Article

2006-05-12 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-05-12 00:43|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Prob the same person whom left the Alamo, shot Jesse James in the back of the head, and shot Liberty Valance also!?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-05-12 01:06|| 2006-05-12 01:06|| Front Page Top

#2 Grrr!

Posted by 3dc 2006-05-12 01:07|| 2006-05-12 01:07|| Front Page Top

#3 This makes me sick. We are not a serious country if our concept of justice cannot include executing the people who attacked us on 9/11.

Posted by JAB 2006-05-12 01:41|| 2006-05-12 01:41|| Front Page Top

#4 The AP reporter obviously knows the identity of the sole hold out and his reason for not approving the death penalty:
The first juror (of two interviewed) said he voted for life in prison because he thought that Moussaoui, 37, had only a marginal role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. I just wonder why he didn't share those thoughts with the other jurors.

Posted by GK 2006-05-12 03:59|| 2006-05-12 03:59|| Front Page Top

#5 "I just wonder why he didn't share those thoughts with the other jurors."

The terminal cynic in me says there's a 15 minutes of fame / book deal brewing in this twit's head.

Posted by Gleresing Jomolet9901 2006-05-12 04:14|| 2006-05-12 04:14|| Front Page Top

#6 You may be right, GJ. In that case he should collect all his fees in advance.

Posted by GK 2006-05-12 05:46|| 2006-05-12 05:46|| Front Page Top

#7 I've never sat in a jury box, or even watched a real (vs. TV) trial. In a situation like this, is there an option for non-anonymous voting?

Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-12 07:11|| 2006-05-12 07:11|| Front Page Top

#8 In boxing lingo you would call that guy a "Ringer".

Posted by Omase Unaviger5871 2006-05-12 07:55|| 2006-05-12 07:55|| Front Page Top

#9 If Moussaoui had been given a death sentence, he would get at least half a dozen chances to spout off, probably personnally, in various appeals.

Each time, he would get super-duper publicity.

Its a serious downside of the death penalty in this case.

Posted by mhw 2006-05-12 07:55|| 2006-05-12 07:55|| Front Page Top

#10 Technically this person failed their duty to deliberate. Voting up or down is not deliberating. Aslo I would check this persons bank deposit history; there may be a big spike after jury selection.

Posted by airandee 2006-05-12 08:16|| 2006-05-12 08:16|| Front Page Top

#11 On April 26, the third day of deliberations, the jury's frustrations reached a critical point because of several 11-1 votes on one charge. But no one could figure out who was casting the dissenting vote, the foreman said, because that person didn't identify himself during any discussion - and each of the votes were done using anonymous ballots.

While I personally think rotting in Supermax is more fitting, this was cowardly and inappropriate. How can a jury deliberate the issues pro and con, hear all sides, attempt to convince hold-outs, gain consensus, etc? The lone hold-out did so clandestinely it appears, which is cowardly. This is a pretty good argument in favor of a military tribunal I'd say.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-12 08:25|| 2006-05-12 08:25|| Front Page Top

#12 Why did the other 11 agree to take the verdict in? They were only out a week. I'd have waited the jerk out at least a month and kept the jury going until the person was uncovered and made to present their case. The jury foreperson should also have called for a hand vote instead of a secret ballot in order to expose the holdout.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-12 08:25|| 2006-05-12 08:25|| Front Page Top

#13 Keep an eye towards the French......

Posted by OyVey 1 2006-05-12 08:44|| 2006-05-12 08:44|| Front Page Top

#14 Frankly, I can't see killing someone because of what they knew and didn't tell us, yet for his silence, his life will be a torture of nothingness. I'd rather be dead. Putting him through this kind of confinment is cruel and it shows just how out of touch our judicial system has become.
If he was a soldier planning for an attack, but was captured, he would be right not to talk. In his mind that is the case. No doubt he was read his Miranda rights. Was he not just following his rights ?
It's the issuing of the Miranda which should be on trial here. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you can't afford one, one will be assigned to you.

Posted by wxjames 2006-05-12 09:32|| 2006-05-12 09:32|| Front Page Top

#15 Putting him through this kind of confinment is cruel

It is, but the point of a justice system is to punish people and deter others. I'd say the penalty does both.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-12 09:49|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-12 09:49|| Front Page Top

#16 Life in supermax.
Moussaoui went from "I won, you lost" to wanting a do-over after the stark reality of life in supermax hit home. Rotting slowly in solitary is WORSE than death. It's a dungeon, a well lit dungeon, but a dungeon none the less. That jury holdout did him no favor at all.

Posted by My 2 cents 2006-05-12 09:57|| 2006-05-12 09:57|| Front Page Top

#17 It is, but the point of a justice system is to punish people and deter others. I'd say the penalty does both.

I'd suggest it does neither.

Deterrence:

We've been executing people for murder for at least 10,000 years. During that time the prevalence of murder has fluctuated but there is no evidence that this is strongly related to the imposition of the death penalty. If we really believe deterrence is the purpose, executions should be televised and done in the most painful manner possible under the cruel and unusual punishment rule. I would favor hanging as it was the primary method in use at the time of the drafting of the constitution.

Punishment:

Make the punishment fit the crime. In this case the punishment is separation from society, either through execution or imprisonment. Execution has the advantage of being unappealable. Imprisonment has the advantage of no drawn out mandatory appeal process. I prefer whichever is less expensive.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-12 10:04|| 2006-05-12 10:04|| Front Page Top

#18 Guilt and innocence should be left to juries to decide. The Constitution guarantees trial by jury. But it says NOTHING about a jury deciding the punishment for a crime. That should be a matter of the Judge simply reading codified law. There will always be some loon on the jury who, despite overwhelming evidence that the defendant is a monster, will veto the death penalty because they have no concept of the law, nor of the concept that a man should get what he deserves. Not retribution, not revenge but just desserts.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-12 10:22|| 2006-05-12 10:22|| Front Page Top

#19 A agree with you,mc. However, the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with us. June 2002: In a 7-2 decision in the case of Ring v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the practice of having a judge, rather than a jury, decide the critical sentencing issues in a death penalty case.
That decision took three heinous killers off of death row here in Colorado and converted their sentences to life in prison.

Posted by GK 2006-05-12 11:20|| 2006-05-12 11:20|| Front Page Top

#20 You're right GK. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has "ended" alot of practices that are clearly defined in the Constitution. Contructionism has been almost entirely replaced by activism.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-12 11:30|| 2006-05-12 11:30|| Front Page Top

#21 we dont need no martyrs

Posted by bk 2006-05-12 11:38|| 2006-05-12 11:38|| Front Page Top

#22 Moussaoui is a failure, not a martyr. But by allowing him to live, he becomes a symbol of turning failure into success by sucking millions of $ enemy resources that could be used for battle. Even in failure, he shows the muslim world that they can continue to inflict damage to the soft west.

Posted by ed 2006-05-12 12:05|| 2006-05-12 12:05|| Front Page Top

#23 How long will Moussaouis's success comfort him, as feels his borderline insanity become full-blown? He changed his mind after only a weekend in his new home -- I don't think it will take long. The remainder of his life won't be terribly expensive. Think of it as Gitmo-isolation tank... and he won't even have the satisfaction of throwing his feces at the guards.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-12 14:10|| 2006-05-12 14:10|| Front Page Top

#24 Absolutely - he'll end up just like the polar bear at Bristol zoo - totally mental within a year, pacing up and down.. no better fate for a wannabe jihadi..

Posted by Howard UK 2006-05-12 14:13|| 2006-05-12 14:13|| Front Page Top

#25 #14: "Putting him through this kind of confinment is cruel"

Not half as cruel as what he wanted to do.

Let 'im rot in Supermax - until time for him to rot in HELL.

None of these jihadis or jihadi-wannabees will get one iota of sympathy from me.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut"> Barbara Skolaut 2006-05-12 14:21|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-05-12 14:21|| Front Page Top

#26 The Prison Journal
(In 2002?) The average daily cost for inmates at the supermax facility in Colorado in 1999 was $88.72, compared to the daily cost of $50.82 for a maximum security prison. Annually, the cost per year in a supermax prison was $32,383 compared to $18,549 for a maximum security prison.

I would be more in favor of forming a prisoner army to conquer and pillage the middle east than in boarding any Moussaouis.

Posted by ed 2006-05-12 14:24|| 2006-05-12 14:24|| Front Page Top

#27
"That jury holdout did him no favor at all."

That jury hold out may have been the sartest one on the jury. Someone else here said the sentence was "cruel".

I dissagree, it is harsh, but it should be. But it is not cruel.

-2 cents more.

Posted by I will add 2 cents more. 2006-05-12 15:48|| 2006-05-12 15:48|| Front Page Top

#28
Oops! sartest=smartest

Posted by I will add 2 cents more. 2006-05-12 15:49|| 2006-05-12 15:49|| Front Page Top

#29 May be I am just a redneck from Carolina, but when did the Constitution become the mantra for foriners in such cases?
I personally am tired of this. Just because your caught in the U.S. dosent mean you get the benefits.

Personally, I think the Constitution is reserved for United States Of America's actual citizens and not transients. This loser should have never been tried in this manner.

Posted by SCpatriot 2006-05-12 19:25|| 2006-05-12 19:25|| Front Page Top

#30 Frankly, I can't see killing someone because of what they knew and didn't tell us,

Why not? What he didn't tell us was a plot that killed 3,000 and was intended to kill 10's of thousands, destroy the Capital Building, and disrupt our military command and control.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-05-12 19:29|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-05-12 19:29|| Front Page Top

23:43 jim#6
23:39 11A5S
23:37 trailing wife
23:28 jim#6
23:23 Barbara Skolaut
23:22 Captain America
23:15 trailing wife
23:11 Frank G
23:08 Frank G
23:07 Frank G
23:05 trailing wife
23:02 trailing wife
23:02 2b
22:58 2b
22:51 Phiter Phavilet5544
22:48 trailing wife
22:40 2b
22:40 trailing wife
22:39 TMH
22:34 jim#6
22:34 Elmart Ebbeating3116
22:29 PBMcL
22:27 Frank G
22:21 trailing wife