moussaoui attempts guilty plea

[Randall Twede]

i guess AOL is occasionally good for something for people like me who dont watch the news on TV. i'm not sure if it is cultural difference or if this guy is just a moron. below is the story, you will see what i mean.
i am no terrorist lover, and i feel this person will always be a threat, but i find it hard to justify a death penalty for a conspirator who was in jail at the time the heinous crime took place.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (July 18) - Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged as a Sept. 11 conspirator, attempted to plead guilty Thursday to new federal charges that could bring him the death penalty. But the judge - in a rare bench ruling - insisted he take a week to think about it.
''I am a member of al-Qaida'' pledged to Osama bin Laden, Moussaoui told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who moments earlier had entered an innocent plea on his behalf to a third indictment. Shortly after that, Moussaoui tried to plead guilty.
After an arraignment in which Moussaoui often sparred with the judge, Brinkema insisted that Moussaoui think about his decision for a week. She scheduled a hearing for next Thursday.
''I don't need,'' Moussaoui said in response. ''I've been thinking about it for months.''
Moussaoui said, however, he wanted to fight the government's attempt to have him executed. The penalty phase normally would come after a guilty plea or conviction in a trial.
After Moussaoui mentioned bin Laden and ignored Brinkema's attempts to get him to stop talking, the judge said she would ask federal marshals to remove him from the courtroom. Moussaoui then raised both hands in a defensive position, and it never became necessary for the marshals to act.
The arraignment had been scheduled after the government on Tuesday obtained a third indictment against Moussaoui following a new Supreme Court ruling on the death penalty. The new indictment added allegations that would enable the government to seek the death penalty.
Charges were initially filed against him in December. In June, prosecutors dropped references to Moussaoui's interest in crop-dusting aircraft.
Moussaoui last December told Brinkema he had no plea and the judge entered a plea of innocent. After the June revision in the indictment, Moussaoui tried to plead ''no contest,'' but Brinkema again entered an innocent plea after explaining the term was the equivalent of pleading guilty.
The notion of a defendant representing himself and then pleading guilty is highly unusual. Defendants representing themselves usually do so because they do not trust outside lawyers or cannot get one to take the case.
Guilty pleas often work to a defendant's advantage, especially in cases where the death penalty is a possibility. A carefully negotiated guilty plea can take that possibility off the table. But there was no indication that Moussaoui has been negotiating with the government.
Moussaoui is the only individual charged in connection with the attacks. The original indictment accused him of plotting with the 19 hijackers and mimicking their conduct, including enrollment in flight schools. While government officials believe he was planning to be the 20th hijacker, Moussaoui was in custody on Sept. 11 on immigration violations.
Moussaoui at first tried to enter what he called ''a pure plea'' on Thursday. He said such a plea would enable him to make specific statements regarding his participation in a known terrorist group since 1995.
When Brinkema said he was confused, Moussaoui responded, ''I'm not confused, thank you.''
The judge then told him his only choices were: guilty, not guilty, or no contest, and she had ruled out the latter in a previous hearing.
Moussaoui told the judge, ''I don't have to take advice from you.''
Brinkema then said, ''I am therefore entering a not guilty plea on your behalf.''
Moussaoui responded that he was pleading guilty and the judge replied that she would give him a week to reconsider.
Moussaoui, who is acting as his own lawyer, sat alone in the middle of three seats at the defense table. And when he stood to speak at the lectern, facing the judge, two marshals stood directly in back of him and two others stood just a few feet away.
After entering the innocent plea on his behalf, Brinkema asked Moussaoui if he wanted her to set a new trial date to give him more time to prepare. Jury selection now is set to begin for Sept. 30.
Moussaoui said he wanted time to think about it, and the judge suggested that he should consult with court-appointed lawyers who remain in the case despite the judge's decision to let him represent himself.
''I don't have to consult with people who want to undermine my defense,'' said Moussaoui, who has accused the court-appointed lawyers of seeking to have him executed.
He told the judge, ''Stop this nonsense game you are playing here. I don't have to take advice from you regarding the way I defend myself.''
When the judge started to tell Moussaoui, ''All right,'' he told her in a mocking tone, ''Everything is all right. This is not justice.''
When she then told him to sit down, he mockingly said, ''Yes, yes have a seat.''
Shortly afterward, when the judge asked whether any attorney had additional issues to raise, Moussaoui put his hand up and said, ''Yes.''
''I want to plead today guilty because I want to save my life,'' Moussaoui said, adding as he has in numerous motions that he knows who committed the September attacks. He said the guilty plea would allow him to tell what he knows.
Brinkema warned him that if she accepted his guilty plea it could not be reversed. She then insisted over his objections that he think about it for a week.
The judge told Moussaoui that he could negotiate with the government a plea agreement that could avoid the death penalty. But she said she would have no role in those negotiations.
AP-NY-07-18-02 1754EDT

[Tony Alicea]

I saw it and don't believe him for a minute. He's only declared that he's a coward and after all doesn't want to die for his so-called cause.
He's just not that committed anymore and is setting (or trying to set) the trial for an appeal based on his lack of legal council.
The ideal, now that he has confessed loyalty to OBL, is that the government accepts his plea and then sentences him to death right and then. Because he's not, repeat NOT going to provide any true information.
He's playing the system and I admire the judge that is taking it slowly and giving him time.
The judge or maybe the government probably won't accept the plea. Not if it's supposed to spare his life.
And I believe he should be sentenced to death to show the other that they can be executed even for planning a mass murder like those that took place on Sept 11.
But he wasn't a planner, he WAS going to kill American children among others and as such he must die.
BTW, his buddies killed one of my few very best friends. I could kill Moussaoui myself.
This is WAR, not "normal" crime.
[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Tony Alicea ]

[Randall Twede]

tony,
im sorry for your loss. still, where does it stop? imagine you are in a bar one night with some friends from work. you are all upset because of the recent pay cut and you say we should kill them. the next day your friends blow up the main corporate office building. do you think you should be executed for that? last i heard, being in jail is a pretty good alibi.
[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Randall Twede ]

[Randall Twede]

dont get me wrong i dont like this guy either... i think if he was free he would do something evil...but i dont like the precedent it sets.

[Jason Menard]

jail is a pretty good alibi

Jail is a good alibi for not being on the planes to commit the crime. It is not a sufficient alibi against conspiracy or intent. IANAL, but I bleieve the intent to commit murder is a crime, regardless of the fact that you may have been prevented from carrying out your plans due to intervening circumstances.

[Thomas Paul]

The comparison to the drunken guy mouthing off with his friends is a bad one as well.
Imagine that you and your friends plan to blow up a school bus. You help your friends gather the explosives and plot the routes. You are all set to go when you are picked up by the police. You know exactly when it is going to happen but you keep your mouth shut. After your friends carry out the plan that you were involved with, do you really think that claiming you were in prison is going to get you off? Conspiracy to commit murder carries the same punishment as actually committing the murder.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
i am no terrorist lover, and i feel this person will always be a threat, but i find it hard to justify a death penalty for a conspirator who was in jail at the time the heinous crime took place.

In jail and knowing exactly when it was going to happen and still kept his mouth shut. The bastard should fry.

[Tony Alicea]

I can bring the coal... It's Summertime!

[Peter Kristensson]

I'm quite shocked here. Don't know what to write really.
Some people believe the death penalty is the solution for everything. It's quick, cheap, fair etc. etc. However, it isn't the solution for everything. It doesn't solve anything really.
I feel that the need for a (live) scapegoat is so huge that it really doesn't matter who the person is, or what kind of involvment he/she had in the events of sept. 11:th. Misunderstand me right here, I'm not saying this guy is innocent or anything like it, but executing him doesn't bring back the people that were killed in the events at WTC. It will just make him a(nother) martyr amongst the ranks of al-Qaida.
Point I'm trying to make here: death penalty is final, it might seem like a way to make up for heavy losses, but doesn't really do that. It's just a step backwards to the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" mentality, and that strikes me as both savage and inhumane. It makes the people who have been wronged just as bad as the perpertrator who made the error in the first place.
/Peter

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Peter Kristensson:
Some people believe the death penalty is the solution for everything. It's quick, cheap, fair etc. etc. However, it isn't the solution for everything. It doesn't solve anything really.

Judicial sentences are not meant to be solutions for anything, they are meant to serve as consequences for actions taken by the guilty person. Everybody going into the game has some idea ahead of time what the potential consequences are for any action they might take. Therefore the burden is on the guilty person, not the state.

I feel that the need for a (live) scapegoat is so huge that it really doesn't matter who the person is, or what kind of involvment he/she had in the events of sept. 11:th.

You are right in as much as it really doesn't matter what kind of involvement he had in the events. If he was involved at all he is an accessory to a few thousand counts of murder, air piracy, and several other charges, in addition to conspiracy with intent.

Misunderstand me right here, I'm not saying this guy is innocent or anything like it, but executing him doesn't bring back the people that were killed in the events at WTC.

Executing him isn't meant to bring back anyone. If he is guilty, death is the prescribed punishment. If he is guilty, he knew ahead of time what the consequences for his actions were, yet undertook those actions anyway. Now he is facing up to those consequences.

It will just make him a(nother) martyr amongst the ranks of al-Qaida.

I don't think we are concerned with how al-Quaeda views him. If he had his way he would have been a martyr on September 11th. Listening to his rantings in court, it only serves to point out how pathetic he is really. I wouldn't doubt that most of them are just like him.

Point I'm trying to make here: death penalty is final, it might seem like a way to make up for heavy losses, but doesn't really do that.

Again, any judicial penalty is not enacted to make up for anything. It is a consequence of a crime that serves to punish the offender.

It's just a step backwards to the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" mentality, and that strikes me as both savage and inhumane.

That seems to be the prevailing opinion in more enlightened parts of the world. :roll: Let me ask you this, is it savage or inhumane to put down a rabid dog?

It makes the people who have been wronged just as bad as the perpertrator who made the error in the first place.

Societies adopt laws and prescribe penalties for breaking these laws. In order for a society to function effectively, people must generally live within these laws. As the penalties are set out ahead of time, the responsibility for one's fate after breaking these laws rests on one's own shoulders.
That being said, I find it odd how someone might dismiss mass murder, or any other capital crime for that matter, as merely an "error" on the part of the perpetrator(s). I also find it an abnormal mindset that places the society (and therefore victims) who enact the penalty on the same level as the mass murder, or child rapist/killer, or perpetrator of any other capital crime.
While it may make me "savage and inhumane", I would rather focus my concern and sympathy on the victims, not the animals who committed the crimes. Their lives are rendered meaningless and forfeit by their actions, and I see no reason to waste a moment's sympathy on them.
[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Peter Kristensson:
Point I'm trying to make here: death penalty is final, it might seem like a way to make up for heavy losses, but doesn't really do that. It's just a step backwards to the old "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" mentality, and that strikes me as both savage and inhumane. It makes the people who have been wronged just as bad as the perpertrator who made the error in the first place.

I'm sorry but this absolute nonsense. People who are executed for crimes are given fair trials and then punished for their actions. Society has a right to exact just punishment against those who commit crimes. In this case the perpetrators "error" was to be involved in the planning of the murder of 2500 people. The point of the death penalty is not to "make up for heavy losses" but to provide a just punishment for evil acts.

[SJ Adnams]

10 youths walking down a street, 1 gets picked up by the cops for p*ssing in the street. The other 9 go on and loot a liquor store.
Is the 1 guy picked up earlier guilty of intent to rob?

[Peter Kristensson]

Posted by Jason Menard:
That seems to be the prevailing opinion in more enlightened parts of the world. Let me ask you this, is it savage or inhumane to put down a rabid dog?

I'm not very certain that the comparison with a rabid dog is entirely politically correct. This is after all a human being we're talking about.

Societies adopt laws and prescribe penalties for breaking these laws. In order for a society to function effectively, people must generally live within these laws. As the penalties are set out ahead of time, the responsibility for one's fate after breaking these laws rests on one's own shoulders.

I'm not saying that we should abolish all laws, or don't live by them. But the penalties involved should not only be for punishment, there is such a thing as rehabilitation. Many people get sidetracked in society and sometimes makes an error, but given the proper care and opportunity they can better themselves. Although this might not be the case with religious or political fanatics.

That being said, I find it odd how someone might dismiss mass murder, or any other capital crime for that matter, as merely an "error" on the part of the perpetrator(s). I also find it an abnormal mindset that places the society (and therefore victims) who enact the penalty on the same level as the mass murder, or child rapist/killer, or perpetrator of any other capital crime.

You might think I'm splitting hairs here, but in my opinion death penalty does in fact put you on the same level as the murderer. Consider the penalty for rape, should that be to rape the perpetrator?

While it may make me "savage and inhumane", I would rather focus my concern and sympathy on the victims, not the animals who committed the crimes. Their lives are rendered meaningless and forfeit by their actions, and I see no reason to waste a moment's sympathy on them.

You misunderstood me wrong there . I have very little sympathy for the people who carry out such act as the directed at NYC. But (and there is a but) the underlying motives should be considered, regarding American foreign politics and actions in the Afghanistan/Palestine/Israel areas, which in my opinion is the foundation for these acts.

[Stu Glassman]

Posted by Peter Kristensson:
I'm not very certain that the comparison [of a terrorist] with a rabid dog is entirely politically correct. This is after all a human being we're talking about.

Human being? I'm very tempted to disagree

But the penalties involved should not only be for punishment, there is such a thing as rehabilitation. Many people get sidetracked in society and sometimes makes an error, but given the proper care and opportunity they can better themselves.

Let's say that you're an employer, and one of your employees makes an error in a project. If the error is small, then you may just admonish him and have him fix the problem. But what if the error is large? At what point would you fire him?
The same reasoning applies to our justice system. I wish that every criminal would repent for his crimes. But still, whether I agree or disagree with the death penalty, some people deserve to never walk freely again.

You might think I'm splitting hairs here, but in my opinion death penalty does in fact put you on the same level as the murderer. Consider the penalty for rape, should that be to rape the perpetrator?

Both Jason and Thomas have shown how incorrect this gross generalization is. The death penalty is different from murder in two ways: the intent and the (excuse the pun) execution.
In murder, you kill a person (or many people) because of hate, convenience, or some other motive. In the death penalty, the citizens of a state decide to remove a person from the world permanently. Why? Because that person committed an act so horrible that he no longer deserves to exist. Our justice system takes every measure to ensure that the suspected perpetrator did commit the crime, and that all proceedings are as fair and impartial as possible.
Furthermore, how the killing is carried out matters a great deal. The methods used in the death penalty are nothing like the painful killings carried out by most of todays murderers. Proof of the fact that the death penalty is a system used to remove criminals, not to torture them.
-Stu

if(person instanceof Murderer)
    state.execute(person);

[Jim Yingst]

Well, I'm actually surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has while remaining mostly civil. I'd have expected to have to close the thread entirely by now, based on past experiences.
Instead, I have chosen to try to let it continue by pruning a few comments that I think would lead to an escalation of angry posts otherwise. (Which may well happen anyway, but let's see if we can avoid it.) This may seem heavy-handed or intrusive to some; sorry. I just think this will be better than some of the ugliness that's occurred in the past.
Specifically in this thread, I think that the conversation has some chance of remaining civil if we avoid (or are very careful about) general references to religion and mid-east politics. Is that actually possible here? Maybe. I left in once comment along these lines to try to address it directly. From Peter Kristensson:
But (and there is a but) the underlying motives should be considered, regarding American foreign politics and actions in the Afghanistan/Palestine/Israel areas, which in my opinion is the foundation for these acts.
Can we please not go in this direction? We know that there's some strong disagreement among posters here about these particular issues. I'd like to suggest that even for those who believe that the underlying cause may be just (or partly just, or remotely just, whatever) that this in no way would make the murder of thousands of innocents acceptable. Nor even should it suggest a lighter sentence for Moussaoui. (And my apologies if I'm misstating your point, Peter, but I'm trying to anticipate other responses here as well.) Regardless of whether you or other posters argree with me on this, I think that if people find it necessary to talk about the underlying political and religious motivations here, this thread will have to be closed sooner rather than later. Please proceed with caution. Thank you.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Peter Kristensson:
I'm not very certain that the comparison with a rabid dog is entirely politically correct. This is after all a human being we're talking about.

Political correctness serves little purpose in effective communication, and is in fact a tool used to rewrite history, but I digress. If anything though, the comparison was unfair to the dog. The rabid dog is an unthinking beast afflicted by circumstance and driven only by instinct. The same can't be said of the "human being".

But the penalties involved should not only be for punishment, there is such a thing as rehabilitation. Many people get sidetracked in society and sometimes makes an error, but given the proper care and opportunity they can better themselves.

I would not consider somebody who kills ~3000 people somebody who just made an error and merely got sidetracked in society. Recidivism rates show that rehabilitation is very unlikely in the best of circumstances. Rehabilitation is for those who will be let out into society again at some point. Society has determined that it does not want these people to ever be amongst the citizenry again. Therefore rehabilitation is a moot point in these cases. Further, nobody is really interested in whether or not the perpetrators of these crimes can "better themselves", "given the proper care". The sentence is not for the benefit of the guilty, it is for the good of society.

You might think I'm splitting hairs here, but in my opinion death penalty does in fact put you on the same level as the murderer. Consider the penalty for rape, should that be to rape the perpetrator?

For one thing, murder != rape, although rape certainly is a heinous crime. If you were to ask any murder victims or their families, I'm sure that given the choice, they would overwhelmingly choose rape to murder as the crime that was afflicted upon them. Of course, unlike most rape victims, you cannot ask the murder victims what their choice would be.
But if it is to put us on the same level as the murderers, then we might as well get some satisfaction out of a job well done and ensure that the soon-to-be-deceased undergoes hours or days of intense, excrutiating pain before finally being dispatched through the most brutal methods possible. But we do not do that, because there is a difference between killing somebody and murdering somebody.

I have very little sympathy for the people who carry out such act as the directed at NYC. But (and there is a but)...

That is the problem. There is never a but, as there are never justifiable excuses for such acts. I will, however, respect Jim's wishes and stay away from this line of discussion.
[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Peter Kristensson:
I'm not saying that we should abolish all laws, or don't live by them. But the penalties involved should not only be for punishment, there is such a thing as rehabilitation. Many people get sidetracked in society and sometimes makes an error, but given the proper care and opportunity they can better themselves. Although this might not be the case with religious or political fanatics.
You might think I'm splitting hairs here, but in my opinion death penalty does in fact put you on the same level as the murderer. Consider the penalty for rape, should that be to rape the perpetrator?

OK, you make two huge mistakes here.
First, the purpose of punishment is only partially to rehabilitate. The main purpose of punishment is to provide a just and lawful punishment. You do something wrong, you get punished. Criminals are not children that need to be taught that you don't take candy from a store. Criminals need to be shown that if you do something wrong you will be caught and punished. Criminals do not make "errors". Criminals commit crimes.
Second, you completely misunderstand the death penalty. It has NOTHING to do with inflicting the same punishment on a person based on their crime. It has everything to do with providing a just punishment based on a crime. Some crimes are so heinous that the person has proven that they no longer have the right to live in a just society.
[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Simon Lee:
10 youths walking down a street, 1 gets picked up by the cops for p*ssing in the street. The other 9 go on and loot a liquor store.
Is the 1 guy picked up earlier guilty of intent to rob?

If the guy who was picked up helped plan the robbery, acquired the gun, staked out the store where the robbery was to be committed then yes. And if the perpetrators murder the store owner then he is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.

[Randall Twede]

i do see now that my comparison with workers talking about killing their bosses was not the same thing. in that case you would have not known your friends were actually going to do it. this guy knew when it would happen and said nothing. i just hope it doesnt get to the point where you can be guilty just for mouthing off though.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Randall Twede:
i do see now that my comparison with workers talking about killing their bosses was not the same thing. in that case you would have not known your friends were actually going to do it. this guy knew when it would happen and said nothing. i just hope it doesnt get to the point where you can be guilty just for mouthing off though.

The law has two ways out of a conspiracy charge:
1) You were unaware that the other parties involved were seriously planning to go ahead with the crime.
2) You actively attempt to get out the conspiracy before the crime is committed.

[Jason Menard]

And since we are discussing the death penalty, if this is the guy who raped and murdered that little five year old girl in California that they now have in custody, then he is a poster child for circumstances in which the death penalty needs to be applied.
To quote his own mother, "Whoever committed that crime needs to be tied up to something and burned up alive. Because there is no human being who can do that. That person needs to be suffering."
Of course, maybe he just made an error and got sidetracked in society. :roll:
[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Rob Ross]

Punishment as a tool for affecting behavior rarely has the intended goal.
What motivates many people to "behave civily" is the threat of punishment, not the punishment itself. There are also more evolved people who don't commit crimes not because they will be punished if they do, but because they have a sense of morality that tells them "crime" is "wrong."
However, most people react very poorly to actually being punished. Think about your experiences as a child. If you misbehaved, you were likely to get punished in whatever manner your parents dealt with you. I can tell you I never once thought to myself "gee, thanks for that spanking, I really appreciate how you're trying to mold my moral character." I was instead very angry and resentful, but since I was physically weaker, I couldn't do anything about it. But, the next time I had an opportunity to misbehave, the threat of being punished again did have an impact (occasionally) on my decision making.
My point is that most people when they discuss issues of punishment don't have a realistic view of what it can accomplish in our society. There is no "rehabilitation" going on in prison; you may wish that to be the case, and when we all start living in Pretend Land that might happen. But since we don't live there, the reality is that prison is just a wherehouse full of people that you don't want living next door to you. And I don't have a problem with that.
What's wrong with removing dangerous people who can't function in a civilized manner to protect the rest of us who do? And when I speak of "removal", to me it makes little difference if you lock someone up for life, or kill them. In fact, I think that it's more cruel to cage a human being for the rest of their life than it is to "put them down" like you would a rabid dog. I personally have empathy for the rabid dog, and am sad that it must die, but if I don't kill it I am being morally irresponsible. So too with say child molesters, or serial killers, or people who kill or plan the killing of thousands of innocents.
Society has a moral obligation to protect itself from these people, and if that involves killing them, so be it.
In this particular case though, I would suggest we don't kill Moussaoui, not out of any sense that he could be "rehabilitated", but I think over time the government might extract some useful information from him. Believe me, you put someone in a cage for several years, with the majority of their contact with FBI agents who come to interview him on a regular basis, he will evolve a relationship with them over time, and facts will come out. For this reason alone I think it's in our best interests not to kill him, even though emotionally it might seem more "satisfying" to some people. But like I said above, punishment/revenge isn't a solution for anything.

[Paul Stevens]

If the guy is guilty Jason, I think putting him with the general prison population for a few months might take care of the problem.

[Stu Glassman]

Is it our responsibility to rehabilitate a criminal? In my opinion, the criminal must rehabilitate himself. All that we are required to do is to just lock him up for a while. Rehabilitation is impossible without the active participation of the rehabilitated--it would be a waste of time and money for us to try.
-Stu

[Anonymous]

Ok people, I am amazed at how we can all suddenly lose any respect for human life. I mean, I agree with the person that said the death penalty seems too extreme, but I'm in no position to argue that and I will not argue that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if the court sentences him to death, then I will agree with Justice System.
Anyone who let this many people die is without a doubt sick, and deserves punishment. Perhaps he deserves to be executed (depending on your personal beliefs about execution), but this whole situation is sad. Killing this man because it is the fair punishment is fine, but killing this man just because we are angry is wrong. Furthermore, no matter how bad this person is, I will not say "let the sucker fry" or "I'll bring the coals" and follow it with a smiley face. There is no smiley face in this situation.
I am sorry for your loss, but that type of blatant disregard for human life, ANY human life, is very dangerous. When we start getting to the point were we can so easily talk about killing a person and follow it with smiley faces is a very sad time.
I am sorry if this post in any way, shape or form can be misinterperted as me having sympathy for a man who is responsible for letting a great tragedy happen. I have no sympathy for him; if they decide that the chair is his appropriate punishment, so be it, but I just think it kinda sick to laugh and joke about someone being executed. It's not like anything good comes from it. Unfortunantly, it won't bring your loved ones back.

[Paul Stevens]

At least those you are being critical of, had the guts to post using their names.

[Tony Alicea]

"Unfortunately, it won't bring your loved ones back."
As someone previously explained, that is irrelevant and not the point.
The terrorists had fun killing us. So much is documented in the strip bar that some of them attended the night before.
And I disagree wholeheartedly with the statement that all human life is worth the same.
Most of it is, IMHO, but not all.

[Jason Menard]

Posted by some guy who didn't want to use his real name:
Ok people, I am amazed at how we can all suddenly lose any respect for human life.

Your characterizations of this thread are a bit off. For one thing, hoping this worthless bit of flesh receives justice is not by any means losing respect for all human life. Secondly, one offhand comment about firing up the barbie does not make for a thread full of joking about killing someone and having a grand old time diong it. I suggest you try reading the messages longer than one or two lines.
As far as this particular lunatic goes, he has admitted to the charges, and he has admitted he is al-Quaeda. Therefore, by his own admission, he is guilty. In that case, there is no reason whatsoever to have even the faintest amount of respect for his life or sympathy for him. Why should we? Hell if he had been in Afghanistan he would probably be buried under a pile of rubble in some hole in the side of a mountain right now with the many of his cronies. The world is a better place for every one of them we remove from the planet.

Anyone who let this many people die is without a doubt sick, and deserves punishment.

He's sick? So should we just give him medicine and treatment? And he deserevs punishment? Like what? A timeout? A spanking? Sent to bed without dinner? A harsh talking-to? Exactly what kind of punishment do you think somebody who kills ~3000 people deserves?

Killing this man because it is the fair punishment is fine, but killing this man just because we are angry is wrong.

Nobody is suggesting he be executed because we are angry. We are saying he should be executed because that is the penalty prescribed by law. Anger has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, no matter how bad this person is, I will not say "let the sucker fry" or "I'll bring the coals" and follow it with a smiley face.

Then by all means don't. Just sit back and bask in your moral superiority.

I am sorry for your loss, but that type of blatant disregard for human life, ANY human life, is very dangerous.

Hoping justice is carried out on mass murderers isn't exactly blatant disregard for human life.

I have no sympathy for him

Hmmm.... I wonder. You also do not seem to have an abundance of sympathy for the innocent men, women, and children whom he killed. Nor do you seem to have the appropriate sympathy for the husbands, wives, sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers whose loved ones didn't come home that day. I believe that if you were to truly try to experience the enormity of their loss for yourself, to feel it to the point where it were almost your own, then you would not have much problem accepting what needed to be done in order to ensure that other innocents do not suffer similarly at the hands of these monsters.

[Anonymous]

Jason, you are obviously too ignorant for a serious discussion, so I will not give you the honor.

[Thomas Paul]

I didn't see anything in Jason's post that I would characterize as "ignorant". Perhaps you need to reread his post.

[Anonymous]

Jason said:
"Exactly what kind of punishment do you think somebody who kills ~3000 people deserves?"
Is anyone besides Jason trying to argue that this guy killed ~3000 people? Perhaps he deserves to be executed for knowing, but I do not think anyone here believe Moussaoui killed 3000 people, besides Jason of course.
Either Jason is ignorant, confused, or just saying things that make absolutely no sense in an effort to create an atmosphere whereas you either believe this man should die, or you are a terrorist-lover who doesn't care about 3000 innocent lives lost.
I personally find it ignorant for Jason to accuse me of not having sympathy for the people who died in those attacks because I think joking about taking someones life is barbaric.

[Jason Menard]

Well, normally I try not to avail myself of the "honor" of attempting to hold a conversation with someone who doesn't take themselves seriously enough to post using their normal screen name. It takes mighty big ones to post pseudo-anonymously and insult those who aren't afraid to be associated with their beliefs I guess.

Originally posted by <JustSomeGuy>:
Is anyone besides Jason trying to argue that this guy killed ~3000 people? Perhaps he deserves to be executed for knowing, but I do not think anyone here believe Moussaoui killed 3000 people, besides Jason of course.

It is this kind of weak moral stance that allows one to see a difference between the person who pulls the trigger and the person who loads the bullets and hands him the gun.

Either Jason is ignorant, confused, or just saying things that make absolutely no sense in an effort to create an atmosphere whereas you either believe this man should die, or you are a terrorist-lover who doesn't care about 3000 innocent lives lost.

Actually none of the above (well I am ignorant about a great many things in life, but I guess we all are, exluding yourself of course). I simply don't pretend that an individual who helped plan and train for an act that resulted in the deaths of ~3000 people, and who apparently had all intentions of being on one of those planes, is any less guilty because of circumstances which kept him from getting on one of those planes. Equally guilty are the other al-Qaeda members and associates who participated in the planning as well as those who provided the funding or the means to make the operation a reality. I would tend to think the one who sees it any other way is the more ignorant and confused one, IMHO.

I personally find it ignorant for Jason to accuse me of not having sympathy for the people who died in those attacks because I think joking about taking someones life is barbaric.

Actually I never accused you of not having sympathy for those people. I stated that it seemed you did not have appropriate sympathy. There is a bit of a difference. And that statement had little to do with your holier-than-thou tirade over one five word comment out of this entire thread.
Go grab a Molson and relax content in the knowledge of your moral superiority over us barbarians.
[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It takes mighty big ones to post pseudo-anonymously and insult those who aren't afraid to be associated with their beliefs I guess.

Jason, you are right. And I guess it's pretty foolish of me too, since literally anyone can impersonate me. I don't know why I don't just create an account.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <JustSomeGuy>:
Is anyone besides Jason trying to argue that this guy killed ~3000 people? Perhaps he deserves to be executed for knowing, but I do not think anyone here believe Moussaoui killed 3000 people, besides Jason of course.

He knew when it was going to happen. He could have stopped it with a word. He wanted to participate and planned to participate in it. He wanted to give up his life to kill people. He is a conspirator to commit mass murder which makes him just as guilty.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
He knew when it was going to happen. He could have stopped it with a word. He wanted to participate and planned to participate in it. He wanted to give up his life to kill people. He is a conspirator to commit mass murder which makes him just as guilty.

That is not the issue. Yes, perhaps Moussaoui IS just as guilty, but there is no excuse for lying. The FACT is that Moussaoui DID NOT kill anyone. I am not defending him, I am simply stating a fact. Jason said (or at least implied) that Moussaoui killed 3000 people, which again shows he either doesn't know what he is talking about or simply just posts without thinking. I think it's a little bit of both.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <JustSomeGuy>:

That is not the issue. Yes, perhaps Moussaoui IS just as guilty, but there is no excuse for lying. The FACT is that Moussaoui DID NOT kill anyone. I am not defending him, I am simply stating a fact. Jason said (or at least implied) that Moussaoui killed 3000 people, which again shows he either doesn't know what he is talking about or simply just posts without thinking. I think it's a little bit of both.

In fact and under law, he did kill. He is as guilty as if he flew the plane into the buildings himself. Was Hitler a murderer?

[Jason Menard]

I don't think he comprehends the law. It seems that if someone did not physically commit an act then apparently there is no way they can be guilty of that act, regardless of their actual involvement. :roll:
Hitler was not a murderer, Hitler's deputies were not murderers, Stalin and his cronies were not murderers, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic arenot murderers, and Milosevic is not a murderer. We shouldn't be surprised since it seems we are living in a world these days where nobody is personally responsible for anything, other than the victims of course.

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I don't think he comprehends the law.

Jason, I am happy to agree with you on this.

I must say that, since I seldom agree with you (on politics of course)
If one belongs to a criminal group he/she is guilty of what the group committed IMHO, unless he decides to collaborate with justice and police.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I don't think he comprehends the law. It seems that if someone did not physically commit an act then apparently there is no way they can be guilty of that act, regardless of their actual involvement. :roll:
Hitler was not a murderer, Hitler's deputies were not murderers, Stalin and his cronies were not murderers, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic arenot murderers, and Milosevic is not a murderer. We shouldn't be surprised since it seems we are living in a world these days where nobody is personally responsible for anything, other than the victims of course.

I'm afraid you are the one having trouble comprehending. Moussaoui is responsible, but he did not kill 3000 people. This is different than Hitler, because Moussaoui knew and was going to kill people, but he did not. Let me give you a simple example for your simple mind.
Five guys are each going to walk into a different Circle K, kill the clerk and leave. On their way, one falls and breaks his leg. Now for some reason, the other four (thats subtraction 5 - 1 = 4), just leave him there and go on and each go to a Circle K and commit there crime. The question is did the one that fell and broke his leg kill someone? Think about it long and hard. Consult your buddies.
Just because Moussaoui DID NOT physically kill 3000 people, does not mean that he should go unpunished. He should be punished, and the court will decide his punishment. I think he should be severely punished. Arguing for the death penalty would be a much better argument for you Jason, rather than resorting to making up bogus claims. But Jason, try to think next time you post ridiculous information.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

In fact and under law, he did kill. He is as guilty as if he flew the plane into the buildings himself. Was Hitler a murderer?

This has nothing to do with Hitler and Stalin. Moussaoui was not a dictator and did not have that sort of power. Your analogy is weak.
So in the above hypothetical situation I have described, Thomas, would you say that the fifth guy was a murderer?
I'm afraid you two are trying to argue a stupid point just to make me seem like I am defending Moussaoui (at least I hope you guys are intelligent enough to know that this point you are trying to make is stupid). Personally I think he should be punished very severely. I do not think I am in any position to be a judge and give him his sentence, but he has admitted to knowing and letting all those innocent people die, and the fact is, he could have saved some 3000 people and he didn't. I am not sure I agree with the death penalty, in any case, (I go back and forth), and this certain case is a great argument for the death penalty, as is the one with the guy who killed that 5 year old girl. All I am saying is that we should know what we are talking about here, instead of making up blatant lies.