He noted many relatives of victims wept on the witness stand, then walked past him in the courtroom and looked his way without crying. "I find it disgusting that people come here to share their grief over the death of some other person," he said.Much more at the link.
"I'm glad there was pain, and I wish there will be more pain," Moussaoui said. "The children in Palestine and in Chechnya will have pain. I want you to share their pain."...
In a lengthy explanation of why he hates Americans, Moussaoui said Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower as he flipped through a copy of the Quran searching for verses to support his assertion. He said one verse requires Muslims "to fight against all who believe not in Allah."
"We have an obligation to be the superpower. You have to be subdued," Moussaoui said. "America is a superpower and you want to eradicate Islam."
He criticized U.S. support for Israel. "Every child who has been killed in Palestine has been killed because of you," he said. Israel is "just a missing star in the American flag," he added.
१३ एप्रिल, २००६
"God curse America. We will win. It's just a question of time."
Moussaoui takes the stand:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२२ टिप्पण्या:
Okay. The guy's an evil kook. Exterminate him and be done with it.
Verification Word: Yjixe
Speed Racer's other sister?
I've been trying to figure out if he's evil on top of being deranged, or just plain deranged. Is that an effete consideration?
He's clearly not living in our world. I don't know if it's mentioned in the AP link, but I read somewhere else today that Moussaoui thinks Bush is going to pardon him and send him to England. He had a vision in a dream, and that's what he thinks.
All evil is deranged. But derangement isn't necessarily evil. Does the usual requirement to show mens rea exist in this case? Maybe it should not.
When is the world going to take them at their word?
When is the world going to take them at their word?
When they get a spokesman who's not a complete and utter nut job slash window-licker?
Someone like the President of Iran, maybe.
We just had a most awesome hail storm here in Madison, by the way. Cool!
Can a lawyer type explain something to me? Why is it legal for the prosecution to call witnesses and play tapes for the sole purpose of describing what happened on 9/11?
In otherwords, from a purely legal standpoint, why should it matter how sad the families are, how horrific the 911 calls are, etc.? Either he's in some way legally responsible for the deaths or he's not: would it make his crime any less heinous if relatives of the victims took the stand and said, "well, we never liked Ray anyway, and we're kinda glad he's gone"?
My sole point here is to understand why it is legally permissible to introduce evidence whose only purpose is to emotionally affect the jury. In an ideal world, don't we want jurors to be as rational as possible while they're debating their decision? Aren't we meant to believe that our legal system is based on justice, not vengeance?
I thank in advance anyone who can help clear this up for me.
The Cranky Insomniac
Yeah, the hail storm! That was insane! I'm still trembling!
I feel like I'm watching Hitler reading Mein Kampf aloud on the steps of Landsberg Prison.
Nah, he must be loopy. He can't mean that.
I'll assume he means what he says, so he should be executed. I don't think you'll find many people arguing against that, other than people who have a general opposition to capital punishment in all cases. I don't have that general opposition, and such people really don't have much influence in the real world, so bring the needle, unless one can show that life imprisonment would be more unpleasant for him than death row. Hopefully Osama will follow him, though I doubt he'll be captured with the current crew in charge. Perhaps the next President Clinton will clean up that mess.
It's hard to believe that, over 4 years after 9/11 and knowing that there are thousands of militant Muslims who want to kill (and do kill) people just because they aren't Muslim, there are still people like Chuck B. who ponder why.
Even more amazing is this statement referring to Moussaoui: "He's clearly not living in our world". Moussaoui is living in the real world. Are you, Chuck B? We're at war with militant Muslims who want to kill every non-Muslim infidel, and we Americans are number one on the top ten list of infidels.
There's nothing in what I wrote that suggests I'm pondering why Moussaoui did what he did.
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the man's sanity.
In ordinary criminal matters, a lack of sanity is a defense.
What I suggested, clearly, is that in cases like this, insanity should not be a defense.
IANAL , but such testimony is an aspect of sentencing - they're past the prosecution phase, from which he'd been determined eligible for the death sentence, and on to the determination of his actual sentence.
Thanks for responding, Tyro. I get that such testimony is an aspect of sentencing, I just don't get why. It's obvious why the prosecution would want to introduce emotional testimony that would be likely to make a jury hand out a harsher sentence, but why is it legal for them to do so?
The Cranky Insomniac
The Cranky Insomniac asked: Why is it legal for the prosecution to call witnesses and play tapes for the sole purpose of describing what happened on 9/11?
The short answer is that the law presumes a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts. That's why such evidence is relevant. It is to prove that the defendant deserves no mercy.
But that's not necessarily the end of it. Upon objection, the trial judge must weight probative value against prejudicial effect (among other things).
Again the disclaimer: This was the short answer. Hope it helped.
-remind me to have a pistol along if I ever encounter any of his 'brothers' - I wonder just how many there are out there like him? Will it be hemp or synthetic around his wretched neck? Some will opt for the needle, others for a few thousands volts of electricity.
RE the Cranky Insomniac's question:
Criminal trials are bifurcated proceedings. Once a defendant has been found guilty, the trial enters a separate punishment phase in which evidence that would not be relevant during guilt/innocence becomes admissible. This includes evidence as to the impact on the victims, which is what is apparently bothering Cranky. By the same token, the defense at this point has the opportunity to offer mitigating evidence that would not be admissible during guilt/innocence.
I get the sense that some commenters here think that Moussaoui is somehow unique, that he is especially crazy or evil ...
HE'S A RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST. THEY TEND TO HAVE EXTREME OPINIONS.
The victims of 9/11 are "infidels" to him, and therefore easily exterminable, with no remorse. This is indeed hard to comprehend, but it should be accepted as the sad reality we are facing by now!
patca--This comments thread answers your question. People can't get it through their heads that these people would blow them up at the blink of an eye, and would do it this very second if they could. They want to look at it through some "Law and Order, SVU" framework or something.
I can't help but wonder if this guy is talking out the @55 when he says he was part of the 9/11 plot, and he is just seeking martyrdom. That also makes me wonder whether or not it's a good thing, strategically, to make a martyr out of the guy.
And before you flame me, understand, I'd volunteer take a dull, rusty steak knife to the man just on the basis of who he is (regardless of the crimes he is implicated in) if it could be done without consequences. I believe the extremists wish to exterminate us the same way the Orkin man deals death to cockroaches, and I don't think there's a policy cure for the extremist problem, other than doing away with all the extremists whilst embracing any and all who look or sound like relative moderates. (I could live with Islamic mild-extremists whose goal in life is to make me feel guilty...) I just do not know whether it's a wise foreign policy choice to create St. Moussaoui of Minnesota at this stage in time.
Brando said: "you could be equally describing a good chunk of the Christian Right in the United States"
Maybe, but who really cares what they *think* or *believe* ?? -- I sure don't! When they start threatening to blow people up who think differently, then I'll start worrying.
Why are you acting like Christian rights' behavior--though highly annoying at times--is even comparable? That's willfully illogical.
Al Maviva,
You have a good point, of course, because we don't want to make Moussaoui a martyr. But as posted elsewhere, how likely is it that the world will view Moussaoui as a martyr after a prolonged trial, years in federal prison during his appeals, and then finally a medically-induced death by injection? I doubt that this scenario does much for jihadis who desire the thrill of martyrdom.
"Where in the New Testament does is suggest that Christianity should be supreme? What Islamic society is as tolerant as the deepest red county in Alabama?"
You asked for an explanation and got a speech instead.
This is why the left is losing the national argument, brando.
Yeah, I guess I take the unsophisticated view that the actions of the terrorists--no quotation marks for me--are evil.
Brando (mostly):
You should probably keep in mind that over 99% of the population OF THE WORLD firmly believes that some, if not all, of their opinions and beliefs are more qualified than those of other people. A good 85% (this number is guessed, while the former is real) have no basis for this belief.
This is not a trait owned solely by the Christian right. However, this is what the media whores and the parrots of the world will tell you.
Honestly, the majority of the people who openly voice disgust with some facet of another party or religious group do so because they took their opinions off of someone who believes in a similar fashion. Someone for whom they have admiration enough to accept their comments as fact.
Needless to say, this is bull. This in no way constitutes legal right to trample invasively on the mental space of another. But we sure think it does, don't we?
Religion does not require that one believe in God. It is the practice of one's system of beliefs. The daily living of all that nonsense we spew. Therefore, the only way to not be religious is to not hold to your principles. Or not have them in the first place.
To follow this, I would like to say that some of the most religious people I know don't believe in God. But they sure feel strongly about what they think is the proper way to do things.
That is perfectly fine. Every man can believe what he wants. You too. But don't be narcissistic and claim that you don't think your opinion is better than the "Christian Right". You're full of something quite odiferous and brown, if you go that route. (My apologies for the jab, but I felt that this needed something a bit stronger than the objective view for the point to actually come across)
To the original topic:
If we leave religion and morality out, a world society itself requires that all members be equally respectful of the laws set forth.
One law that is common in society is that of not killing others. This power, if allowed at all, belongs soley to the judicial and enforcement system. With good reason. Indiscriminate killing will cause any organized society to disintegrate into chaos.
This man has openly affiliated himself with people who will kill indiscriminately to achieve their aims. He has expressed his desire to continue to do so, and shows no remorse for his previous actions. Therefore, he can no longer enjoy the benefits of society and must be forcefully removed from it until he decides to reform. His punishment, as it were, is solely in the hands of the judicial system. I have no wish to have his blood on my hands (although the red-blooded american in me unjustly desires to get a few good punches in), because I'm not absolutely certain I could make such a large decision rationally. However, in my opinion, he should never set foot outside of an prison (assuming that they waive capital punishment) until he has demonstrated that he will become a productive, cooperative, TOLERANT member of our world-society. I feel that there isn't much that could be said to refute this opinion, but you are welcome to do so.
Tkae note: he certainly doesn't enjoy TV-watching privileges and extended comforts while incarcerated, either. The man should, in all rights, be forced to learn that there are consequences for breaking the quite necessary laws of society. He has expressed desire to murder people and appealed to terrorist factions. Because of this, he has no right to enjoy priviliges that are not expressly granted to all terrorists (that rare subset of criminals who full-out oppose the most fundamental laws of society publically for a declared purpose) regardless of the situation.
It is quite fair, if you consider that he would rob others of those same privileges because of a difference in thought or belief.
Brando,
I don't much care what you worship, and I don't want any type of worship taught in the schools, either. I think that if kids are going to be taught religion it should be done at home or in church, and not in public institutions. If parents don't think it is important enough to teach it to their kids themselves, it certainly isn't important enough to have the public school system waste funding on it.
My point was that you cannot claim that someone is stupid, hypocritical or whatever else because they are in the "Christian Right," which I believe is a silly term in the first place. People are stupid all on their own, and it doesn't have a dedicated relation to do with what they believe or disbelieve.
Such simple statements cannot make either of us a scientist. But surely it can be a clue to how open our minds really are. My entire post was designed to be supportive of a persons' right to believe, no matter what they believe. I also support the right to believe it without being treated as idiots because they disagree with someone who believes that they themselves are more educated. I also stated that pretty much everyone, myself included, believes that they have the right to voice their opinion regardless of what they state. And almost all of them believe that they are correct, which I would guess includes us both.
In terms of "Christian propaganda" both posts would be pretty weak sauce. If i was concerned with indoctrination I certainly wouldn't use it. You would do well to not jump to conclusions on my intent based on your preconceived notions of people.
Not at any time was I forcing my belief on you, nor was I attacking you for not sharing it. However, I did and do reject your attacks on people who believe differently than you, and for that you turn your attacks on me.
You, sir, are not attempting to teach people the knowledge that you have. You are not trying to show them the error of their ways. You are telling them that if they disagree they are fools, and stooping to personal attacks. I state that such a thing is not the prerogative of the Christian right (though many Christians are foolish enough to use it), but is merely the tool of demagogues who would use sophistry to achieve their personal aims, and have no qualms about attacking people. Such people can be of any tongue, race, or creed. For those of us who are sensitive to attacks, it is akin to emotional terrorism. I grant you no credit, though some of what you say would have validity if it were not so soaked in vitriol.
I state that taking away someone else right to believe and right to exist is not in accordance with society. Let each person worship what you want, but if that person tries to kill me for it, I won't free him from the judicial system just because he feels oppressed. Let him present his case like any reasonable man, or let him be treated as a common criminal.
I claim not what is the correct punishment for a crime. I have no authority, and little experience in making that decision. Let the government handle that. that is why it is there. But our actions, and not our beliefs, should be the things that will support us or condemn us in the eyes of justice.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा