moussaoui attempts guilty plea

[Thomas Paul]

Your analogy needs to be corrected. While your buddy is laying on the ground, the police come up to him and arrest him for carrying a gun. They ask him what he was doing with the gun. Did he plan on shooting anyone? He says nothing. Later, the police find proof that the man was going to participate in the crime. He is as guilty as his friends. He is a murderer. He had the opportunity to stop a crime and instead protected his friends to allow the murder to take place. He is morally and legally a murderer.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <JustSomeGuy>:
Let me give you a simple example for your simple mind.

If you can't play nice then you will be banned. Understood?

[Jason Menard]

Ah yes, once again easy to hurl insults playing anonymous, eh?
Your train of "logic" is boggling. He's responsible that people died, but not to the point where he caused their deaths you are stating. The situation is not comparable to Hitler you say, because whereas Moussaoui intended to kill people, he didn't personally kill anyone. Of course does it matter that this statement also holds for Hitler, who intended to kill people but also don't personally kill anyone?
Your example bears little relevance to the case at hand. I will respond anyway. All five men would be responsible for the deaths of the four clerks who were killed. Four of the men would most likely be charged with one count of murder each for the clerks that they killed individually, and all five would probably be charged with five counts each of conspiracy to commit murder. If the state they were being tried in had something comparable to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3591(a)(2), then they could be sentenced to death.
What is puzzling is that you are unable to see a moral equivalence between actively facilitating somebodies death and physically bringing it about. The law has no such ambivalence. While the federal law does have different charges for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, the federal law also finds that they are legally equivalent acts when death results, as can clearly be seen by even the layman if they actually bother to read the appropriate titles and sections of US Code.
I'm wondering if you have actually been following the Moussaoui case, or if you stop after the headlines, much like you seem to only be reading the first few lines of any post here.
Let me try to make things a little clearer. I would direct you to three documents: the indictment, the notice of intent to seek a sentence of death, and Title 18, Part II, Chapter 228, Sections 3591, 3592, and 3593 of the US Code.
The indictment spells out the specific acts and how they resulted in the deaths of thousands:

• Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries
• Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy
• Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft
• Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees
• Conspiracy to Destroy Property of the United States


Legal equivalency to murder is established in the notice of intent to seek a sentence of death.


I. Statutory Threshold Findings Enumerated in 18 U.S.C. � 3591(a)(2)(C) & (D):
The Government will seek to prove the following threshold findings as the basis for imposition of the death penalty in relation to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment:
The defendant, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, intentionally participated in an act, contemplating that the life of a person would be taken or intending that lethal force would be used in connection with a person, other than one of the participants in the offense, and the victims died as a direct result of the act. Section 3591(a)(2)(C)
The defendant, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, intentionally and specifically engaged in an act of violence, knowing that the act created a grave risk of death to a person, other than one of the participants in the offense, such that participation in the act constituted a reckless disregard for human life and the victims died as a direct result of the act. Section 3591(a)(2)(D).
II. Statutory Aggravating Factors Enumerated under 18 U.S.C. � 3592(c)(1) through (16):
The Government will seek to prove the following statutory aggravating factors as the basis for imposition of the death penalty in relation to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment:
In committing the offenses described in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four, defendant ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI knowingly created a grave risk of death to one or more persons in addition to the victims of the offense. Section 3592(c)(5).
The defendant, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, committed the offenses described in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four in an especially heinous, cruel, and depraved manner in that they involved torture and serious physical abuse to the victims. Section 3592(c)(6).
The defendant, ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI, committed the offenses described in Counts One, Two, Three, and Four after substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person and commit an act of terrorism. Section 3592(c)(9).
III. Other Non-Statutory Aggravating Factors Identified under 18 U.S.C. � 3593(a) and (c):
The Government will seek to prove the following non-statutory aggravating factors as the basis for imposition of the death penalty in relation to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment:
...


So is he charged with murder? No, and I never claimed he was. Does that mean he is not responsible for the murders of thousands? Obviously not. The penalty for his actions is no different than if he were to have flown one of the planes himself as he probably intended. So there is a very clear legal equivalence. Whether or not there is a moral equivalence is up to each individual (assuming they have morals) to decide for themselves. I and everyone else here who has weighed in on the topic, except for yourself, seems to see no moral difference in the person who physically commits the act of murder and the person whose willful actions knowingly facilitate the act of murder. You apparently do not draw this moral equivalence, which is fine, but you don't need to throw a tantrum and start hurling insults because I (along with the US government and many here apparently) don't happen to agree with you.
[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jim Yingst]

[Most of this was composed just after JustAnotherGuy's last post - no time to update it further right now.]
[Sigh.] Enough with the petty namecalling already. Sheesh! You're arguing semantics - some people (as well as the pertinent laws in this case, I think) have a more expansive definition of "kill" which would include participation in planning and organization, even without participation in the execution. Some people use a more restricted, straightforward definition. Calling each other "stupid" isn't going to resolve anything, and calling your opponent a liar is particularly foolish here. As you know I'm often a big fan of arguments over semantics, but it's a really silly distraction in this case. Whether you choose to call it is not so important here - what's relevant is from a legal standpoint, what charges are appropriate? Murder? Conspiracy to commit murder? The term used by the man on the street is irrelevant here. And from legal and/or moral standpoints, what punishment is appropriate?
I can understand objecting to execution if you're against the death penalty under any circumstances. (I don't agree, but I can understand where you're coming from.) But I'm wondering, is there anyone in this discussion who is not opposed to the death penalty in at least some cases, but who does oppose it in this case? If so, why? If not, we can move on to an area where there is disagreement.
[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Yingst ]

[Anonymous]

My argument is not that the fact that he did not PHYSICALLY kill anyone (I hope you will agree with that, if not then I guess this is just hopeless) makes him any less guilty. You said,
"What is puzzling is that you are unable to see a moral equivalence between actively facilitating somebodies death and physically bringing it about. The law has no such ambivalence. While the federal law does have different charges for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, the federal law also finds that they are legally equivalent acts when death results, as can clearly be seen by even the layman if they actually bother to read the appropriate titles and sections of US Code."
Exactly! The federal law DOES HAVE different charges (they may carry equivalent punshiment but that is besides the point). Mousaoui would be guitly of conspiracy to commit murder. Therefore, you are wrong.

[Jason Menard]

LOL. Some lyrics from Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Resturant come to mind about now.

We walked in, sat down, Obie came in with the twenty seven eight-by-ten
colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,
and Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he
sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows
and a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.
And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,
'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the
judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy
pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each
one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.

Just call me Obie. Nice dog you have, btw.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
LOL. Some lyrics from Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Resturant come to mind about now.

Just call me Obie. Nice dog you have, btw.

Ok buddy, if it makes you feel good I'll leave it at that for you.

Infact, its probably better for you to look up lyrics instead of trying to have a serious discussion- wouldnt want to hurt your brain.
I'm done now.

[Jason Menard]

Serious discussion? You have long since proved incapable of that, and your cowering behind anonymity only further emphasizes your inability ot carry on any tupe of serious discussion. Many points have been made by different posters, even supported by facts and evidence, and you have not really responded to any of them, nor even been able to counter them.
You have instead chosen to make personal attacks in the belief that you are anonymous and try to make your point (whatever that may be) through insults instead of through issues. You are no longer even arguing the issues.

Therefore, you are wrong.

I mean really, are you like twelve or something?
[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Anonymous]

Jason, here are the six charges that Moussaoui is facing, in no particular order:
1. conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism
2. aircraft piracy
3. aircraft destruction
4. using weapons of mass destruction
5. attempting to murder government employees
6. attempting to destroy property
Look very closely at those six. Read those over and over to yourself. Murder is not one of those charges. All six of those have a maximum penalty of death by execution, but he is not being charged with murder, because he DID NOT murder anyone.
The fact that you can not comprehend this means that you are obviously not worthy or capable of having a "serious discussion".

[Anonymous]

I was kidding. I also want this guy dead! Sorry for my long stupid posts!

[Anonymous]

I didn't make last two posts!

[Anonymous]

I didn't make the last two post either!

[Anonymous]

Come on, you didn't make the last three post!

[Stu Glassman]

Looks like someone's got an identity crisis.
Or is he just following the Rules of Persuasion?

[Anonymous]

Jason and his online buddies are really mature.
And funny too.

[Jim Yingst]

You know, it's really simple to register an account to prevent this sort of thing. If you're afraid to use your real name, just make up something that sounds like it could be a real name.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
You know, it's really simple to register an account to prevent this sort of thing. If you're afraid to use your real name, just make up something that sounds like it could be a real name.

Jim, I understand it is easy to register an account. To be honest, originally, I did not even plan on posting so much, so I didn't register a name. Furthermore, it doesn't even have to do with using my real name. I just don't understand why I would register a name when I can post anyway. And perhaps Jason is telling his buddies about this funny little trick where he just posted as someone he was arguing with. And they probably think it is very funny. Personally, I don't mind. It doesn't upset me if someone has the bright idea to post with the same name I'm using. So Jason is having the time of his life, I am fine with it; it's a win-win situation you see. So that, Jim, is why I don't bother registering a name.
Perhaps I will later. Right now, I'm happy being the guy without a name.

[Cindy Glass]

You know, Jason did NOT post all those.

[Mapraputa Is]

Interesting. I was recently thinking about it. I read your first post and frankly, did not find anything really bad in it. If you posted it under some decent-looking name, perhaps the whole fight wouldn't happen. Unfortunatly, we have long history here when most (I am cautios not to say "all") anonymous posts were inflammatory, Anti-American, or just plain stupid (sorry for thats), or all this together. You may ask "what all this has to do with MY posts?" - and formally you're right: nothing. Just a preconception. Perhaps this forum is different from many other on the Internet where JustSomeGuy is a typical name. Here it is normal to use your real name, or at least some constant nickname so we would know whom we are talking to. This place is always full of impish people ready to have some fun at the expense of unregistered posters - if some account can be hijacked, it will be hijacked. All Jason needs to do is to wait
---------------------
"Firstly, 6 * 9 = 42"
JavaRanch. "A puzzle for trigonometry fans".

[Anonymous]

Jim, Forget what I said; I was Drunk!

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by <GuyWithoutAName>:
Jim, Forget what I said; I was Drunk!

Another privilege for registered users: you can delete your posts. So next time after some drinks ... as a fully fledged registered user ... you can delete your post the morning after. What about that?
[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, you said WHAT!?
(Hic!)

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Stu Glassman:
Or is he just following the Rules of Persuasion?

[Stu Glassman]

I honestly can not see the point of this argument. Sure, you may disagree on what Moussaoui is actually guilty of, but I haven't noticed much disagreement about what the punishment should be. Mr. Multiple Personalities, do you disagree with executing Moussaoui, or do you just enjoy calling Jason stupid?
(Sure, it's fun and all, but still...)
-Stu

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <JustSomeGuy>:
Jason, here are the six charges that Moussaoui is facing, in no particular order:
1. conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism
2. aircraft piracy
3. aircraft destruction
4. using weapons of mass destruction
5. attempting to murder government employees
6. attempting to destroy property

Thank you for the information, but I had already posted this, along with the actual indictment. This leads me to conclude that what I have been saying all along is true, which is that you are not actually reading anything that people are posting here beyond the first few lines. That would certainly explain why you continue to try to address issues that have already been addressed numerous times.

Look very closely at those six. Read those over and over to yourself. Murder is not one of those charges. All six of those have a maximum penalty of death by execution, but he is not being charged with murder, because he DID NOT murder anyone.

Again, this has been addressed multiple times by myself and others, although not necessarily within the first few lines of a given post.
Assuming you have read to this point, here are some questions for you:
1. What label do you, anonymous guy, choose to give a person who is responsible for the murders of thousands of people? I am not interested in some legal definition, I am looking for some kind of personal opinion.
2. Do you believe that something is wrong only if there is a law against it? You could also consider the converse: is something right if there is no law against it?
3. In the absence of laws, what would guide you to label a particular action as unacceptable?
4. Do laws reflect morals, do morals reflect laws, is it somewhere in between (explain), or is it none of the above?
5. If different laws carry the same penalty when they are broken, does this imply that society views these acts as legally equivalent, morally equivalent, or something else?

[Anonymous]

"Thank you for the information, but I had already posted this, along with the actual indictment. This leads me to conclude that what I have been saying all along is true, which is that you are not actually reading anything that people are posting here beyond the first few lines. That would certainly explain why you continue to try to address issues that have already been addressed numerous times."
Well Jason, you obviously did not read your own posting, because if you posted that information and you actually read YOUR OWN information then you would not be trying to argue such a ridiculous point. I think you have realized this now and I congradulate you.
"1. What label do you, anonymous guy, choose to give a person who is responsible for the murders of thousands of people? I am not interested in some legal definition, I am looking for some kind of personal opinion."
Again, I congradulate you from moving away from the "legal stuff". Hmm.. label? I'd call him a terrorist. I'd definitely call him a criminal. Personal opinion, I wouldn't call him a murderer because he didn't murder anyone, just like I wouldn't call him a theif because he didn't steal anything- or if he did, I don't know about it. That is not to say he is not even WORSE than some murderer. There may be a murder who kills one person. This guy is definitely worse because he is responsible for the death of many innocent people.
"2. Do you believe that something is wrong only if there is a law against it? You could also consider the converse: is something right if there is no law against it?"
First answer: no
Second answer: no
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but based on your postings, I have come to the conclusion that most of the time you have no point.
"3. In the absence of laws, what would guide you to label a particular action as unacceptable?"
I think everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. As soon as it starts to cause harm to someone else it is unacceptable. Again your questions lack a point.
"4. Do laws reflect morals, do morals reflect laws, is it somewhere in between (explain), or is it none of the above?"
I think laws reflect morals.
"5. If different laws carry the same penalty when they are broken, does this imply that society views these acts as legally equivalent, morally equivalent, or something else?"
Your one question that has some relevance. Congradulations, 1 out of 5 isn't that bad!
If different laws carry the same penalty when they are broken, society does not view these as legally equivalent or morally equivalent.
Let's step back from this particular situation. Say you have a guy who beats his wife, we will call him Person A, and then you have a person who has been caught stealing valuable good, Person B. Let's say Person A has to spend n years in prison, and coincidentally, Person B, has stole exactly enough to earn n years in prison too. Jason, here is my question for you.
Is Person B a thief, a wife-beater, or both?
Is Person A a thief, a wife-beater, or both?
I hope you are sharp enough to see where I am going with this.
I would say, Person B is not a wife-beater, he is a thief. That does not mean I support thieves. I would say Person A is not a thief, he is a wife-beater. That does not mean I support beating one's significant other.
Is any of this getting through!??!

[Anonymous]

"congradulations" on what, your gratuation from spelling school??

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Interesting. I was recently thinking about it. I read your first post and frankly, did not find anything really bad in it. If you posted it under some decent-looking name, perhaps the whole fight wouldn't happen. Unfortunatly, we have long history here when most (I am cautios not to say "all") anonymous posts were inflammatory, Anti-American, or just plain stupid (sorry for thats), or all this together. You may ask "what all this has to do with MY posts?" - and formally you're right: nothing. Just a preconception. Perhaps this forum is different from many other on the Internet where JustSomeGuy is a typical name. Here it is normal to use your real name, or at least some constant nickname so we would know whom we are talking to. This place is always full of impish people ready to have some fun at the expense of unregistered posters - if some account can be hijacked, it will be hijacked. All Jason needs to do is to wait
---------------------
"Firstly, 6 * 9 = 42"
JavaRanch. "A puzzle for trigonometry fans".

Again, it does not bother me if some people on this forum have their fun by coming on as my name and posting something. It does not bother me if someone's idea of a good time is finding spelling errors in my post. If that is what they do for fun, then more power to them. Again, I don't mind and it's obviously very funny to them, so it's a win win situation.
We are having a discussion on this forum about Moussaoui. If someone is mad because I am using an anonymous name, and thinks it's funny to post as my name and say "I'm drunk!", well then, good for them. If they want to point out my spelling mistakes, good for them. In fact, I am horrible speller, so it's good for me too. I am not going to register a name, because I think it is quite obvious which posts are mine and which ones aren't and I will just ignore those whose lives center around the Java Ranch. Live and let live.

[Jason Menard]

If you had actually been reading the posts, you should have been able to determine the following:
1. I believe Moussaoui's actions are morally equivalent to the act of murder. I have also made it quite clear that I am very much aware of a legal difference in the charges of murder and conspiracy et al.
2. I believe the penalty applied to capital crimes means that the severity of the various capital offenses is roughly equal in the eyes of the law. In other words, the legal system views some level of equivalence between them. I have provided supporting evidence for this, although I doubt you actually read the links.
The following quotes of mine are provided as reference to support the above statements:

It is not a sufficient alibi against conspiracy or intent. ...
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. ...
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 would not consider somebody who kills ~3000 people somebody who just made an error and merely got sidetracked in society. ...
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. ...
Exactly what kind of punishment do you think somebody who kills ~3000 people deserves? ...
Hoping justice is carried out on mass murderers isn't exactly blatant disregard for human life. ...
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. ...
What is puzzling is that you are unable to see a moral equivalence between actively facilitating somebodies death and physically bringing it about. ...
While the federal law does have different charges for murder and conspiracy to commit murder, the federal law also finds that they are legally equivalent acts when death results, as can clearly be seen by even the layman if they actually bother to read the appropriate titles and sections of US Code. ...
The indictment spells out the specific acts and how they resulted in the deaths of thousands ...
Legal equivalency to murder is established in the notice of intent to seek a sentence of death. ...
So is he charged with murder? No, and I never claimed he was. Does that mean he is not responsible for the murders of thousands? Obviously not. ...
I and everyone else here who has weighed in on the topic, except for yourself, seems to see no moral difference in the person who physically commits the act of murder and the person whose willful actions knowingly facilitate the act of murder. ...

My stance has apparently been understood by everyone but yourself. You are apparently trying to argue that I believe he is guilty of murder under the law, despite the fact that the body of my words indicates otherwise. Given that I do not hold that position you are apparently ascribing to me, what exactly is it that you are arguing?
Now I cannot be responsible for your inability to reason and conduct yourself like an adult. But just as children deserve to be shown patience, I will continue to be patient with you.
If I have used words that are too big for you, or if I have made statements that would require you to use analytical thinking in order to recognize and draw readily apparent conclusions, I appologize. It is not right that I assume too much of you and your ability to reason and I shall try to refrain from doing so again.

[Anonymous]

"If I have used words that are too big for you, or if I have made statements that would require you to use analytical thinking in order to recognize and draw readily apparent conclusions, I appologize. It is not right that I assume too much of you and your ability to reason and I shall try to refrain from doing so again."
Jason, the sad thing is, you honestly believe that somewhere in your pointless ramblings you believe you had an intelligent point. But I will let you believe what you will now that you have, in your own way, admitted to your mistake. Congratulations (spell checker?).
I have read all your postings in their entirety, and I would not call any of them reasonable. With that being said, and you finally accepting that Moussaoui is not guilty of murder under the law, I will no longer read anymore of your childish postings. I guess your argument all this time has been, "Well, in my mind it's the same" and I guess that is fine and dandy. After all, the only people who may care are some of these people on the Java Ranch whose idea of a good time is posting as my name. If I knew that was your argument this whole time I would have stopped flattering you with an actual reasonable reply. But now that is exactly what I'm going to do. Right back to this if it makes you happy. I'll even do this for you, I'll read your childish "come-back" so you can tell yourself and your middle school buddies, "Ha! I really got him".
But for the future, my final bit of advice to you would be to read. Read books, read novels, read the newspaper. Start with Harry Potter if you have to. Reading is a wonderful thing.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <GuyWithoutAName>:
Well Jason, you obviously did not read your own posting, because if you posted that information and you actually read YOUR OWN information then you would not be trying to argue such a ridiculous point. I think you have realized this now and I congradulate you.

See my previous post regarding your mistaken views of my position.
Now the point of these questions was to see if you were able to take any moral position, or if you equated morals with laws. As I suspected, you do seem to lack an ability to take a moral stance on an issue.

"1. What label do you, anonymous guy, choose to give a person who is responsible for the murders of thousands of people? I am not interested in some legal definition, I am looking for some kind of personal opinion."
I wouldn't call him a murderer because he didn't murder anyone ...
... he is responsible for the death of many innocent people.

This question was designed to show whether or not you could see any moral simularity between physically murdering somebody and willfully facilitating the murder of somebody. While your statements are conflicting, overall it seems you cannot see a moral equivalence.

"2. Do you believe that something is wrong only if there is a law against it? You could also consider the converse: is something right if there is no law against it?"
First answer: no
Second answer: no
I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but based on your postings, I have come to the conclusion that most of the time you have no point.

Simply trying to get a read on your moral views, and what role the law played in your moral decision making.

"3. In the absence of laws, what would guide you to label a particular action as unacceptable?"
I think everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. As soon as it starts to cause harm to someone else it is unacceptable. Again your questions lack a point.

Hopefully you're beginning to get the idea of the line of questioning by now. I would ask though that isn't the point of any law to protect others from harm, even if the one they harm is themselves? This has little to do with Moussaoui however, it's more in line with the previous questions.

"4. Do laws reflect morals, do morals reflect laws, is it somewhere in between (explain), or is it none of the above?"
I think laws reflect morals.

What moral imperative is served by having speed limits, for example? What moral imperative is served by requiring foreign workers to hold special work permits in order to work here? What is the moral imperative that prevents me from unplugging life support from a gravely ill relative who is suffering? I would say morals are in conflict with the law in a case such as that.
So if you see laws as reflecting morals, I guess it isn't a stretch for you to see each individual law as being reflective of a particular moral? If this were the case then I suppose you could see a difference between murdering somebody and willfully facilitating the murder of somebody, since there are separate laws governing murder and conspiracy, there must be different moral imperatives that govern these acts, given that laws reflect morals?
Personally, I would say that in some cases and only in general, laws reflect morals. More precisely laws are simply the rules meant to protect them members of society, and some of these rules happen to coincide with morals commonly held in that society. However laws are not morals and somebody may be legally not guilty of something yet viewed as morally guilty of that same thing.

"5. If different laws carry the same penalty when they are broken, does this imply that society views these acts as legally equivalent, morally equivalent, or something else?"
Your one question that has some relevance. Congradulations, 1 out of 5 isn't that bad!
If different laws carry the same penalty when they are broken, society does not view these as legally equivalent or morally equivalent.

Society apparently views some equivalence between actions carrying a similar penalty. Federal law has decided that somebody who murders somebody has committed a crime that is equal in magnitude to somebody who has committed treason against their country, which is equal in magnitude to somebody who committs espionage, which is equal in magnitude to sombody who conspires to murder thousands of people who are then murdered.

Let's step back from this particular situation. Say you have a guy who beats his wife, we will call him Person A, and then you have a person who has been caught stealing valuable good, Person B. Let's say Person A has to spend n years in prison, and coincidentally, Person B, has stole exactly enough to earn n years in prison too. Jason, here is my question for you.
Is Person B a thief, a wife-beater, or both?
Is Person A a thief, a wife-beater, or both?

This is a faulty analogy. For one thing, this is completely hypothetical and you do not even know what the range of penalties for the two crimes are. Secondly, we have been discussing crimes that are legally similar. Particularly, we have been discussing violent crimes. Theft is not usually classified as a violent crime. However I will play along. The answer to both your questions is neither. There exists no legal simularites and no moral simularites with which I could answer in the affirmative to either question. I see no moral equivalence between theft and assaulting one's spouse. That being said, if they carry the same penalty, then in the eyes of the law the two crimes must be of equal magnitude.

I hope you are sharp enough to see where I am going with this.

Nowhere in particular it would seem...
[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <GuyWithoutAName>:
Jason, the sad thing is, you honestly believe that somewhere in your pointless ramblings you believe you had an intelligent point. But I will let you believe what you will now that you have, in your own way, admitted to your mistake.

I'm glad I was able to talk down to a level you could finally understand. It would be unfair not to note however that Thomas Paul had no problem following along as early as 07/24, OMAR KHAN had no problem understanding my position as demonstrated by his 07/25 posting, and Jim Yingst made it clear he understood my position on 07/25 as well. But with it now being the 29th here (and up where you are too btw), glad you are finally with the program.

But for the future, my final bit of advice to you would be to read. Read books, read novels, read the newspaper. Start with Harry Potter if you have to. Reading is a wonderful thing.

Hmmm... not sure what this has to do with anything. Must be more advice from the "Rules of Persuasion".
[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <GuyWithoutAName>:
This guy is definitely worse because he is responsible for the death of many innocent people.

A person who is responsible for the deaths of innocent people is a murderer. Period.

[Anonymous]

{{A person who is responsible for the deaths of innocent people is a murderer. Period.}}
Here is a hypothetical case. Country A bombs Country B under the pretext of Operation Umberella or some other equally silly sounding name.
There is a party going on and a pilot from A bombs the party. Obviously there are children atttending the party. But then there could be terrorists( or freedom fighters - one man's terrorist is always somebody else's freedom fighter) attending the party too .. so the pilot thinks.
The bomb kills all the children in the party along with some civilians.
Is the pilot a murderer?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Is the pilot a murderer?

No. Aside from the fact that we are talking about a combat mission undertaken during time of war, which means the charge of murder would not apply in a legal sense at least, murder requires deliberate intent. I see where you are going though and before you attempt to move in this direction I might suggest you do some reading on international laws concerning armed conflict. You might start with the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library.
If you are looking for a moral answer instead of a legal one, you might ask yourself whether or not you believe any warfare is moral. And given that legitimate combat between nations does occur, what is the moral implication of unintended civillian casualties in that context. That however would be more appropriate for another thread, and a bit off topic for this one.

[Anonymous]

After all these case prosecution and defense, one more thing just need to happen. That is, all hell must break loose. Must I just can't decide which side should win and which side should loose. But I think that's not important. The important thing is for the break loose period to prolong until the time when Jesus come again.

[Anonymous]

Yes, for the chaos period to prolong and for Moussaoui to save plenty of lives to redeem himself and for the judge to trade places with..............

[omar khan]

Originally posted by <slacker>:

The bomb kills all the children in the party along with some civilians.
Is the pilot a murderer?

According to Oxford Dictionary to murder means:
"to kill sb deliberately and illegally".
So -if we want to stick to the definitions" if the pilot did not kill the civilians deliberately and illegally it means that he is not a murderer.
Anyway -if one is a believer- he will have to report to the Almighty in any case, since commandment #6 states "Thou shalt not kill." and not "Thou shalt not kill unless you are a soldier in a battle and UN has given your Government mandate to wage war against terrorism"

[Jim Yingst]

commandment #6 states "Thou shalt not kill."
In the King James Version it does. But it seems to be generally agreed among modern scholars that the Hebrew word "ratsach", translated as "kill" in the KJV, is more properly translated as "murder". I.e. the sixth commandment is really "thou shalt not commit murder". Which seems to bring us full circle here... :roll:

[omar khan]

Originally posted by Jim Yingst:
Which seems to bring us full circle here... :roll: [/QB]

Great

Now the problem is what does it mean to "kill sb legally"?
Which law are we speaking about?
My head aches ...
... and I am going out of topic.