<p>I heard a discussion about this on the radio the other day.</p>
<p>Here was the question:</p>
<p>If Moussaui wants death, for the rewards in heaven ,and to become a martyr for the cause, should we grant his wish? </p>
<p>Is his dying hurting us more in regards to creating a hero/martyr in the eyes of some, or is it better to let him languish in jail, not going to his heavenly reward…</p>
<p>Just a thought for some heated discussion</p>
<p>does he run with his ball in a basket on a stick? NO…forget the heated discussion!!</p>
<p>Jail would be fine if he were held without ever having access to the press or lawyers. In other words silent to the world. Last thing I want is another guy spouting off like Saddam.</p>
<p>I agree, but lawyers even prisonoers need, press, no, with that I “gasp” agree with Barrons</p>
<p>I am thinking of lawyers like Ramsey Clark who are more about making purely political speeches.</p>
<p>Darn, just when I thought there was hope…</p>
<p>Sorry, Clark is so far off the deep end.</p>
<p>In theory, I’m opposed to the death penalty. But if I had lost someone on 9/11, I think I’d look at the issue differently.</p>
<p>i am opposed to the death penalty. </p>
<p>This persons reward is death and martyrdom, so is his death really a punishment? Or is he getting his wish? Throughout his case, he said and did everything it seems to get the death penalty, to further his cause…so is killing him helping him? ANd hurting us, and the percieived justice, is it justice if he wants that end for the Cause?</p>
<p>Killing him doesn’t help him, since he ends up dead, - but a death sentence will keep him in the public eye longer, and will give him more control (albeit perverse and self-destructive). But there will be media attention on everything up to the very end, whereas a life sentence would essentially lead to oblivion. </p>
<p>Unless he successfully instructs his attorneys to withdraw all appeals (as Timothy McVeigh did at the end), it is very unlikely that a death penalty would be carried out because of 3 issues in this case that provide a very strong basis for appeal: (1) the prosecutorial misconduct of the witness tampering by the TSA lawyer; (2) the inability of the defense to interview or cross-examine the terrorists held in custody abroad – especially important because it deprived the jury of the ability to observe their demeanor to assess credibility as compared to the defendant’s own testimony; (3) and the very shaky legal theory for the death penalty, which is being based on a failure to act rather than a direct act. (If Moussaui had merely kept his mouth shut when arrested, he would have been exercising his legal right to remain silent and it wouldn’t matter why: he could not be held liable for the consequences of not incriminating himself. The prosecution theory is that his lies lead to deaths, but M. didn’t know information that would have led to the truth in any case: so telling the truth wouldn’t have made a difference. The prosecution theory is really that if M. had consented to search of his belongings, they would have discovered information leading to the other hijackers – but again, M. had a legal right to refuse consent. The real “cause” of the failure to discover the evidence was that the FBI failed/refused to seek a warrant to search M.'s possessions; they had ample evidence to support a warrant but didn’t even try to seek one) So basically I think it is very problematical if someone is given the death penalty for exercising legal rights under the 4th & 5th amendment. There needs to be something more – M.'s lie that he was a “tourist” really doesn’t establish a causal nexus. </p>
<p>But as I noted, I think that once convicted, M. probably has the legal right to withdraw all appeals, but that might result in a catch-22 like competency hearing for a man who by all accounts is probably schizophrenic. (What if he were ruled incompetent and then medicated, and when medicated changed his mind? And then sought a new trial based on the harm that occured from his own statements while crazy?) </p>
<p>Somehow I think that M. probably will not withdraw those appeals, since he probably wants the attention more than he wants death. Saddam Hussein looks to me to enjoy the attention he gets when he goes to court,too. (Charles Taylor – not too happy - he thought he was going to get away. Milosevic? having fun up until the point he dropped dead. Oops.) </p>
<p>My view as a lawyer is that this is a case of some of the best lawyers around, who unfortunately happen to have the worst client ever. Ramsey Clark is better off with Saddam, who at least has the sense to dress better when he comes to court. (I think he did come in his pajamas one day, but then so did Michael Jackson, and he managed to get off anyway).</p>
<p>Philosophically, I’m not opposed to the death penalty, but does knowing somone who died in 9/11 actually constitute a reason to make an exception if you do? I don’t follow that. I’m with Calmom - the death penalty in this case smacks of a need for revenge winning out over reason. This guy was a nut job that even al Qaeda didn’t trust with a real assignment. I’m not impressed with the moral compass of the Islamic extremists - I don’t see a reason to imitate it.</p>
<p>What really irks me is that we have the guy that PLANNED 9/11 in custody - apparently we tortured him to get his cooperation, and who knows what conditions of confinement are – but he’s certainly not being prosecuted. So whatever level of involvement Moussaui has, he was low man on the totem poll – while the leaders/organizers are apparently being kept alive for their intelligence value. The one thing we know for sure is that M. was in custody on 9/11 and was no longer involved in any way at that point, albeit involuntarily. </p>
<p>I am opposed to the death penalty and this sort of case illustrates why – why should some low-level nut case be the scapegoat while the government makes a deliberate choice to refrain from prosecution of the leaders? </p>
<p>But I have to say I’m not shedding any tears over Moussaui if he seems dead set on committing suicide. I can’t imagine any guy having better legal representation and a fairer-minded judge than he has been afforded. If he had cooperated with his lawyers, the case would not be at this juncture.</p>
<p>He was a low man…but when you read about suicide bombers, the martyrdom created, his status will rise when we, the ugly Americans, execute him</p>
<p>I am just thinking of the particular aspects of putting him to death, and the benefit he will reap in death, as will the followers</p>
<p>Well I think the extremists will use anything available for propoganda purposes – if we execute Moussaui they will make an issue of it, if we don’t they will find something else – we certainly continue to give them plenty to work with in Iraq & Afghanistan. I don’t think they really care at all about Moussaui – he’s got no real following as an individual. Think of it: to the extent he was recruited by Al Qeada, it was as a would-be suicide-hijacker. By definition, assigned to a role because his life was not valued and he was seen as expendible. Now he’s a suicide-hijacker who failed dismally in his mission. But yes – if an execution date were set, the guy would suddenly be of more use to them, and they’d make a big deal over it. </p>
<p>The government really should have just dropped the death penalty after he pleaded guilty – if a life sentence is good enough for the shoe-bomber, why not the same for Moussaui? There have been plenty of opportunities for the government to save face with this without pressing ahead. In the long run the whole witness-tampering thing is going to be much more of a black eye for the government, especially since it looks like it will result in a criminal prosecution of the lawyer involved, and this is the SECOND case of prosecutors in a terrorism case being themselves prosecuted for overreaching. I mean… it makes the American justice system look like it is run by a bunch of thugs.</p>
<p>Kluge, I think that some things we believe may change depending on circumstances. What someone believes as a general principle, may change if one is a victim.</p>
<p>Ditto Kluge.</p>
<p>So, SJMom, if we believe in principles, does it follow that victim’s opinions should be ignored? Or do we ignore the principles because of empathy for the victims? I guess my take is that truly principled people won’t change their opinions because of their personal loss (and there are some who don’t) but in the more common case we should accept human nature for what it is when the victims cry out for revenge - and do what principle demands anyway.</p>
<p>calmom,</p>
<p>I like your reasoning. Just one thing, what “accounts” make him “probably schizophrenic”? Or is that more of a convenient layman’s term to “cover all bases”?</p>
<p>Just thought I’d revive this thread, now that the jury has spoken.</p>
<p>This is a pretty good outcome, under current circumstances. There was a program on TV last year about the prison in Angola, Louisiana, which made it clear that life w/o parole was a whole lot worse, because the convicts then lose access to lawyers, press, support groups, etc. He’ll be buried alive in a super-max federal prison and no one will ever hear of him again, whereas if he were allowed to go through our 20-year celebrity criminal appeals process, he would indeed attract the Ramsey Clarks and the Mumia Abdul Jamar people, etc. Remember Sirhan and Manson? Yes, we hear of them every 10 years or so, when they go before the parole board for the ritual denial. Moussaui won’t even make it to that level of public remembrance.</p>