Zacarias Moussaoui

[pegkerr]

I am watching this story with a great deal of uneasiness. Yes, 9/11 was horrible. Yes, we want justice. The problem is, 9/11 was so horrific that I don't think it is possible to satisfy our hunger for vengeance from Zacharias Moussaoui's hide. I think he lied about the extent of his involvement to inflate his importance, and he is more interested in bashing America and reaching for martyrdom than in conveying any kind of truth about what really happened. And as for the testimony being entered today: I don't know what it can accomplish other than to inflame the jury toward a miserable excuse of a man who didn't have much to do with the horrible events of that day. He, however, is lapping it up, delighting in the stories of the pain that others caused and delighted to take credit for it.


[Poll #707770]

Comments

[wilfulcait.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how refusing to confess doesn't fall under the 5th amendment protection from self-incrimination.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It's a bizarre story. Clearly had anothing to do with 9/11. (That nonsense about him and Richard Ried being supposed to fly another plane was comical.) Clearly he wishes he had. Clearly he wishes to become a martyr. (He's doing everything possible to torpedo his own defense.)

On the other side, the prosocution just as clearly wants to kill him. They're trying to make a case -- unique in law, I believe -- that inaction can be considered a capital crime.

The best comment on this, and I wish I could find the link, was something along these lines: In his fantasies, Moussaoui was a part of 9/11. In American fantasies, someone pays for those horrific crime. Moussaoui will be put to death, simply because his fantasies and our fantasies match so closely.

This is not justice. It's fantasy.

(And even if he was a failed 9/11 attacker, the far better -- and meaner -- thing would be to let him rot in prison. Don't give the terrorists another martyr. Don't give him the satisfaction. Prove to the world that we're better than that.)

B

Constitution

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, you know.

B

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I have a hard time answering the death penalty question in general, but I have a hard time thinking that American justice today is good enough to use it as often as it's used. And I think B. is spot on about exactly why this specific case is a bad idea, even aside from whether the death penalty is usually right or wrong.

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

I chose the "no death penalty ever" reply, because that's my overriding position. But if there had been the ability to choose two, I would also have chosen "no, don't accomodate his wish to be a martyr".

[ckd]

They're trying to make a case -- unique in law, I believe -- that inaction can be considered a capital crime.

An interesting one to make in the face of GWB's continuing to read My Pet Goat.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It wouldn't be "punishment" if it was something the recipient wanted.

B

[dreamflower]

I didn't even answer the first one. Generally speaking, I *am* opposed to the death penalty, though I would not universally ban it, for I think there may be the rare case when it might be justified. In the case for example of an unrepentant serial killer/rapist, I can see that it might be best for the good of society, especially when he might not *stay* locked up.


As to his guilt, if he was even peripherally involved then that makes him an accessory, and therefore guilty. I am not sure that it's been proven he was even involved *that* much. I have not, I'm afraid been following the case as closely as I once would such things. But the older I get, the less I want to spend my time dwelling on something like that.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"An interesting one to make in the face of GWB's continuing to read My Pet Goat."

Oooo. Ironic.

B

[dreamshark.livejournal.com]

Wow. Brilliant analysis. "Moussaoui will be put to death seimply because his fantasies and our fantasies match so closely." I think you're right. I'm agin it, primarily because I also agree with your other comment: "It's not really punishment if it's what the perpetrator wants, is it?"

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

It is a brilliant analysis. I really wish I could credit the person who wrote it.

B

[nwl.livejournal.com]

I keep forgetting this is national and not local case.

I feel sorry for the jurors (and glad I don't live in Northern VA) who are going to have to listen to weeks of this testimony. It's got to be wearing on a person.

Locally people are saying pretty much the same thing as in your LJ - the guy's pathetic. There is lots of speculation as to what will happen.

I was wondering if any other state plans on trying him. That may or may not have a bearing on the outcome. When the Beltway Sniper was caught, there was (and still is) a major fight as to who would try him first. Despite getting the death penalty, he's still around and getting ready to be tried in MD. I expect he will not be executed as the various states will be fighting over him for quite a while.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

...which also plays into the hands of the terrorists. Get him off the pages of the newspaper already!

B

[ame-chan.livejournal.com]

I am definitely of the opinion that this man should NOT be allowed to become a martyr. There's precious little glory for the cause in doing hard time. To my mind, that's a far more suitable punishment than rewarding him with the death penalty. Not that I think it's a reward in general, just, in this case it would be.

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in general, but I think I'd feel this way about this case, even if I did support the death penalty in some cases.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

What B. said.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I don't think we should decide how to handle people based on accepting *their* worldview; I think the decision should be made in terms of *our own* worldview.

(Since I don't think the US justice system anytime recently should be trusted with the death penalty, it makes relatively little difference in this case.)

[origamilady.livejournal.com]

I read a book a lifetime or two ago (I wish I could remember the title) where the terrorists/killers of that particular world -when spoken of in the newspaper were never referred to by name, but were called "Idiot" or "Fool" like 'An idiot blew himself up on friday, how dumb of him was that?'.

I wish we could utilize something like that here.

Well, no.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

A conspirator -- which the Moose was -- has an obligation to meliorate the damage that he's helped try to do. The jury has determined that if he had told the truth, rather than lied to the Feds, at least one American would not have died as a result of the conspiracy of which he was a part of.

That his story about his participation doesn't entirely hang together isn't surprising, nor is it indicative of a lack of guilt. He didn't go to Eagan to learn how to fly, with his wad of Al Qaeda cash -- just for the fun of it. It's hardly a "fantasy" that he was taking training so that he could pilot a plane into a building filled with Americans; that was his purpose there, and his best defense, such as it is, is that even the Al Qaeda thought he was too much of a nimrod to trust (although they did trust him with the general outline, and -- if you believe one of his stories) and had him lined up for a different attempt at becoming a shahid, thereby making it clear that the first story is horse hockey.

Nor, for that matter, should it be a surprise that the sort of jihadi who volunteers to be an Al Quaeda shahid isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the jihadi drawer; the sharper knives, like KSM, consider themselves too valuable to expend.

Me, I don't care much, either way, if he's executed or put in a cage until he dies. And his desires, one way or another, should be totally irrelevant.

Nothing to do with 911? Somebody who would believe that would believe that, say, Iraq never tried to buy uranium in Niger.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Oh, that's easy -- between the time of his capture and the fruit of the conspiracy, as a conspirator he had the obligation to prevent the damage. And he didn't only stand mute and "refuse to confess" -- he aided the conspiracy by giving false stories.

Just imagine a parallel situation: Al is a conspirator in the kidnapping of Bob, whose kidnappers will put him to death in 24 hours if impossible demands aren't met. Al has the obligation -- not just moral, but legal -- to remove himself from the conspiracy by aiding the authorities. If he doesn't -- whether or not he's in custody -- he's every bit as guilty of murder as his co-conspirators who actually kill Bob.

[(Anonymous)]

Case cites? I'm not real familiar with this area and I'd like to read up on it.

[wilfulcait.livejournal.com]

Case cites? I'm not familiar with this area and I'd like to read up.

[darius.livejournal.com]

I think that was Soft Targets by Dean Ing, though it's been something like 20 years for me.

Re: Well, no.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

The jury is, of course, wrong. I don't think there's much dispute outside wing-nut land over that. Best we can tell, he was training for a second wave of attacks -- which means bin Ladin seriously misjudged how the U.S. would react. The "fantasy" was not that he was going to blow himself up piloting an aircraft, but that he was part of 9/11. I thought I made that clear.

And yes, it seems that he was considered too much of an idiot to be trusted with actually carrying out the eventual plan -- when means bin Ladin didn't seriously misjudge him.

I have no problem with locking him up and throwing away the key; that seems entirely reasonable. I just think killing him makes the problem worse -- regardless of what anyone thinks of the death penalty in general.

B

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

As much as I agree with your parenthetical comment, this is certainly an example of an exception: we know we have the right man. DNA evidence won't exhonorate him in ten years.

B

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

An awful lot of what we have is his own testimony, though -- and it's obvious he's living at least partly in a fantasy world, and puffing his story up to make himself important, and otherwise sabotaging his defense. So I don't think we really know all that much; who knows what a trial with a sane cooperative defendent would have determined?

[(Anonymous)]

A "sane cooperative defendent" gives a confession, and there's no trial. It's a "sane uncooperative defendent" that results in a trial.

B

Re: Well, no.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

I think there's a bit of Pauline Kaeling going on. There's no question that that's been one of duh Moose's stories, but it's in conflict with both some of the other evidence, and with some of the other absent evidence. The notion that there was to be a second wave of piloted plane attacks is, as far as I can tell, simply a fantasy of duh Moose and some compliant lefties looking for an excuse to absent him from the DP. The "Don't throw him in that briar patch" argument, while weak, is much stronger.

Besides, it's clear that Al Qaeda DID trust him with key elements of the plan -- that's why he was in flight school.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

More like "Very Proper Charlies," by, I think, Charles Sheffield.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Start with http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=346500 ; it's pretty well footnoted, IIRC.

Re: Well, no.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"Besides, it's clear that Al Qaeda DID trust him with key elements of the plan -- that's why he was in flight school."

Agreed.

B

Re: Well, no.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

And are we agreed that if, instead of lying, he had come clean with the authorities, it's almost certain that:

a: the alerts that Rowley and others wanted would have gone out,
b: the idea of using planes as missiles (although this wasn't the first such attempt) would have gotten a lot of attention, and that
c: it's just this side of certain that:
1. at least one of the planes would not have been taken over and/or
2. there would have been USAF fighters in the air with useful rules of engagement?

?

Re: Well, no.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Disagreed.

B

Re: Well, no.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Figured.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Haven't seen Timothy McVeigh in the papers a lot lately. (I'm not, by the way, particularly in favor of executing him; I don't think it makes much of a difference, either way. I do think that the only argument against it that should be at all compelling to anybody a principled opposition to the DP under any circumstances; the often compelling argument that we're not accurate enough to use the DP fails pretty miserably in this particular circumstance; Duh Moose isn't going to be exonerated, after all.)

As to "play[ing] into the hands of terrorists," that's the sort of hyperdeterministic analysis that applies to anything, if you want it to. Killing Du Moose does it, because he becomes a martyr to the ReligionOPeacers; leaving him alive does it, because it shows the ReligionOPeacers that we're too soft to execute a guilty man, while they're strong enough to execute the innocent. Censoring the CartoonsOfBlasphemy shows that threats work; not censoring the CartoonsOfBlasphemy is an outrage that must be paid for in blood.

Etc.

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

A "martyr" for whom?

[wilfulcait.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[joelrosenberg.livejournal.com]

Afterthought: justice <> vengeance, although the two may overlap. At least arguably, going through with the forms and substance of a largely reasonable legal system may be about the best justice that can occur.

That said, on the scale of avenging this particular atrocity, sticking a needle in his arm doesn't seem to me to move the meter much more or less than sticking him in a hole until he dies of natural causes.