Moussaoui Verdict

Wow, I like that.

This man lived in the USA, he went to flying school. And if I'm not mistaken, he came from a rich Middle Eastern country. Furthermore, he didn't actually killed people, only plotted together with others who did.

Moussaoui's great ambition was to be a martyr for radical Islam.

Living men make rubbish martyrs.

"America, you lose," he said - well, I don't know about that, but he certainly lost, and so did the radical Islamic cause - they cannot claim that the "American infidels" murdered one of their "great believers".

Executing him would have given those Imams plenty of ammunition.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Enzo Scifo:
Furthermore, he didn't actually killed people, only plotted together with others who did. [QUOTE]

Yeah, he ONLY plotted with others who did. :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

This man lived in the USA, he went to flying school. And if I'm not mistaken, he came from a rich Middle Eastern country. Furthermore, he didn't actually killed people, only plotted together with others who did. [/QB][/QUOTE]


In the U.S. justice system, Moussaoui was part of a plan to kill others which is known as accessory to murder. When the plan called for killing as many people as possible (which is what these radical Islamists want), and over 3,000 innocent people paid with their lives for this plot, then this guy should be killed.

Furthermore, if he wasn't acting so stupid at the flight school, it's a safe assumption he would have been on one of those hijacked planes which would have completely solidified his guilt.

You say he lived in the U.S. - that doesn't make him a U.S. citizen. He either was here as an illegal immigrant or he had false documents allowing him to be here. Whatever it was, he was deceiving the U.S. as to what his true intentions of being here were.

I'm looking for the story, but did you hear the Moussaoui asked the judge if he could have another trial? He wanted to change his plea or something? Anybody hear that? Judge told him, that's not how they system worked....Denied!!!!!


TIS

Yes TIS, I read that story this morning. Scary thing though is that the Judge said No to him, and then told him to file an appeal with a higher court! Imagine that? This bastard is part of one of the biggest plots to attack our country, he is given a fair trial under our system, confesses and then avoids the death penalty. Now he has the right to file an appeal to a higher court?

This is exactly what I was talking about in an earlier post that I made about his receiving life instead of death. As long as he is allowed to live, there is always the chance, no matter how slim it may be, that he can get off on a technicality or an appeal.

If he was sentenced to death, that would have been it. No appeals, no chance of ever getting out. The world would be that much of a better place with one less terrorist scumbag in it.


Don Cardi

I must have not gotten all of the story. I didn't know he was told to appeal to a higher court. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll get the appeal though.


TIS

Everyone has the right to appeal.

Whether or not he wins his appeal (very doubtful) is the question.

Administering the death penalty in order to remove a person's right to appeal a verdict is about the worst reason I ever heard for having the death penalty.

You talk abour how he had a fair trial, DC, but if he wins his appeal on a "technicality", doesn't that mean that his trial wasn't fair?

And winniing an appeal doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that he simply gets released.

He'll be held without bail agian, tried again, and undoubtedly convicted again, so what's everyone so worried about?

The best thing we can possibly do is accord this guy every single right that a person accused of a crime in The United States of America is entitled to, which shows the rest of the world that our system - democracy, with everyone entitled to the same basic rights - works better than any other.

Yeah, so it costs money to keep this guy alive through the appeals process.

Big deal.

Think of the hundreds of billions we're spending in Iraq right now to promote and foster democracy.

Keeping this guy alive while he goes through the process is money well spent if we want to spread democracy throughout the world, IMO.

PLaw,

I understand that everyone can appeal, but the way I understand it (and I only heard a breif news story, didn't find an article),is that he wanted to appeal simply to change his plea. Can you appeal simmply to change your plea? Usually one appeals because they feel they didn't get a fair trial, new evidence or something like that.

TIS

I dunno...if he pled "guilty" the first time and has good grounds for wanting to change to a "not guilty" plea, like if he can show that his counsel advised him to plead guilty the first time and his counsel was incompetent, and/or he wanted to testify on his own behalf and his counsel advised him against it or something like that, then maybe he can.

I really don't know.

If he pled "not guilty", though, and wanted to change to a "guilty" plea, I can't imagine how that would be grounds for an appeal or a new trial.

Just speculating here, of course.

Yeah, he deserves a fair trial, like the one that he and his cohorts gave to everyone that they were responsible for executing. Who do the 3000 people that died on 9/11 see for their appeal? :rolleyes:

F**K HIM! They should have excecuted the scumbag.


Don Cardi

Well again, I'm only going by the brief tidbit I heard on tv, but he told the judge something like, he "now" believes he can get a fair trial (whatever that means ).
If this is the case, it makes me wonder if he even talked to a lawyer before asking for an appeal. I would think he would, and then the lawyer would take it to the judge no? But then the lawyer, one would think, would surely advise him of legitimate reasons for appeal.

TIS

How did we know if the guy was guilty or not until he had his fair trial?

You seem to be implying that he wasn't entitled to one (Yeah, he deserves a fair trial, like the one that he and his cohorts gave to everyone that they were responsible for executing), or am I misunderstanding something here?

Well, I'll be VERY surprised if this prick actually gets a re-trial. I mean, what grounds does he have anyway for one?

Anyway DC, keep your pants on. Besides, if he does ever beat appeals and released from jail, Super Vigilante DJ will be there to save the day for us!

Do you know what he pled in the first place? I really didn't follow the trial or anything.

Besides Double J, I said all the "cool" vigilantes were fictional.

WTF is so cool about Brown anyway? I mean besides him being a reported nutjob of a terrorist. Really DJ, you equating terrorism with vigilantes? Man, I can't believe it!

PLaw,

No, I'm not saying that at all. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial! If, in any case, with any one, it turns out the trial wasn't "fair", then by all means he should be retried.

I'm simply saying that Moussaoui "said" he now believes he can get a fair trial. He is entitled to it, and I can only assume he had one. I am asking/questioning the legitimate reasons for asking for an appeal. Can you simply say you want to change your plea for guilty to not guilty and get an appeal?

TIS

I'm not implying that you said anything that I disagree with, TIS.

I know you think the guy was entitled to a fair trial. I was just asking if you knew what his original plea was.

PLaw,

He pled "guilty" but now says it was a complete fabrication. I found the story here. I can't copy/past the link for whatever reason, but here's the story:

TIS


Moussaoui tries to retract his plea; 'too late,' judge saysBy Nadine Elsibai
Bloomberg News
WASHINGTON - The judge in the Zacarias Moussaoui case yesterday rejected an effort by the convicted Sept. 11 conspirator to withdraw his guilty plea and go to trial in an effort to prove he was not part of the 2001 terrorist plot.

In a motion filed by his court-appointed lawyers, Moussaoui also described as "a complete fabrication" his trial testimony that he and convicted shoe-bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11 and fly it into the White House.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Va., said federal court rules barred defendants from withdrawing a guilty plea after sentencing. Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty in April 2005 to conspiracy charges, was sentenced last week to life in prison.

Moussaoui's motion, filed Friday and released yesterday, "is too late and must be denied on this basis alone," Brinkema ruled.

The defense attorneys said in a footnote that they realized defendants were barred from withdrawing a plea after sentencing. But they said they were filing the request anyway "given their problematic relationship with Moussaoui, of which the court is well aware."

In the motion, Moussaoui said he was "extremely surprised" when the jury did not sentence him to death.

But after "reading how the jurors set aside their emotions and disgust for me and focused on the law and the evidence that was presented during the trial," he said, "I came to understand that the jury process was more complex than I assumed."

Well, that's that then.

He was accorded all of the rights he was entitled to.

Case closed.

Yea, answered my question, once "sentenced" you can't change your plea. So, I assume it can be changed before sentencing, allowing for an appeal.

I've always found the law, trials very interesting.

TIS

Exactly. And I was being sarcastic in saying that he and his cohorts gave a fair trial to all those that they were responsible for killing and plotting to kill. I was trying to say that he deserves the same kind of treatment that he gave all those that were murdered. So I'll spell it out for you - He deserved to be killed. No rights, no second chances. None of those that were killed were given a second chance, were they?

Civil rights my ass. As far as I'm concerned he doesn't have any.


Don Cardi

Now, DC, calm down!

I know it is difficult for people of your stripe to understand, but we have this thing called a constitution, and we have laws and procedures that need to be followed because we don't want to be like the Taliban or the North Koreans. In our system everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone is entitled to a trial. I understand that we have had a president in office for the past six years who shares your lack of understanding of the rule of law, so perhaps it has slipped your mind.

Unlike you, that man is also a liar and a war criminal...but I digress.

He pleaded guilty, went through a sentencing trial, and now wants to change his pleas. He received every right under our constitution. Now he is trying to make a mockery of our system.

Perhaps if more people of my stripe were in charge, or were lawyers, then people like this scumbag would never walk the face of the earth or harm another human being ever again.

But unfortunately we have too many people of your stripe in our legal system, and our security and well being is continually being compromised because of this "we need to treat them fairly" attitude. These people declared war on us, and are threatening the future for our children. And as far as I'm concerned, if you attack or attempt to attack my family and take away their lives, then all bets are off.

But then again the people of your stripe don't have the understanding that this is it, that it's them or us.

Tell me something, who do the people who were crushed, blown up and burnt see about having their civil rights protected? What court do they appeal to so that they can have the chance of living a life again? Did Bin Laden and his people consider the civil rights of those that they murdered? Hell no. But what Bin Laden and his followers did consider is that there are people like you with that bullshit "let's give them a fair trial" attitude out there and they know just how to work the system that you seem so willingly to want to allow them to be part of. :rolleyes:

And what the hell does the President have to do with this conversation about this issue?


Don Cardi

And what the hell does the President have to do with this conversation about this issue?


Don Cardi [/QB][/QUOTE]


DC the president has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just yanking your chain.

Of course he is trying to make a mockery of our system, what would you expect him to do? They aren't going to let him change his plea, and he is off to Colorado where I hope he rots in darkness and annonymity for a long, long time. The reason he is going there is precisely because of the wrongful taking the lives of the victims whose civil rights you were talking about.

I'm not gonna argue the death penalty issue with you here.

If you believe in it, then he certainly deserves it. If you don't believe in it, as I don't, that's another argument altogether.

But if we deny the guy a fair trial as you would do, DC, then how do we know he's guilty?

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying he deserved anything more than he got.

I assume his trial was fair and he doesn't seem to have any grounds for appeal so, as I said, "Case closed"

But don't you think he had to get that trial in the first place?

We can't very well give someone a trial and then if they're found guilty say "He's guilty, so he didn't deserve a trial."

That doesn't make any sense, does it?

He's been given a fair trial. He confessed and also confessed that he'd pretty much do the same if he had it all to do again.

He's guilty.

Anyway, he won't get the new requested trial. We've heard the last of him.

Those jurors (might've been only 2 or 3) who voted to spare his life will probably come to regret it.

Apple

From one 'stripe' to another....



PLEASE, God...if it were only so!!

He pleaded guilty. And I think that you know where I stand about terrorists and if they should be given the same rights as humans or not. So that's all I'll say about that.

Now all we need is the "what makes one a human and who are and who are not human" post to be made by the other guy from here and we'll have completed the circle!


Don Cardi

I know how you feel about terrorists, DC, and I don't feel all that much differently.

After it's proven that they're terrorists.

So what was there to prove in this case? He confessed!

Don Cardi

Yeah, but at the beginning of this conversation you implied that the guy wasn't etitled to a fair trial because he was a terrorist.

All I'm saying is we have to give these guys a fair trial, otherwise we don't know if they are terrorists or not.

And I still stand by that statement.


See you over in the sports thread my friend.


Don Cardi

If he was sentenced to death he would have had an automatic right to appeal.

This way he doesn't.

But that's not the statement that I disagree with.

What you said there happens to be correct. the guy is a scumbag, and if you believe in the death penalty I can think of no better candidate for it than him.

But what I do disagree with was this:

"Yeah, he deserves a fair trial, like the one that he and his cohorts gave to everyone that they were responsible for executing.....He deserved to be killed. No rights, no second chances."

Which to me means that you don't think he was entitled to a fair trial in the first place.

It would be great if there were some way that we knew for sure, before putting someone on trial, so we could say

"Oh, good. This guy is a terrorist, so we don't have to give him a fair trial because we know that he's a terrorist".

But the purpose of the trial is so that we are sure he's a terrorist, and we can't deny someone their rights until we are sure.

But hell, you know that....

See 'ya in the Sports Forum.....


StatMan

--------------------
na na na na na na na na........
na na na na na na na na........
na na na na na na na na........
Stat Man

I'll uncharastically put my neck out on this, but I believe that the poster was trying to say that while under the legal system Moussaoui (and any other 'terrorist' was entitled to a trial, while he had the right to a fair trial as does any other common scumbag criminal ... he simply didn't deserve a fair trial and should've been taken out and the day it was discovered he was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Just like the rest of them.

We can run that around in circles with the usual sanctimonious attitude...but I believe that's all the poster was intending to convey.



Apple

But how did we know that until the trial, counsel?

The fairest trial of all is with Time, the outcome of which has only one winner.

Why jump the gun and kill him before the demoralisation of old-age...and one in jail, to boot?

Indeed... much better that the radical Islamists are denied a young martyr slain by the "evil" Western regime ... plus it means he will have to wait longer to get those 71 virgins as a reward for his valiant efforts...

i think moussaoui is just a wannabe really who missed his flight but whatever part he did have in 911 is significant just based on the event nevertheless tho he'll have a hard time in jail
hes gonna be treated worse than a cop in jail just based on his associations

That's a good way to avoid the question, counselor.

Shall I rephrase that, or is it considered being "argumentative" and "badgering the witness" if I do?

I can understand the contempt/hatred toward Moussaoui. I'm guessing all of America feels that same contempt/hatred. And believe me, I understand the argument of those he conspired to kill had no rights. I can imagine their loved ones think of nothing else. Yet, we can't forget that we are not the animals that they are. We are a Nation of laws. We can't randomly decide who does or doesn't deserve a fair trial, or we become like them. And who and when would such a decision be made???

To you DC, our entire nation felt the "jolt" that day, but I know it hit closer to home for you and others in your area. I just want you to know that I do understand and respect why you feel the way you do. Maybe that's why it's easier for me to step back, so to speak, I don't know.

TIS

TIS, that was very nicely worded...but in all honesty it shouldn't be easier for you to 'step back, so to speak'...because even though the 9/11 attacks took place in our part of the country...it was an attack on the entire nation. Would you expect anyone on the east coast to step back if the attacks had taken place in California?

As for Mr. Moussaoui, I doubt that Don Cardi or anyone else needs to be preached to that we are a nation of laws. I belive he understands and appreciates that, and is (IMO) simply stating how he wishes Moussaoui could be dealt with. Even if he knows that in this 'nation of laws' it cannot really happen. Oh and by the way I feel the same way.

Personally, the life in prison/solitary confinement/no chance of release sentence was fine with me. Even if he had gotten the death penalty it probably would've been YEARS before it was carried out.

Apple

Apple,

By "stepping back", I am referring to the fact that I had no loved one or friend killed in the attack. I can only imagine how I'd feel if I did.

As far as getting "preachy", I hope DC knows me better than to think that.

TIS

You got that right Apple. I don't understand why they wait years and years and years before they carry out that sentence.

Mig,

Most people on death row are literally on it for years. I don't really know the specific reason. Unless there is a minimum amount of years they wait in case they find the person wasn't guilty????? I don't know, just guessing. Or, maybe that ol "red tape."


TIS

Neither did I.

The fact that I did not happen to suffer a personal loss that day in no way allows me to feel that it's easy to 'step back' from the meaning and intent of those attacks.

Apple

TIS, I really think you're pulling our legs her...but just in case...it's called 'Appeals'.

Death sentencess have been delayed for more than 20 years in some cases (those 2 very recent ones in CA for instance) while lawyers for the condemnded have exhausted the appeals process.

The only reason Timothy McVeigh is dead today is that he ordered his appeals stopped. His lawyers had no choice.

Scott Peterson will probably sit in prison another 10 years at least until he's finally put to death for the murder of his wife and unborn child (unless they find that devil-worshipping cult that clown Mark Geragos tried to put over on the jury).

Apple

Because everyone has the automatic right to an appeal - which is a good thing since past history has shown that they make so many mistakes by convicting and almost executing innocent people.

Gary Scheck and Peter Neufeld, two of OJ Simpson's lawyers, founded and run The Innocence Project, which you can read about here:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

and here:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ips.htm

To date, they have secured the release of dozens of death row inmates, wrongfully convicted of murder who were awaiting execution.

That's a bit ironic that OJ's lawyers are involved in the innocence project, no? :p

Looking at it in retrospect, it was rather strange that as devoted as they are to using DNA evidence as a tool to free those who are quite probably innocent, that they got themselves involved in a case that required that they kind of prove the unreliability of DNA evidence to help free someone who they had to believe was quite probably guilty.

I do, however, believe that the DNA evidence in the case was very likely compromised and/or tainted and therefore unreliable, and that there quite possibly or probably was misconduct on the part of members of the LAPD.

But I also think that the case against OJ was strong enough to convict him, all of those other factors notwithstanding.

I did read a very interesting book by Alan Dershowitz in which he makes a very compelling argument that the verdict, based on the way in which the case was presented and the way that the trial proceeded, was quite reasonable.

But I'm not looking to turn this into an OJ discussion, either.

Ya, McVeigh stopped the appeals...and did so to become a martyr for his anti-governmental white supremecist cause.

I rather have such glory-seeking scumbags become old reclics within their own lifetimes.

Quote:

I doubt that Don Cardi or anyone else needs to be preached to that we are a nation of laws. I belive he understands and appreciates that, and is (IMO) simply stating how he wishes Moussaoui could be dealt with.

Yes Apple, you are correct I do understand that this is a nation of laws to protect it's people, and that is what makes us such a great nation. Your coming to my defense is admirable, and I sincerely appreciate it. But I also happen to know TIS, and I am very confident that she was not trying to "preach" to me. I can assure you that it is not her style.

If anything, she was probably attempting to give me a Godmotherly "wake up slap" trying to say to me

"what's the matter with you, I think your brains gone sour from all that resentment you've built up towards those bastards, never let their way of doing things bring you down to their level, we're better than that!"

Quote:

As far as getting "preachy", I hope DC knows me better than to think that.

Of course I know you better than that! Your my Godmother, and you have the right to slap me and tell me that I can "act like a man" anytime you want.


The truth is that it looks as if BOTH of you ladies know and understand where I am coming from, and I thank you both for showing that.


Don Cardi

Point taken, DC...and made with your usual gentlemanly class and style.



Apple

ps - truth is, I do know that 'preaching' is not TIS' style. I was being a 'stinker'. Just this once.

He wont get a re-trial, but I bet he takes all kinds of appeals while he is doing time. Most inmates file all kinds of petitions for writs, in state and federal courts without lawyers. 99.99% of them get dismissed out of hand.

One time I did a foreclosure on a house owned by an inmate, who obviously couldnt pay his mortgage, and he turned around and sued me, the judge and the bank for some crazy shit which got thrown out immediately. The he took an appeal which got thrown out, then he took an appeal to the State Supreme Court which got thrown out. Then he sued me, the original judge, the bank, the intermediate court of appeals, and the State Supreme Court in Federal District court. That case got tossed, and he went to the 11th Circuit, which tossed it, and the US Supreme Court which tossed it. Then he went back to federal court alleging that all of us (me, the judges etc) were engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his "rights." AT that point the Federal District court declared him a "vexacious litigator" and issued a blanket order for the clerk not to accept any pleadings from him unless they were signed by a lawyer. Thats the last we heard of him.

It's a matter of the lengthy court process through our justice system. Appeallate courts and the State & Supreme Courts have many applicants who want their cases heard. It takes a lot of time to sift through the small fraction that actually are considered by a higher court.

To give you an example of how long the process can take, Ted Bundy was captured after escaping prison (for the 2nd time in one year) in February 1978. During the time he was free, he killed or assaulted 6 Florida women and killed a little girl. He was convicted and sentenced to death by two separate juries in 1979 and 1980. Due to the appeals process (Bundy even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court), Bundy wasn't executed until January 1989.

In Ohio, when the death penalty was reinstated, there was an inmate who made headlines in 1998 because he waived all of his appeals. He would have died sooner had Ohio been using the death penalty prior to 1998. (I can't recall how long capital punishment was inactivated prior to 1998 here.)

Remember before Tim McVeigh died - there was all that talk that he could escape the death penalty due to a technicality involving something the FBI did wrong.

According to a story on heard today on MSN, there was only one juror who voted against the death penalty. He barely made it. I wonder if there was a lot of discussion on that point among jurors?


TIS

The jury foreman either wrote or was interviewed for an article in which he said this lone juror indicated early on she would not be swayed from voting NO on the death penalty. He said something to the effect that is was discouraging to the other 11 to realize that their core beliefs and deliberation would eventually be debunked by the vote of this single person.

Apple

You say he lived in the U.S. - that doesn't make him a U.S. citizen. He either was here as an illegal immigrant or he had false documents allowing him to be here. Whatever it was, he was deceiving the U.S. as to what his true intentions of being here were. [/b][/quote]He could also have had legal documents to stay here for a certain period.

That's not really democratic. If president Bush knows about this kind of dictatorial talk, he would bomb your house.