against the death penalty in all cases, so my answer to the question for debate is obvious. However, in order to avoid this side issue, let's assume that the question is something like this:
Is Zacarias Moussaoui legally eligible for the death penalty, under current US law?
The federal jury seems to think so, as noted above. As far as I can tell, this decision is based entirely on one question. Did Moussaoui's failure to provide truthful information to FBI agents lead to the death of at least one person in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? Apparently, the charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism are not the cause of his eligibility for the death penalty.
At this point, I need a legal expert to tell me if it is possible to be eligible for the death penalty because of an act of deliberate perjury which led to an act of murder. This is certainly a very serious and evil crime, with "malice aforethought;" but it is difficult for me to see this being treated by the law exactly in the same way as an act of first degree murder.
(I suspect, although I do not know, that the fact that this was an act of terrorism as well as murder tipped the balance for the jury. If Moussaoui had lied to the FBI about an "ordinary" first degree murder in the same way, would he still face the death penalty? I suspect not.)
Another factor which concerns me is whether or not Moussaoui is now telling the truth about his involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001, or if he is deliberately seeking the death penalty in order to be a martyr. There seems to be at least some doubt about this.
Link
Link
QUOTE
A federal jury found al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui eligible Monday to be executed, deciding that his lies to FBI agents led directly to at least one death in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The only person to face charges in this country in the nation's worst terrorist assault, Moussaoui now faces a second phase of his sentencing trial to determine if he actually will be put to death.
The only person to face charges in this country in the nation's worst terrorist assault, Moussaoui now faces a second phase of his sentencing trial to determine if he actually will be put to death.
I am against the death penalty in all cases, so my answer to the question for debate is obvious. However, in order to avoid this side issue, let's assume that the question is something like this:
Is Zacarias Moussaoui legally eligible for the death penalty, under current US law?
The federal jury seems to think so, as noted above. As far as I can tell, this decision is based entirely on one question. Did Moussaoui's failure to provide truthful information to FBI agents lead to the death of at least one person in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? Apparently, the charges of conspiracy to commit terrorism are not the cause of his eligibility for the death penalty.
At this point, I need a legal expert to tell me if it is possible to be eligible for the death penalty because of an act of deliberate perjury which led to an act of murder. This is certainly a very serious and evil crime, with "malice aforethought;" but it is difficult for me to see this being treated by the law exactly in the same way as an act of first degree murder.
(I suspect, although I do not know, that the fact that this was an act of terrorism as well as murder tipped the balance for the jury. If Moussaoui had lied to the FBI about an "ordinary" first degree murder in the same way, would he still face the death penalty? I suspect not.)
Another factor which concerns me is whether or not Moussaoui is now telling the truth about his involvement in the attacks of September 11, 2001, or if he is deliberately seeking the death penalty in order to be a martyr. There seems to be at least some doubt about this.
Link
QUOTE
By the time they delivered their closing arguments, prosecutors were in the unusual position of telling the jury that nothing Moussaoui had ever said, when he was arrested or when he confessed, could be believed. Only this week, they said, did he begin to tell the truth.
Moussaoui's own lawyer, on the other hand, insisted his story told from the witness stand was a fabrication. There never was to be a fifth plane hijacked on 9/11, and the government never found any evidence to suggest there was, much less that Moussaoui — who never had any contact with the 9/11 hijackers while they were in the U.S. — was to be any part of it.
"He was an al-Qaida hanger-on," said Moussaoui's court-appointed lawyer, Edward MacMahon. "His plan to fly a plane into the White House was nothing more than a dream."
Moussaoui's own lawyer, on the other hand, insisted his story told from the witness stand was a fabrication. There never was to be a fifth plane hijacked on 9/11, and the government never found any evidence to suggest there was, much less that Moussaoui — who never had any contact with the 9/11 hijackers while they were in the U.S. — was to be any part of it.
"He was an al-Qaida hanger-on," said Moussaoui's court-appointed lawyer, Edward MacMahon. "His plan to fly a plane into the White House was nothing more than a dream."
My answer may surprise many as well. I think Victoria summed up the situation quite well, including:
I also suspect this is the case, and I have the following problem with it--our laws should be consistent, and not swayed by the feelings or prejudices of the moment. While it might be politically expedient to apply the death penalty in this case, I do not think it is ultimately justified, legally. Either committing perjury leading to murder should be a capital crime, or it should not. The answer shouldn't vary according to political expediency. I also think the inconsistency would be noted by the Muslim world, and just lead to more ill will against us. For both reasons, I think it would probably be better to leave him in prison.
QUOTE
(I suspect, although I do not know, that the fact that this was an act of terrorism as well as murder tipped the balance for the jury. If Moussaoui had lied to the FBI about an "ordinary" first degree murder in the same way, would he still face the death penalty? I suspect not.)
I also suspect this is the case, and I have the following problem with it--our laws should be consistent, and not swayed by the feelings or prejudices of the moment. While it might be politically expedient to apply the death penalty in this case, I do not think it is ultimately justified, legally. Either committing perjury leading to murder should be a capital crime, or it should not. The answer shouldn't vary according to political expediency. I also think the inconsistency would be noted by the Muslim world, and just lead to more ill will against us. For both reasons, I think it would probably be better to leave him in prison.
Moussaoui can be sentenced to death for conspiracy to commit murder, at least that's my impression.
I have a slight problem with how this has been presented. It seems that Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, has been playing up his role in 9/11. Of course, I personally feel that many of the hijackers did not know the full plan for 9/11 until it was too late for them. My guess is that only the pilots knew what was going to happen and the others probably thought it was a simple hijacking.
Unlike others, I have no problem with the death penalty as a punishment. However, I do have a problem for killing someone for failing to act. If the government can prove he was conspiring to murder people then by all means strap him into Ol' Sparky. But failing to talk, considering that he was a low level operative and probably ignorant of the plan, seems a bit out of line.
I have a slight problem with how this has been presented. It seems that Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, has been playing up his role in 9/11. Of course, I personally feel that many of the hijackers did not know the full plan for 9/11 until it was too late for them. My guess is that only the pilots knew what was going to happen and the others probably thought it was a simple hijacking.
Unlike others, I have no problem with the death penalty as a punishment. However, I do have a problem for killing someone for failing to act. If the government can prove he was conspiring to murder people then by all means strap him into Ol' Sparky. But failing to talk, considering that he was a low level operative and probably ignorant of the plan, seems a bit out of line.
I believe it would be foolhardy to murder him. First of all, public-consumptionwise, the US is supposed to be the model civilised nation so killing a person is always a stain on that open record. Secondly, I think the US has done enough killings of Muslims around the world, and to create another martyr for other fanatics to emulate and look up to is asking for more US deaths down the road. The Muslim people the US kill and sometimes murder have really ignored aspecst of their lives. Most in the West don't think about it, if ever. We in the West call them 'relatives' and 'family members'. Most of them get kind of angry and beligerant and grow a dark heart of treachery when they see their brother or sister or mother or father or cousin or 5th cousin once removed murdered by a foreign army. Foreign not only of culture, but of skin as well. So no, this Moosowie character ought to live.
The US made a sad error though. That stun belt prejudiced the proceedings and no one should tolerate that. It makes it look like the US had to maintain control over his words, inflicting terrible pain should he say the wrong thing. If I'm prosecuting a guy, I'd make sure I didn't need coersion devices, that's for sure.
The US made a sad error though. That stun belt prejudiced the proceedings and no one should tolerate that. It makes it look like the US had to maintain control over his words, inflicting terrible pain should he say the wrong thing. If I'm prosecuting a guy, I'd make sure I didn't need coersion devices, that's for sure.
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Apr 3 2006, 04:39 PM)
Wow, it's been awhile, but I should be back to posting regularly here...Anyway here's the
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
Could he be? Yup, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if he does. Should he be? I think not.
My preference would be for him to get life on a chain gang working on a pig farm in Iowa . I think that execution will simply be viewed as martyrdom, so I don't want to give the "Religion of Peace" ™ any more incentives.
The death penalty would be proper under applicable federal law if: (1) ZM is involved in the commission of a certain enumerated federal crime, or crimes, and (2) his actions were done with the intent to kill and/or with extreme disregard for human life, and the victim[s] die as a "direct result of [his] act[s]."
It would be easier to impose the death penalty under the law of nearly all of the states having the death penalty, i.e., all that would be necessary would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a conspiracy and that before any legally-sufficient renunciation of such conspiracy, someone was murdered by a conspirator acting in pursuit of the conspiracy. The state would not normally need to show an agreement and/or plan that someone be murdered, only that a murder might be forseeable [i.e., you, I, and some others agree to rob that bank across the street but have no agreement and/or plan to kill anyone while doing so, however, a zealous bank security guard dares one of us to make his day, and one of us does, and now we are all eligible for the death penalty; you, I and some others agree to rob Bill Gates' home at night, thinking that he, his wife, and all others are out of town for the weekend and so no one is expected to be home and so we have no agreement and/or plan to do anyone bodily harm let alone kill them, but while we are in fact engaged in our rather felonious pursuits, Mr. Bill interrupts us, and you shoot him dead, and so now we are all eligible for the death penalty].
Should ZM receive the death penalty? Who knows? I don't know enough about ZM's case to make that call. However, if I were to assume that the requisite evidence was available to meet the applicable legal standard, well, the responsibility of the executive branch of government is to faithfully execute [no pun intended] the laws, and since we have this law providing for the death penalty upon requisite proof meeting the applicable legal standard...and, yes, I am aware that the prosecuting attorney normally has discretion re seeking imposition of the death penalty. However, ironically enough, for the reasons stated by some, there ought to be no discretion [so the lives of whites aren't saved while blacks are executed, for just one example], and so one either meets the standard in which case the sentence is death, or one does not meet the standard and so lives to commit another crime another day [owing to "our" rate of recidivism].
And, Victoria, recall what I said on that other thread. So now we have our proof of why we don't rely on the word of the accused, voluntary or otherwise, in order to (1) convict, and (2) sentence. As you can otherwise imagine, given your post, the man might have a reason to lie and ensure his own death, to wit, he'll be a martyr for Allah and will have guaranteed his place in, and enjoyment of, Paradise. From what I do know about this case, it seems to me that without ZM's own words, there is not the requisite evidence to meet the legal standard. But, of course, as is obvious, my morality has not yet been enshrined as our law, and so here we are...
Edited to add:
ZM pled guilty to conspiracy to murder United States employees. So as related, if this were a prosecution under state law [a state with the death penalty], sub in "conspiracy to commit murder" for "conspiracy to murder United States employees" and ZM has "earned" his way onto death row.
Edited again to add:
For federal crimes that might give rise to the death penalty:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL30962.pdf
It would be easier to impose the death penalty under the law of nearly all of the states having the death penalty, i.e., all that would be necessary would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a conspiracy and that before any legally-sufficient renunciation of such conspiracy, someone was murdered by a conspirator acting in pursuit of the conspiracy. The state would not normally need to show an agreement and/or plan that someone be murdered, only that a murder might be forseeable [i.e., you, I, and some others agree to rob that bank across the street but have no agreement and/or plan to kill anyone while doing so, however, a zealous bank security guard dares one of us to make his day, and one of us does, and now we are all eligible for the death penalty; you, I and some others agree to rob Bill Gates' home at night, thinking that he, his wife, and all others are out of town for the weekend and so no one is expected to be home and so we have no agreement and/or plan to do anyone bodily harm let alone kill them, but while we are in fact engaged in our rather felonious pursuits, Mr. Bill interrupts us, and you shoot him dead, and so now we are all eligible for the death penalty].
Should ZM receive the death penalty? Who knows? I don't know enough about ZM's case to make that call. However, if I were to assume that the requisite evidence was available to meet the applicable legal standard, well, the responsibility of the executive branch of government is to faithfully execute [no pun intended] the laws, and since we have this law providing for the death penalty upon requisite proof meeting the applicable legal standard...and, yes, I am aware that the prosecuting attorney normally has discretion re seeking imposition of the death penalty. However, ironically enough, for the reasons stated by some, there ought to be no discretion [so the lives of whites aren't saved while blacks are executed, for just one example], and so one either meets the standard in which case the sentence is death, or one does not meet the standard and so lives to commit another crime another day [owing to "our" rate of recidivism].
And, Victoria, recall what I said on that other thread. So now we have our proof of why we don't rely on the word of the accused, voluntary or otherwise, in order to (1) convict, and (2) sentence. As you can otherwise imagine, given your post, the man might have a reason to lie and ensure his own death, to wit, he'll be a martyr for Allah and will have guaranteed his place in, and enjoyment of, Paradise. From what I do know about this case, it seems to me that without ZM's own words, there is not the requisite evidence to meet the legal standard. But, of course, as is obvious, my morality has not yet been enshrined as our law, and so here we are...
Edited to add:
ZM pled guilty to conspiracy to murder United States employees. So as related, if this were a prosecution under state law [a state with the death penalty], sub in "conspiracy to commit murder" for "conspiracy to murder United States employees" and ZM has "earned" his way onto death row.
Edited again to add:
For federal crimes that might give rise to the death penalty:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL30962.pdf
i dont see why moussaoui deserves the death penalty. the whole case is based on "wat if's" if he'd told the truth so many ppl wudnt have died. but did HE kill them? its FBI's fault, THEY didnt do their job. the gov didnt pay attention to other warnings. now evryone wants to hide their faults n blame this guy who cant even understand english completely. they r using public's feelings to hide their mistakes. they know ppl r gonna be angry , they know ppl believe evrything media tells them, and they know ppl want revenge for wat happened on 9/11. if they balme this guy they will get out clean n an innocent man will die becuz he's an arab n "lied" abt something he didnt even know abt.
i dont think this case is valid at all. and surely he doesnt deserve the death penalty just becuz he lied while in police custody.
i dont think this case is valid at all. and surely he doesnt deserve the death penalty just becuz he lied while in police custody.
In answer to this question, it seems reasonable to have the prosecution show the remains of the bodies of the victims on Flight 93, or ask the surviving relatives if they ever got the remains of the people who were reported as being aboard Flight 93. If they cannot or will not do that, it really doesn't matter what the phone calls were and what they said, because it cannot be proven that they originated from the flight in the air.
The local coroner had no bodies or body parts to examine; there was a hole and scarcely anything else to see in that Pennsylvania field, other than debris that looked like it was just "dumped from the sky." I took that quotation from the documentary "Loose Change," q.v.
Why were there more body parts and spacecraft parts found from the Space Shuttle explosion than from Flight 93? Those were actually shown on the television.
I am against the death penalty, so I am against Moussaoui being sentenced to death. I believe that a pro-life stance encompasses even those lives that we do not approve of, that state or nationally-sanctioned killing is still killing. The fact that many of us think that justice is comprised of doing the very thing that the criminal has been found guilty of doing shows how justice is confused with vengeance.
And lest you think I am on the side of Islamic terrorists, think again.
The local coroner had no bodies or body parts to examine; there was a hole and scarcely anything else to see in that Pennsylvania field, other than debris that looked like it was just "dumped from the sky." I took that quotation from the documentary "Loose Change," q.v.
Why were there more body parts and spacecraft parts found from the Space Shuttle explosion than from Flight 93? Those were actually shown on the television.
I am against the death penalty, so I am against Moussaoui being sentenced to death. I believe that a pro-life stance encompasses even those lives that we do not approve of, that state or nationally-sanctioned killing is still killing. The fact that many of us think that justice is comprised of doing the very thing that the criminal has been found guilty of doing shows how justice is confused with vengeance.
And lest you think I am on the side of Islamic terrorists, think again.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Apr 13 2006, 02:58 AM)
In answer to this question, it seems reasonable to have the prosecution show the remains of the bodies of the victims on Flight 93, or ask the surviving relatives if they ever got the remains of the people who were reported as being aboard Flight 93. If they cannot or will not do that, it really doesn't matter what the phone calls were and what they said, because it cannot be proven that they originated from the flight in the air.
They did show photos of the victims.
QUOTE
Several photos showed badly burned bodies, facial features still discernible. Defense lawyers objected unsuccessfully to their display.
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth)
The local coroner had no bodies or body parts to examine
That isn't true.
To answer the question, no, I don't think that Moussaoui should receive the death penalty, though he is obviously a dangerous person who would love to kill every American he can get his hands on...at least according to his own words, and I see no reason to doubt them. We should keep him locked up good and tight. I was surprised that the jury voted him eligible for the death penalty in this case.
Thank you for those links, Mrs. P. I watched the KTVU.com video and there were, however, no bodies or body parts to be shown on the tape, but mostly debris and a pretty shallow hole without the customary length of the ditch that most downed flights leave in their path. I have seen film footage many times, on television, of the trenches in which the bodies of Nazi Holocaust victims were piled. The current news media doesn't seem to mind videotaping the bloody remains of suicide bomber victims in Iraq, so I figured there would be evidence of a pictorial nature for the "crash" of Flight 93.
From your other link:
However, the film footage shown and the reports given by the news media still do not jive with each other. Which was it--did the plane crash on its own, or did the Air Force shoot it down? Rumsfeld has alluded to the flight being shot down. They've been awfully quiet about it otherwise.
If the Air Force shot it down, the appearance of the crash scene would be more plausible. Then there would probably be only debris with few objects left in large pieces.
So why did the government lie about it?
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
That's the official version. But here, Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 being shot down,
Seems to have been a lot of "misspeaking" going on...
---------------------------------------------
But back to Zacarias Moussaoui and the death penalty:
Alice Hoagland, mother of one of the victims listed as having been on Flight 93, stated regarding a death sentence for this condemned man:
----------------------------------------------
I also noticed that, when questioned about listening to the entire Flight 93 tape, Ms. Hoagland stated:
Again, more secrecy, for what reason? I wish government leaders would stop treating us as if we can't handle the facts. I'll tell you--it's a lot easier to handle hearing the truth from the authorities than to try to glean it from other sources. And yes, there will always be other sources eager to fill in the gaps. And sometimes the truth (if not the whole truth) is stumbled upon by those other sources.
(I would invite you to view the Google video link, "Loose Change," in my previous post. Perhaps you might understand why I take a dim view of the explanations and scanty "evidence" that the government allowed the news media to show.)
From your other link:
QUOTE
Seven victims of the Sept. 11 United Airlines Flight 93 crash in Somerset County were positively identified over the weekend, bringing the number of identified bodies to 11.
But Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that additional identifications could take months. There were 44 passengers and crew members on the flight.
"We're in the process of notifying families," said Miller near the crash scene yesterday. "We're continuing the identification process as we speak."
<snip>
Four bodies had been identified as of Friday.
Miller would not name the victims, or say whether they were crew or passengers, saying his "No. 1 priority" was protecting the privacy of families.
"The identifications up to now were not [based on] DNA," said Miller. "The method now will be [to use] DNA [testing]."
<snip>
Most evidence from the site has been taken away, he said.
"Everything's been collected from the site that's going to be," he said.
The coroner also said he was working as hard as he could to return remains to family members.
According to what Coroner Miller said, there were remains. I stand corrected. Perhaps you will forgive me for distrusting the government and the media in light of the "intelligence failures" and obfuscations of the President and Vice President that have so predominated the news lately.But Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that additional identifications could take months. There were 44 passengers and crew members on the flight.
"We're in the process of notifying families," said Miller near the crash scene yesterday. "We're continuing the identification process as we speak."
<snip>
Four bodies had been identified as of Friday.
Miller would not name the victims, or say whether they were crew or passengers, saying his "No. 1 priority" was protecting the privacy of families.
"The identifications up to now were not [based on] DNA," said Miller. "The method now will be [to use] DNA [testing]."
<snip>
Most evidence from the site has been taken away, he said.
"Everything's been collected from the site that's going to be," he said.
The coroner also said he was working as hard as he could to return remains to family members.
However, the film footage shown and the reports given by the news media still do not jive with each other. Which was it--did the plane crash on its own, or did the Air Force shoot it down? Rumsfeld has alluded to the flight being shot down. They've been awfully quiet about it otherwise.
If the Air Force shot it down, the appearance of the crash scene would be more plausible. Then there would probably be only debris with few objects left in large pieces.
So why did the government lie about it?
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
QUOTE(excerpt from report)
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, "Pull it down! Pull it down!" The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them. The airplane headed down; the control wheel was turned hard to the right. The airplane rolled onto its back, and one of the hijackers began shouting "Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest." With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C.89
Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.
Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.
That's the official version. But here, Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 being shot down,
QUOTE(World Net Daily)
The Pentagon is dismissing a comment by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld regarding Flight 93 having been "shot down" over Pennsylvania, saying it was nothing more than a speaking error.
<snip>
"A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists," CNN reports.
Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.
<snip>
Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.
That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.
Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down. [emphases mine]
<snip>
"A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists," CNN reports.
Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.
<snip>
Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site.
That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C.
Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down. [emphases mine]
Seems to have been a lot of "misspeaking" going on...
---------------------------------------------
But back to Zacarias Moussaoui and the death penalty:
Alice Hoagland, mother of one of the victims listed as having been on Flight 93, stated regarding a death sentence for this condemned man:
QUOTE(KTVU interview)
Let us be better than he [Moussaoui] is. Let us demonstrate that we can transcend the hatred that he shows toward us.
This is a noble woman who is practical. She stated earlier in the interview that she knows Moussaoui would like nothing better than to die what he perceives to be a martyr's death. Rotting in a prison cell would be considerably less glamorous after a short time, nearly unbearable after a few years.----------------------------------------------
I also noticed that, when questioned about listening to the entire Flight 93 tape, Ms. Hoagland stated:
QUOTE(KTVU interview)
Well, I have heard the entire tape that the FBI chose to let us listen to. It seems to differ from what the 9/11 Commission heard...
<snip>
Our law enforcement has done a bungling job.
<snip>
Our law enforcement has done a bungling job.
Again, more secrecy, for what reason? I wish government leaders would stop treating us as if we can't handle the facts. I'll tell you--it's a lot easier to handle hearing the truth from the authorities than to try to glean it from other sources. And yes, there will always be other sources eager to fill in the gaps. And sometimes the truth (if not the whole truth) is stumbled upon by those other sources.
(I would invite you to view the Google video link, "Loose Change," in my previous post. Perhaps you might understand why I take a dim view of the explanations and scanty "evidence" that the government allowed the news media to show.)
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
Well, it's cheaper to imprison the guy. That should appeal to financial conservatives. Killing him is what he wants, so going against his desire should appeal to social conservatives.
Otherwise, killing him is simply revenge of sorts, being as he did not actually do anything. Conspiracy isn't a capital offense, but it is a felony worthy of lengthy prison terms. This ought to appeal to libertarian conservatives.
So what would a liberal do? Prison time, hands down. Make the guy grovel before parol boards now and then, and turn him down every time. Let him experience prison in all its grand inhumanity and degeneration, one of the little hells that we build here on Earth. Let's see if he is clever enough to survive, which I doubt.
Well, it's cheaper to imprison the guy. That should appeal to financial conservatives. Killing him is what he wants, so going against his desire should appeal to social conservatives.
Otherwise, killing him is simply revenge of sorts, being as he did not actually do anything. Conspiracy isn't a capital offense, but it is a felony worthy of lengthy prison terms. This ought to appeal to libertarian conservatives.
So what would a liberal do? Prison time, hands down. Make the guy grovel before parol boards now and then, and turn him down every time. Let him experience prison in all its grand inhumanity and degeneration, one of the little hells that we build here on Earth. Let's see if he is clever enough to survive, which I doubt.
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
Well, i'd fair to guess that the death penalty is precisely what he's hoping for, as Martyrdom is what any Al Quidaman dreams off. As soon as hes dead, he expects to be greeted by 70 virgins, and two parallel rivers, one of milk, one of honey (I don't get why the rivers are so great, but they perceptually are...).
Being an atheist, I enter this debate on the premise that there is no after life. Therefore, if he dies, I think he'll simply cease to exist. No heaven, no hell, no nothing.
Working from that premise, there are two things we can do with him: Wipe him out (no pain, no joy), or throw him in the click. Ostensibly the latter action would be the worse of the two options for his wellbeing, as he'd sleep on steel, eat grimy food, work on license plates, and sit in solitary confinement, for the remainder of his days. But I have a feeling he could be happy (due to his self-perceived connection with god) even under those conditions. If so, then such a punishment may be undesirable, from the eyes of anyone desiring revenge.
I personally say to kill him, as that will please more people then it will displease.
Well, i'd fair to guess that the death penalty is precisely what he's hoping for, as Martyrdom is what any Al Quidaman dreams off. As soon as hes dead, he expects to be greeted by 70 virgins, and two parallel rivers, one of milk, one of honey (I don't get why the rivers are so great, but they perceptually are...).
Being an atheist, I enter this debate on the premise that there is no after life. Therefore, if he dies, I think he'll simply cease to exist. No heaven, no hell, no nothing.
Working from that premise, there are two things we can do with him: Wipe him out (no pain, no joy), or throw him in the click. Ostensibly the latter action would be the worse of the two options for his wellbeing, as he'd sleep on steel, eat grimy food, work on license plates, and sit in solitary confinement, for the remainder of his days. But I have a feeling he could be happy (due to his self-perceived connection with god) even under those conditions. If so, then such a punishment may be undesirable, from the eyes of anyone desiring revenge.
I personally say to kill him, as that will please more people then it will displease.
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Apr 15 2006, 12:34 PM)
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
Well, i'd fair to guess that the death penalty is precisely what he's hoping for, as Martyrdom is what any Al Quidaman dreams off. As soon as hes dead, he expects to be greeted by 70 virgins, and two parallel rivers, one of milk, one of honey (I don't get why the rivers are so great, but they perceptually are...).
Being an atheist, I enter this debate on the premise that there is no after life. Therefore, if he dies, I think he'll simply cease to exist. No heaven, no hell, no nothing.
Working from that premise, there are two things we can do with him: Wipe him out (no pain, no joy), or throw him in the click. Ostensibly the latter action would be the worse of the two options for his wellbeing, as he'd sleep on steel, eat grimy food, work on license plates, and sit in solitary confinement, for the remainder of his days. But I have a feeling he could be happy (due to his self-perceived connection with god) even under those conditions. If so, then such a punishment may be undesirable, from the eyes of anyone desiring revenge.
I personally say to kill him, as that will please more people then it will displease.
I agree with most of what you said, except your conclusion. Though it might please more than it would displease to put him to death, the purpose of the penalty is not to give vengeance to the victims or those who sympathize with the victims. The purpose is to persuade like minded members of his group to curtail taking actions similar to his. For terrorists of the Islamicist flavor, they're only encouraged by the death of their jihadists. I'd say keep them alive if at all possible. It keeps them from serving the movement as martyrs.
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty?
No. Lock him up forever.
Point of info.: My opinion/post is not influenced by the "Religion of Peace™,” real or imagined repercussions from the "Religion of Peace™,” or an excuse to quip at the "Religion of Peace’s™” expense.
Why not?
Moussaoui has been pimped as the sacrificial lamb that can atone for the actions of the 19 hijackers by the DoJ from Day One. Like most high-profile criminal cases with one exception I’ll mention later, the feds believe Moussaoui can bring closure to the families of victims. I don’t know how the feds know Moussaoui’s blood will bring the families past the trauma. Perhaps they take secret polls.
Moussaoui likely wouldn’t be eligible for the death sentence under state law. Federal law (conspiracy charge v. self-incrimination) is—let that eagle soar!—more fuzzy.
Follow up link: What You Won’t Say Can Kill You
That exception is Eric Robert Rudolph who, unlike Moussaoui, didn’t think about bombing an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing a police officer and maiming a nurse, didn’t think about rigging an explosive device at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta that went off at the wrong time, killing one woman and injuring 100 people, and didn’t think about bombing a gay bar. The current DoJ cut a deal with Rudolph instead of seeking the death penalty. He does have something in common with Moussaoui—they’re both unrepentant.
No. Lock him up forever.
Point of info.: My opinion/post is not influenced by the "Religion of Peace™,” real or imagined repercussions from the "Religion of Peace™,” or an excuse to quip at the "Religion of Peace’s™” expense.
Why not?
Moussaoui has been pimped as the sacrificial lamb that can atone for the actions of the 19 hijackers by the DoJ from Day One. Like most high-profile criminal cases with one exception I’ll mention later, the feds believe Moussaoui can bring closure to the families of victims. I don’t know how the feds know Moussaoui’s blood will bring the families past the trauma. Perhaps they take secret polls.
Moussaoui likely wouldn’t be eligible for the death sentence under state law. Federal law (conspiracy charge v. self-incrimination) is—let that eagle soar!—more fuzzy.
QUOTE(Slate)
In short, to get the death penalty here, the government has some burden to prove that Moussaoui's collusion with the hijackers really did lead to 9/11, and not just that he was involved in some vague conspiracy to do bad stuff with them. This is very hard to do. In fact, it would appear that while Moussaoui was in some vague association with the hijackers that was supposed to lead to some terrorist acts, he may not have had much of anything to do with the specific 9/11 attacks. Now recall that under conventional state law this would not be a problem for the government. Terrorist violence may have been within the scope of the aim of the conspiracy or was certainly a foreseeable byproduct of whatever Moussaoui did clearly play a role in—i.e., developing the terrorist network.
But under these strange federal criminal statutes, the government has to prove something more: this thing called "direct result."
So if it can't show that deaths occurred as a direct result of Moussaoui's actions, what then? Apparently the government has shifted the burden of proof back onto Moussaoui, now arguing that once he got involved in the big conspiracy and was on notice that some of his cohorts might at some point fly some planes into some New York buildings, he had some duty to stop them. In other words, goes the theory, he caused the crashes by not stopping them when he had a duty to stop them.
Now this is a very strong moral argument. But it's a lousy legal argument. It stretches federal criminal law into uncharted and perhaps unfounded territory. Some might even argue that it implicates Moussaoui's Fifth Amendment rights—can it really have been a capital crime for him not to incriminate himself?
You cannot listen to the prosecution's increasingly strange theory of causation without recognizing that they have somehow imported what sounds like medical malpractice analysis into this federal criminal trial. Where but in this death-penalty proceeding would you witness the odd spectacle of defense and prosecution arguing over whether Moussaoui was 8 percent or 11 percent responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers, and whether the government (through its negligent investigation of this and other leads) was 12 percent or 19 percent responsible? This isn't how federal criminal conspiracy law works. It's not really how criminal law works at all.
If Judge Brinkema really does take the death penalty off the table today in the wake of egregious procedural mistakes made by the government side, a lot of angry people will protest that Moussaoui was allowed to live because of a legal technicality. But the government's creation of a quasi-tortious new federal crime of "failure to disclose criminal conspiracy leading to decreased probability of plot-foiling" was the real, substantive problem with this trial, almost from the outset.
- Causation Inflation
But under these strange federal criminal statutes, the government has to prove something more: this thing called "direct result."
So if it can't show that deaths occurred as a direct result of Moussaoui's actions, what then? Apparently the government has shifted the burden of proof back onto Moussaoui, now arguing that once he got involved in the big conspiracy and was on notice that some of his cohorts might at some point fly some planes into some New York buildings, he had some duty to stop them. In other words, goes the theory, he caused the crashes by not stopping them when he had a duty to stop them.
Now this is a very strong moral argument. But it's a lousy legal argument. It stretches federal criminal law into uncharted and perhaps unfounded territory. Some might even argue that it implicates Moussaoui's Fifth Amendment rights—can it really have been a capital crime for him not to incriminate himself?
You cannot listen to the prosecution's increasingly strange theory of causation without recognizing that they have somehow imported what sounds like medical malpractice analysis into this federal criminal trial. Where but in this death-penalty proceeding would you witness the odd spectacle of defense and prosecution arguing over whether Moussaoui was 8 percent or 11 percent responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers, and whether the government (through its negligent investigation of this and other leads) was 12 percent or 19 percent responsible? This isn't how federal criminal conspiracy law works. It's not really how criminal law works at all.
If Judge Brinkema really does take the death penalty off the table today in the wake of egregious procedural mistakes made by the government side, a lot of angry people will protest that Moussaoui was allowed to live because of a legal technicality. But the government's creation of a quasi-tortious new federal crime of "failure to disclose criminal conspiracy leading to decreased probability of plot-foiling" was the real, substantive problem with this trial, almost from the outset.
- Causation Inflation
Follow up link: What You Won’t Say Can Kill You
That exception is Eric Robert Rudolph who, unlike Moussaoui, didn’t think about bombing an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, killing a police officer and maiming a nurse, didn’t think about rigging an explosive device at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta that went off at the wrong time, killing one woman and injuring 100 people, and didn’t think about bombing a gay bar. The current DoJ cut a deal with Rudolph instead of seeking the death penalty. He does have something in common with Moussaoui—they’re both unrepentant.
Update
I just got an e-mail from The Washington Post. Moussaoui did not get the death penalty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=email
I just got an e-mail from The Washington Post. Moussaoui did not get the death penalty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/?referrer=email
The jury made the sensible decision. This man wants so badly to be a martyr for the cause--it made no sense to give him what he wants. Life in prison will give him plenty of time to think about what he was involved in supposedly for his god. He will come to envy those who died at the hands of the murderers on September 11, 2001.
A lifetime of solitary confinement with no possibility of parole is a fine, fitting and appropriate finish to the pathetic life of Zacarias Moussaoui. The release of a death penalty is a mercy he does not deserve.
Let him rot in jail with his fanatical hatred and the ghosts of 3,000 innocents slowly pulling him deeper into the bowels of his rancid insanity. Let him pass from the consciousness of the world forever.
Do I feel bad for Zacarias Moussaoui? Do you feel bad when you flush the toliet?
Let him rot in jail with his fanatical hatred and the ghosts of 3,000 innocents slowly pulling him deeper into the bowels of his rancid insanity. Let him pass from the consciousness of the world forever.
Do I feel bad for Zacarias Moussaoui? Do you feel bad when you flush the toliet?
Just caught some video on the cell this guy will have. It's small, underground, has a closed circuit TV that shows anger management, religion, self-help shows. He stays there 23 hours each day, all alone, and has 1 hour of solitary exercise.
It's the SuperMax in Colorado, where the nastiest of the nasties get to spend life.
Death would be a release from this condition.
The only sorrowful feeling I have is that he is probably working off half a deck. He also didn't kill anyone. History will be kinder to him than we can be. I can't feel any glee about this because he isn't OBL. He is OBL's surrogate.
It's the SuperMax in Colorado, where the nastiest of the nasties get to spend life.
Death would be a release from this condition.
The only sorrowful feeling I have is that he is probably working off half a deck. He also didn't kill anyone. History will be kinder to him than we can be. I can't feel any glee about this because he isn't OBL. He is OBL's surrogate.
QUOTE(Yogurt @ Apr 4 2006, 12:02 PM)
QUOTE(ConservPat @ Apr 3 2006, 04:39 PM)
Wow, it's been awhile, but I should be back to posting regularly here...Anyway here's the
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
Could he be? Yup, and I wouldn't lose any sleep if he does. Should he be? I think not.
My preference would be for him to get life on a chain gang working on a pig farm in Iowa . I think that execution will simply be viewed as martyrdom, so I don't want to give the "Religion of Peace" ™ any more incentives.
Nice thinking. I agree with you. Death is too simple a solution for him. That would be his easy way out. He would probably embrace his death with joy in his heart thinking he was going to his reward in the afterlife. A lifetime of misery, hard labor, and solitary confinement seems like the right way to go.
Should Moussaoui receive the death penalty [I'm assuming everyone thinks he's guilty]? Why or why not?
I'll put my 2 cents in, event though the trial is already over. If this man did have knowledge of 9/11 before it happened, Moussaoui would have walked into a Mosque and bragged about it in front of the whole congregation. That's how incredibly stupid that man is. So I'm not sure if he's guilty or not.
Moussaoui should definately do hard time and then be released under condition that he be under strict supervision. Since I don't believe he killed anyone or had forehand knowledge of 9/11, I believe that life without parole may be too strict on him. But he should do some hard time for training with Al Qaida and preparing to do terrorist acts.
I'll put my 2 cents in, event though the trial is already over. If this man did have knowledge of 9/11 before it happened, Moussaoui would have walked into a Mosque and bragged about it in front of the whole congregation. That's how incredibly stupid that man is. So I'm not sure if he's guilty or not.
Moussaoui should definately do hard time and then be released under condition that he be under strict supervision. Since I don't believe he killed anyone or had forehand knowledge of 9/11, I believe that life without parole may be too strict on him. But he should do some hard time for training with Al Qaida and preparing to do terrorist acts.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.