Moussaoui Gets Life, And I Am Ticked
Okay, I will grant many of our readers that there is a tad bit more emotion in this post, but can you blame me?
For over forty hours we watched a jury deliberate over the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui, content that there was no way--none feasible or comprehensible--that this jury could see fit any punishment other than death. After all, was Moussaoui not the so-called "20th hijacker?" Was he not, by his own admission, willing to die if it meant killing more Americans? Correct me if I am wrong, but his admission on the stand was rather compelling. The jury, it seems, only yawned at that.
To paraphrase a close frind of ours (one Thomas Lindaman, who is out editor on Common Conservative, it's almost as though they reconvened the OJ Simpson jury to decide this case, and this sentence. Indeed, Thomas addressed addressed this subject this afternoon, and even cited the WaPo story discussing it brought up by Captain Ed.
But after reading the entire piece, I have a couple of problems with it. Either this comes from those involved in the case--namely the judge and jury--or it comes from those reporting it. Either way, there seems to be a couple of questionable things about this decision.
Jurors carefully went over each question on a 42-page verdict form that gave only a few clues to their thoughts and reasoning. In the end, though, the form indicated that prosecutors could not surmount the main obstacle hanging over their case from the start: Moussaoui did not hijack anything Sept. 11, 2001, because he was sitting in jail.
The panel could not decide unanimously that Moussaoui caused the nearly 3,000 deaths, nor could it agree that he committed his crimes "in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner." Three jurors took it upon themselves to write that Moussaoui had "limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans."
That may be true, but during the questioning made by investigators, Moussaoui's games allowed his co-conspirators to carry out their attacks on 9/11. His playing around without investigators having a clue to his true motives gave him plenty of time to twist their methods for nailing his associates. He is complicit, at the very least, and while that may not carry a death sentence, it only adds fuel to the argument. And that complicity extends to the 3000 dead at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. And where they could not find the idea of "heinous, cruel, or depraved" actions, one must truly use a level of mental gymnastics that only the elite in the moonbat crowd have access to. Adolf Hitler killed over ten million people, so when do you start calling his actions depraved? What number do you start calling the man depraved? What number is equal to heinous? Come on, you cannot convince me that his motives, his methods, and his missed opportunity was not any of those.
The Justice Department insisted on trying Moussaoui in the criminal courts to show that the system could handle complex terrorism matters, resisting pressure from others in the government who wanted to bring Moussaoui before a military tribunal.
Let this serve as a lesson that the Justice department, and the criminal courts are wholly unprepared to handle a case such as this. Moussaoui, an admitted follower of bin Laden, was a soldier on a mission not a common street thug or cold-blooded killer as civilians understand. This was a committed man on what he believed to be a holy mission, and he was a soldier in a war we had barely recognized, as citizens. Putting such matters in the hands of civilians was a foolish move. I have no idea who had this utterly brilliant concept (and by brilliant I mean "Al Gore" brilliant), but whoever had it should lose their job. At the very least they should be relegated to emptying trash cans in the Justice Department.
Some legal experts agreed that the case, and especially the jury's reluctance to impose a death sentence, had brought out the best of American justice, despite the complications. "No one can accuse this of being a kangaroo court or say Moussaoui was railroaded," Hoffman said.
Finding a man guilty of being complicit in an act of terrorism--nay, I say murder--is not railroading him, or possessing a kangaroo court. It is allowing justice to reamin as blind as it can. His own admissions show that he was more than willing to commit the act, and had helped those here in America to do precisely that.
Yesterday's verdict culminated a seven-week sentencing trial that became an outpouring of emotion reflecting the national trauma of the attacks. It remained uncertain whether the man whose life was spared views the decision as a positive development or a setback. Moussaoui's testimony during the trial convinced many legal experts that he wanted to die a martyr. But jurors rejected that notion, saying on the verdict form that none of them believed that Moussaoui wanted to die or that his execution would be part of his jihad.
At the risk of sounding smug, how can these people be so obtuse? Have they not taken into that court their real world knowledge? Do they not comprehend what our enemies are capable of doing, what they are capable of carrying out? Have they truly forgotten what occurred on 9/11? To state that a member of al Qaeda would not be willing to sacrifice his life to kill the infidels is positively moronic. We see it almost daily in Iraq. We saw it on 9/11. Moussaoui, I believe based on his testimony, and his comments outside the courtroom, that he was willing to follow the likes of Mohammed Atta.
Instead, a majority of the jurors sided with the defense suggestion that Moussaoui had an unstable childhood and a violent father, and agreed that those were mitigating factors against execution.
RIGHT HERE! RIGHT FRIGGING HERE! This paragraph in the WaPo story shows precisely why the American criminal courts have no business handling a case like this! Please, people, we cannot go around making imbecilic decisions like this. His childhood matters not. His violent father is even less irrelevant. His crimes have nothing to do with his upbringing. It is the spineless dhimmis in America that seem to forget this. Only a jury with this magnitude of utter idiocy could believe such facts to be relevant in this case.
In reaching its decision, the jury waded through a "special verdict form" that explored issues such as whether Moussaoui was responsible for the Sept. 11 deaths and whether executing him would make him a martyr.
Can anyone tell me what relevance--ANYONE--becoming a "martyr" is in sentencing an individual for the heinous crime they participated in? Please? As a matter of fact, does America really care if he feels that he is becoming a martyr if he was sentenced to death? In Thomas' words, all I hear are crickets ...
Yesterday, jurors concluded unanimously that prosecutors had proved most of the aggravating factors, including that Moussaoui showed no remorse and that the Sept. 11 attacks caused vast damage in New York and Washington. Their reaction to the mitigating factors varied widely. Nine jurors agreed with the defense that Moussaoui's dysfunctional early childhood and abusive father were mitigating, but none found that executing Moussaoui would make him a martyr. No jurors agreed with the defense that a sentence of life in prison would be a greater punishment.
Moussaoui is laughing all the way to the Supermax facility. He used America's politically-correct attitudes against itself, and it worked. He played on all the sympathies. His lawyers were good at preparing him for that, and once they revealed the childhood, they knew they had the jury. Just one more reason why such trials should be conducted as a military tribunal. ONLY the military can understand a mind like his, and sentence him accordingly. He would be, in their eyes, and enemy combatant, which he clearly believed he was. Moussaoui and his legal team played the jury like a harp from Hell.
Personally, I am sickened by the outcome of this. As someone who is studying the law, and understanding it, I do agree that justice was served. But that is within the definition of the law. He did receive a fair trial, had the right to face his accusers, had his impartial jury, had his counsel, and had his witnesses testifying on his behalf. He cannot even begin to claim that his trial was not fair. Speedy, on the other hand, is only as fast as the wheels of justice turn.
But I am sickened at the utter ineptitude of the American public to handle a case as heavy as this one. I understand why they made the choice they did (including the one juror who admitted being against the death penalty in an interview, but the WaPo obviously missed his quote). But in this war we need people who understand the people we are fighting, their motives, and that they want to kill as many of us as possible, and they do not care if they die doing that.
And in my opinion, the jury in this trial represent the lambs that our enemies will lead to the slaughter. It would have been a lot better if they had shown the same or similar resolve of the heroes of 9/11, and sent this barbarian to his eternal reward.
The Bunny ;)
Okay, I will grant many of our readers that there is a tad bit more emotion in this post, but can you blame me?
For over forty hours we watched a jury deliberate over the fate of Zacarias Moussaoui, content that there was no way--none feasible or comprehensible--that this jury could see fit any punishment other than death. After all, was Moussaoui not the so-called "20th hijacker?" Was he not, by his own admission, willing to die if it meant killing more Americans? Correct me if I am wrong, but his admission on the stand was rather compelling. The jury, it seems, only yawned at that.
To paraphrase a close frind of ours (one Thomas Lindaman, who is out editor on Common Conservative, it's almost as though they reconvened the OJ Simpson jury to decide this case, and this sentence. Indeed, Thomas addressed addressed this subject this afternoon, and even cited the WaPo story discussing it brought up by Captain Ed.
But after reading the entire piece, I have a couple of problems with it. Either this comes from those involved in the case--namely the judge and jury--or it comes from those reporting it. Either way, there seems to be a couple of questionable things about this decision.
Jurors carefully went over each question on a 42-page verdict form that gave only a few clues to their thoughts and reasoning. In the end, though, the form indicated that prosecutors could not surmount the main obstacle hanging over their case from the start: Moussaoui did not hijack anything Sept. 11, 2001, because he was sitting in jail.
The panel could not decide unanimously that Moussaoui caused the nearly 3,000 deaths, nor could it agree that he committed his crimes "in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner." Three jurors took it upon themselves to write that Moussaoui had "limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plans."
That may be true, but during the questioning made by investigators, Moussaoui's games allowed his co-conspirators to carry out their attacks on 9/11. His playing around without investigators having a clue to his true motives gave him plenty of time to twist their methods for nailing his associates. He is complicit, at the very least, and while that may not carry a death sentence, it only adds fuel to the argument. And that complicity extends to the 3000 dead at Ground Zero, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania. And where they could not find the idea of "heinous, cruel, or depraved" actions, one must truly use a level of mental gymnastics that only the elite in the moonbat crowd have access to. Adolf Hitler killed over ten million people, so when do you start calling his actions depraved? What number do you start calling the man depraved? What number is equal to heinous? Come on, you cannot convince me that his motives, his methods, and his missed opportunity was not any of those.
The Justice Department insisted on trying Moussaoui in the criminal courts to show that the system could handle complex terrorism matters, resisting pressure from others in the government who wanted to bring Moussaoui before a military tribunal.
Let this serve as a lesson that the Justice department, and the criminal courts are wholly unprepared to handle a case such as this. Moussaoui, an admitted follower of bin Laden, was a soldier on a mission not a common street thug or cold-blooded killer as civilians understand. This was a committed man on what he believed to be a holy mission, and he was a soldier in a war we had barely recognized, as citizens. Putting such matters in the hands of civilians was a foolish move. I have no idea who had this utterly brilliant concept (and by brilliant I mean "Al Gore" brilliant), but whoever had it should lose their job. At the very least they should be relegated to emptying trash cans in the Justice Department.
Some legal experts agreed that the case, and especially the jury's reluctance to impose a death sentence, had brought out the best of American justice, despite the complications. "No one can accuse this of being a kangaroo court or say Moussaoui was railroaded," Hoffman said.
Finding a man guilty of being complicit in an act of terrorism--nay, I say murder--is not railroading him, or possessing a kangaroo court. It is allowing justice to reamin as blind as it can. His own admissions show that he was more than willing to commit the act, and had helped those here in America to do precisely that.
Yesterday's verdict culminated a seven-week sentencing trial that became an outpouring of emotion reflecting the national trauma of the attacks. It remained uncertain whether the man whose life was spared views the decision as a positive development or a setback. Moussaoui's testimony during the trial convinced many legal experts that he wanted to die a martyr. But jurors rejected that notion, saying on the verdict form that none of them believed that Moussaoui wanted to die or that his execution would be part of his jihad.
At the risk of sounding smug, how can these people be so obtuse? Have they not taken into that court their real world knowledge? Do they not comprehend what our enemies are capable of doing, what they are capable of carrying out? Have they truly forgotten what occurred on 9/11? To state that a member of al Qaeda would not be willing to sacrifice his life to kill the infidels is positively moronic. We see it almost daily in Iraq. We saw it on 9/11. Moussaoui, I believe based on his testimony, and his comments outside the courtroom, that he was willing to follow the likes of Mohammed Atta.
Instead, a majority of the jurors sided with the defense suggestion that Moussaoui had an unstable childhood and a violent father, and agreed that those were mitigating factors against execution.
RIGHT HERE! RIGHT FRIGGING HERE! This paragraph in the WaPo story shows precisely why the American criminal courts have no business handling a case like this! Please, people, we cannot go around making imbecilic decisions like this. His childhood matters not. His violent father is even less irrelevant. His crimes have nothing to do with his upbringing. It is the spineless dhimmis in America that seem to forget this. Only a jury with this magnitude of utter idiocy could believe such facts to be relevant in this case.
In reaching its decision, the jury waded through a "special verdict form" that explored issues such as whether Moussaoui was responsible for the Sept. 11 deaths and whether executing him would make him a martyr.
Can anyone tell me what relevance--ANYONE--becoming a "martyr" is in sentencing an individual for the heinous crime they participated in? Please? As a matter of fact, does America really care if he feels that he is becoming a martyr if he was sentenced to death? In Thomas' words, all I hear are crickets ...
Yesterday, jurors concluded unanimously that prosecutors had proved most of the aggravating factors, including that Moussaoui showed no remorse and that the Sept. 11 attacks caused vast damage in New York and Washington. Their reaction to the mitigating factors varied widely. Nine jurors agreed with the defense that Moussaoui's dysfunctional early childhood and abusive father were mitigating, but none found that executing Moussaoui would make him a martyr. No jurors agreed with the defense that a sentence of life in prison would be a greater punishment.
Moussaoui is laughing all the way to the Supermax facility. He used America's politically-correct attitudes against itself, and it worked. He played on all the sympathies. His lawyers were good at preparing him for that, and once they revealed the childhood, they knew they had the jury. Just one more reason why such trials should be conducted as a military tribunal. ONLY the military can understand a mind like his, and sentence him accordingly. He would be, in their eyes, and enemy combatant, which he clearly believed he was. Moussaoui and his legal team played the jury like a harp from Hell.
Personally, I am sickened by the outcome of this. As someone who is studying the law, and understanding it, I do agree that justice was served. But that is within the definition of the law. He did receive a fair trial, had the right to face his accusers, had his impartial jury, had his counsel, and had his witnesses testifying on his behalf. He cannot even begin to claim that his trial was not fair. Speedy, on the other hand, is only as fast as the wheels of justice turn.
But I am sickened at the utter ineptitude of the American public to handle a case as heavy as this one. I understand why they made the choice they did (including the one juror who admitted being against the death penalty in an interview, but the WaPo obviously missed his quote). But in this war we need people who understand the people we are fighting, their motives, and that they want to kill as many of us as possible, and they do not care if they die doing that.
And in my opinion, the jury in this trial represent the lambs that our enemies will lead to the slaughter. It would have been a lot better if they had shown the same or similar resolve of the heroes of 9/11, and sent this barbarian to his eternal reward.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 12:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home