Someone help me understand something. Zacarias Moussaoui has pleaded Guilty for his complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He has admitted he took an active part in killing 3,000 innocent American men, women, and children. He wants to die.
What is the problem?
I couldn't find this story on the front page of AOL News. Nor did I find it in the Drudge report. I was looking for it because I heard a short blurb about it on the radio news. Eventually, I found it on Newsmax.
Why was I looking for this story in particular? It all goes back to why I started blogging in the first place. I hear things in the news occasionally that make me say, "What the....?" This is such a story.
I don't personally like Newsmax very much because they are as right wing as the New York Slimes is left wing, and I want impartial news if I can find it. But, since Newsmax got the story from the AP, I suppose it is pretty accurate. Not that it matters much, in this case. For what it's worth, I have copied and pasted part of the story here:
ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial dealt a serious blow to the government's death-penalty case Tuesday, barring roughly half of the prosecutors' key witnesses because a federal lawyer improperly coached several of them on their testimony.
U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected a Moussaoui defense request that she go further and dismiss the government's death-penalty bid for the al-Qaida conspirator outright. She put off resumption of the trial until Monday to give the government a chance to appeal.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said the ruling was being reviewed. While not addressing the likelihood of overturning it, she added that "it is important to remember" Moussaoui has pleaded guilty and at a minimum will be imprisoned for life with no chance of release.
Testimony from the barred witnesses was to make up about half of the government's case, prosecutors have said.
Brinkema imposed the sanctions after being informed that a lawyer in the federal Transportation Security Administration, Carla Martin, had urged seven witnesses from the Federal Aviation Administration to read trial transcripts and had prepared them for certain questions on cross-examination.
You can read more here if you are so inclined.
So, I ask again. What is the problem? He is guilty. The penalty for murder during commission of an act of terrorism is death. To further cement his fate, he has done some things that are intended to prejudice the court against him, including shouting in court, "Allah curse America. Bless Osama bin-Laden". That quote may be inaccurate since I am quoting him from memory, but it's close enough. You get the idea.
So why should the coaching of some witnesses make a difference?
Ok. I know there are legalities. I know there are proper rules of jurisprudence involved here. I know there are some who would insist that he has rights. But personally, I don't care about his rights. This animal deserves death and everyone knows it.
He didn't much care about his victims rights.
Actually, I am torn on the issue of whether to execute him or sentence him to life imprisonment without parole. On one hand, I think possibly we should keep him imprisoned the rest of his life. Then he would have to wait for his 72 virgins. That couldn't be a pleasant prospect for him. It would almost be torture.
On the other hand, we know there will be no 72 virgins on the other side. So maybe we should allow him to go there and see for himself how wrong he was. Yes, I think that is preferable.
I still remember Lone Ranger saying it might be a good idea to set up a video camera at the gates of Hell so we could see the expressions on the faces of those who find themselves entering, when all the time they thought they were doing God's work here on earth. I'm sure a video camera at the gates of Hell would make a great deterrent to terrorism.
I don't know about a camera at the gates of Hell. I think it would be better to position it where we could get a close up of the terrorists faces when they hear the words, "Depart from me, I never knew you."
10 comments:
You asked "what is the problem"?......The answer is one simple statement.
"THE STENCH FROM THE BENCH IS MAKING ME CLENCH!" - Michael Savage
It's that simple.
Mark, you know we try to put a video camera on what is happening, and we are coming really close in the effort.
I think they just have a problem sentencing anyone to death that asks for it, b/c the question of that person's mental stability comes up then( they think that no sane person would ask to die and therefore that person falls under that loop-hole of the courts not being able to sentence an insane person to death)
I personally would rather see him sentenced to life in prison where he can be beaten and raped daily, rather than let him off easy and sentence him to die.
(Just my unsolicited opinion) ;-)
Hell would be much worse than any torture endured on earth. He wants to go and we need to give him a first class ticket.
I have a problem believing that anyone who had a part in the 9/11 attacks was sane in the first place.
I amazed by the apparent willingness to forgive on the part of some people. I guess God needs to soften my heart toward terrorists.
I posted on this as well a couple of days ago.
In my mind life in prison isn't enough. No one wants to sit in prison for life, I know, but how many people who were killed had the choice of either dying or spending their lives in prison? None of them!
I'm with you Mark. Let him go find out that there are no 72 virgins, and the sooner the better.
I don't even hesitate--the death penalty!! And even that is too good for him!!
Re, "Ok. I know there are legalities."
Legalities are the only damn thing that separates us from the animals, whgich includes are enemies in this case.
Laws are not in place to protect our enemies. They are in place to protect ourselves from ourselves.
Same as the deal with Abu Greihb (sp?), the prison. I cou;d not care less about our real enemies. The objection is to the way torture dehumanizes ALL OF US.
Re, daffy, "I guess God needs to soften my heart toward terrorists."
Yes. He does. As a Christian, if you are, you are commanded to pray for your enemies and to love them with the Love of Christ. With all due respectg, I dare you -- or any of you -- to counter that in Jesus's name.
ER, are we not also commanded, in Jesus' Name, to condemn Blasphemy?
When someone else commits evil and claims to do it in God's name, should we not take a stand against that?
Or do you believe that being a Christian makes you into a complete and total sheep, in Jesus' name?
Do Christians not have the right to engage in self preservation?
To punish evil doers in our midst?
Being a Christian, which I believe that you are, certainly doesn't seem to slow you down when it comes to judging your fellow man (or woman, as the case may be...)
You, sir, owe Daffy an apology.
At least Daffy recognized her particular sin, and stated what the solution is.
I am willing to bet that she would pray that God adjust her attitude so that it is properly oriented toward the people around the world who would gladly kill her and her children in the name of their god.
You, however, continue to point out the mote in everyone else's eye.
Post a Comment