Zacarias Moussaoui Verdict

[JTWill]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: senseamp
This guy wants to be a Martyr. We need a scapegoat. So it's a win win situation.
My main concern is the right to non self-incrimination. Does it still exist or not? If exercising that right can lead to the death penalty, it's hard to argue that it still exists.

What? He admitted all of this, they didn't force him to testify. He never took the 5th...

I am talking about the original "crime" of not telling the FBI agents he was part of 9/11 conspiracy. He has the right to remain silent. Since they didn't offer him immunity for his testimony, he would have incriminated himself by doing so. So he exercised his right to remain silent and not self incriminate, and is probably going to get the death penalty for doing so. So I don't think you can argue that there is such a right if you can get death for exercising it.

I thought he admitted in court to being part of 9/11 and originally part of the shoebomber plot? I don't think he exercised his right to remain silent...

But what was he charged with? Not warning the FBI that he was part of 9/11 while he was in custody before 9/11. But if he warned them, he would have incriminated himself back then, and he had the right to remain silent. So he is going to be executed for exercising his right to remain silent and not telling them anything.

If you know that a murder is about to be committed and remain silent then you are an accomplice to that murder. You do not have the right to stand silent while others commit felonies you have knowledge of. Thats reason enough to execute him.

Thats why the whole group of Duke students are in serious trouble, by remaining silent about a rape they may not have personally involved in but have knowledge of, have made themselves an accomplice of that crime. You do not have the right to remain silent about felonies you are aware of.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: JTWill

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: senseamp
This guy wants to be a Martyr. We need a scapegoat. So it's a win win situation.
My main concern is the right to non self-incrimination. Does it still exist or not? If exercising that right can lead to the death penalty, it's hard to argue that it still exists.

What? He admitted all of this, they didn't force him to testify. He never took the 5th...

I am talking about the original "crime" of not telling the FBI agents he was part of 9/11 conspiracy. He has the right to remain silent. Since they didn't offer him immunity for his testimony, he would have incriminated himself by doing so. So he exercised his right to remain silent and not self incriminate, and is probably going to get the death penalty for doing so. So I don't think you can argue that there is such a right if you can get death for exercising it.

I thought he admitted in court to being part of 9/11 and originally part of the shoebomber plot? I don't think he exercised his right to remain silent...

But what was he charged with? Not warning the FBI that he was part of 9/11 while he was in custody before 9/11. But if he warned them, he would have incriminated himself back then, and he had the right to remain silent. So he is going to be executed for exercising his right to remain silent and not telling them anything.

If you know that a murder is about to be committed and remain silent then you are an accomplice to that murder. You do not have the right to stand silent while others commit felonies you have knowledge of. Thats reason enough to execute him.

Thats why the whole group of Duke students are in serious trouble, by remaining silent about a rape they may not have personally involved in but have knowledge of, have made themselves an accomplice of that crime. You do not have the right to remain silent about felonies you are aware of.

But telling the FBI that he was part of 9/11 conspiracy when arrested, he would have incriminated himself. He has an explicit right not to incriminate himself from the 5th ammendment of the US constitution.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
They already have thousands of martyrs, one more wont make a difference.

I'm not so sure, I'm willing to bet he'll make a lot of headlines in the ME the day he's killed.

Although I don't support the death penalty for anyone, at any time, I'm aware that this is a poor basis for making this argument; many people have no objections, and guilt is pretty firmly established. So the argument is that this is a vindictive, emotional response, which does nothing to protect anyone, will probably exacerbate, to at least some small degree, the situation in the ME, and historically, won't even save any money.

****Warning!!! Fallacious argument ahead****
If one person is 'inspired' by Moussaoui's death to become a suicide bomber, and one innocent person dies as a result, was it still worth killing Moussaoui?

Responding to the fallacious argument:

No, it was not. However, I would tend to think that if Moussaoui's death causes them to become a suicide bomber, other terrorists dying would have the same effect anyway.

Different effect. OTher terrorists who strap themselves with bombs and go exploding themselves in crowds inspire one group of people. A terrorist getting persecuted by the American legal system and getting killed by the Americans in an electric chair, is going to inspire a different set of people.

I don't know what's the appeal of killing him. It's not like he can actually do anything for the rest of his life... but he WANTS to die... him dying will make him a MARTYR that inspires others. Best thing would to not give him what he wants... let him rot in prison, and live the rest of his life knowing the world has gone on without him, and he's forgotten. Lets see how much patriotism or idealism he has in 10-20 years when he's forgotten by all those he was willing to die for.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
It might be a worst punishment for him, but I still say kill him. He doesn't deserve to be alive.

daveshel's got it right. If you want him to suffer, keep him alive, isolated and forgotten, and don't give him even the momentary, superficial pleasure of feeling like some kind of martyr.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
It might be a worst punishment for him, but I still say kill him. He doesn't deserve to be alive.

daveshel's got it right. If you want him to suffer, keep him alive, isolated and forgotten, and don't give him even the momentary, superficial pleasure of feeling like some kind of martyr.

I don't care about him suffering, I just don't think he deserves to be part of this world anymore. Make sense?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
It might be a worst punishment for him, but I still say kill him. He doesn't deserve to be alive.

daveshel's got it right. If you want him to suffer, keep him alive, isolated and forgotten, and don't give him even the momentary, superficial pleasure of feeling like some kind of martyr.

I don't care about him suffering, I just don't think he deserves to be part of this world anymore. Make sense?

Do you think that you personally have the right to make him not part of the world?

If so, what are the 'real' criteria for that, and who gets to set them? If not, why would a government have that right?

 

[alchemize]

If this is about punishment, we could get a lot more creative than just killing him. But unfortunately things involving pig farms and so forth would outrage the ACLU.

He wants to be killed. For that reason, I think we shouldn't.

Besides - we need him to identify his CIA handlers and detail the nefarious plot!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ntdz
It might be a worst punishment for him, but I still say kill him. He doesn't deserve to be alive.

daveshel's got it right. If you want him to suffer, keep him alive, isolated and forgotten, and don't give him even the momentary, superficial pleasure of feeling like some kind of martyr.

I don't care about him suffering, I just don't think he deserves to be part of this world anymore. Make sense?

Do you think that you personally have the right to make him not part of the world?

If so, what are the 'real' criteria for that, and who gets to set them? If not, why would a government have that right?

Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

 

[Strk]

70 virgins sound like such a headache.

 

[tommywishbone]

Originally posted by: Strk
70 virgins sound like such a headache.

And who wants 70 virgins? "How do you do this?... How do you do that?" Give me 70 hookers.:beer:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't care about him suffering, I just don't think he deserves to be part of this world anymore. Make sense?

Actually, no, it doesn't. The guy's obviously a whack job, but he's not going anywhere, and he can't do anymore damage. Killing him just gives him another fifteen minutes of fars and accomplishes nothing, unless you consider your own blood lust a worthwhile objective. If so, it just lowers you to his pathetic level. :roll:

 

[compuwiz1]

No 70 virgins, just a big naked man named Bubba.

Letting him live will cost money, but killing him will too, since it will be 15-20 years worth of appeals and delays before he dies anyway.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

The people of the United States by voting, or electing people who vote for them, to make capital punishment legal and allowing a jury that's randomly selected to make the decision or recommendation.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

The people of the United States by voting, or electing people who vote for them, to make capital punishment legal and allowing a jury that's randomly selected to make the decision or recommendation.

But individually, none of those people ahve the right to kill someone.

The right to incarcerate can be defended to a limited degree based on private property rights (you could at a minimum justify house arrest in this manner), but taking away life is a different animal altogether.

 

[compuwiz1]

I believe that we mere mortals have no authority to choose to kill anyone. Capital punishment is antiquated and barbaric punishment, as others have stated. We have an allocated amount of money, that is always going to be going toward encarceration of prisoners, so just sentence him to life, would be my vote.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

The people of the United States by voting, or electing people who vote for them, to make capital punishment legal and allowing a jury that's randomly selected to make the decision or recommendation.

But individually, none of those people ahve the right to kill someone.

The right to incarcerate can be defended to a limited degree based on private property rights (you could at a minimum justify house arrest in this manner), but taking away life is a different animal altogether.

So what? We're not talking about individually. We have laws here in the USA, and our people decided we wanted those laws. Who are you to tell us that we don't have the right to choose the laws we want? You don't have that right, being a foreigner.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

The people of the United States by voting, or electing people who vote for them, to make capital punishment legal and allowing a jury that's randomly selected to make the decision or recommendation.

But individually, none of those people ahve the right to kill someone.

The right to incarcerate can be defended to a limited degree based on private property rights (you could at a minimum justify house arrest in this manner), but taking away life is a different animal altogether.

So what? We're not talking about individually. We have laws here in the USA, and our people decided we wanted those laws. Who are you to tell us that we don't have the right to choose the laws we want? You don't have that right, being a foreigner.

Hold on there chief, isn't that an argument that individuals don't have any rights at all except the ones the majority chooses to give them...cause I'm fairly sure that's not how our system works.

 

[Balt]

I don't have a problem with capital punishment, but I believe in this case it would be better for him to spend the rest of his life rotting in a cell all by himself. The only thing left for him to do is to try to make a grand exit, so he should be denied that opportunity.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

The people of the United States by voting, or electing people who vote for them, to make capital punishment legal and allowing a jury that's randomly selected to make the decision or recommendation.

But individually, none of those people ahve the right to kill someone.

The right to incarcerate can be defended to a limited degree based on private property rights (you could at a minimum justify house arrest in this manner), but taking away life is a different animal altogether.

So what? We're not talking about individually. We have laws here in the USA, and our people decided we wanted those laws. Who are you to tell us that we don't have the right to choose the laws we want? You don't have that right, being a foreigner.

Hold on there chief, isn't that an argument that individuals don't have any rights at all except the ones the majority chooses to give them...cause I'm fairly sure that's not how our system works.

No, a jury isn't 12 individuals, it has nothing to do with individual rights at all. It's supposed to represent the population of the area, making a decision for them since you can't have all of Pennsylvania deciding if he should be executed or not.

 

[moshquerade]

no death sentence as it would make him a martyr. his taking the stand was calculated because he wants death.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ntdz
Me personally? Absolutely not. A legally sanctioned jury/judge? Yes.

I'm accused of being overly government-friendly, but who sanctions a judge or jury and gives them the right to kill someone?

If you and 11 friends all thought he should die, would that be enough?

The people of the United States by voting, or electing people who vote for them, to make capital punishment legal and allowing a jury that's randomly selected to make the decision or recommendation.

But individually, none of those people ahve the right to kill someone.

The right to incarcerate can be defended to a limited degree based on private property rights (you could at a minimum justify house arrest in this manner), but taking away life is a different animal altogether.

So what? We're not talking about individually. We have laws here in the USA, and our people decided we wanted those laws. Who are you to tell us that we don't have the right to choose the laws we want? You don't have that right, being a foreigner.

Hold on there chief, isn't that an argument that individuals don't have any rights at all except the ones the majority chooses to give them...cause I'm fairly sure that's not how our system works.

No, a jury isn't 12 individuals, it has nothing to do with individual rights at all. It's supposed to represent the population of the area, making a decision for them since you can't have all of Pennsylvania deciding if he should be executed or not.

No, a jury isn't 12 individuals, it has nothing to do with individual rights at all. It's supposed to represent the population of the area, making a decision for them since you can't have all of Pennsylvania deciding if he should be executed or not.[/quote]If individually you do not have the right to kill someone, what gives you the right to do it collectively?

Your post to me is a non sequitar. Who I am doesn't matter, because I'm not dictating anything to you, and therefore do not need authority. I'm making an obvious statement that based on consistency in your own beliefs, you can't hold on to the idea that capital punishment is ever acceptable.

The fact that I already hold this position is actually irrelevant. Unless you actually believe that you do have the right to kill someone, you already hold the same position as me but something - perhaps latent bloodlust and/or desire for vengeance hidden behind a veil of legitimacy - is preventing you from realizing it.

 

[raildogg]

If we put him away, he will go down as a hero, or a traitor in the Arab/muslim world. If he stays in jail, maybe someone or some group will do something crazy to free him. Or they may carry out attacks in his name.

The only solution is to let him go free.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ViciouS
Don?t let him get his 70 virgins early! Let him live! He planed on dying for his cause if he lives he fails.... I hope the judge gives him life.

live! He's just being an attention whore now so he can be a martyr. Let him rot with Bubba.

 

[ViciouS]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: ViciouS
Don?t let him get his 70 virgins early! Let him live! He planed on dying for his cause if he lives he fails.... I hope the judge gives him life.

live! He's just being an attention whore now so he can be a martyr. Let him rot with Bubba.

Hes being cocky and he wants to die, dont let it happen.