9/11 Bomber Gets Life

[MOBIUS]

So, now we've seen this dude receive 'due process' from the US - when are we going to see the inmates of Guantanamo have their day in court?

Surely they should be entitled to the same human rights as Moussaoui?

[SlowwHand]

[MOBIUS]

Nothing to say as usual eh?

Probably because you know I'm right as usual...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wezil
The jury did right. From all accounts he was a bumbling idiot. It would make no sense to afford him martyr status.

...and I absolutely love that female family member who's making the news circuit, saying he didn't deserve the dealth penalty...that he may have wanted to kill Americans, but he was just a "wanna be" whom al Qaeda people had themselves labeled "crazy in the head."

This strips away any claim to "credit" that he may want to make and holds him up as a pathetic loser.

[SlowwHand]

Would you have them on trial altogether?
Tell us, brainiac. What would be your big plan? Let them all go. Adios. See you very soon?

[DanS]

Judging the Moussaoui Jury

By Andrew Cohen
Special to washingtonpost.com
Thursday, May 4, 2006; 10:38 AM

Enough of them got it right in the end. And perhaps in trials like this the end justifies the means. But the completed jury verdict form in the just-completed Zacarias Moussaoui terror conspiracy trial is notable as much for its contradictions and oddities as for its insights into the case.

As you know by now, Moussaoui's federal jury was unable after more than 41 hours of deliberations to unanimously agree that the confessed al Qaeda operative deserved the death sentence for whatever role he may have played in the planning and preparation for the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

The jurors did not provide a numerical split of who had voted for death and who had voted for life in prison without the possibility of release. But the numbers we do have from the votes on the "aggravating" and "mitigating" factors included in the form reveal how trials by jury are still way more art than science no matter how hard judges and lawyers and jury consultants strive to make them otherwise. During cases like this, we tend to raise up jurors as sages, for they hold an awesome power in their collective hands. But more often than not, when we see these forms we are reminded that their authors are only human.

That's probably the best explanation I can offer for why only one juror out of 12 agreed that Moussaoui was "incarcerated' on 9/11 even though everyone who knows anything about this case knows that he was in a Minnesota jail when the Twin Towers fell. What were the other 11 jurors thinking? Perhaps that being in jail isn't the same as being incarcerated? We will never know. Nor will we know why only one juror out of the group believed that the Bureau of Prisons has the "authority and ability" to keep Moussaoui secure and away from the rest of us for the rest of his life. It's certainly not an endorsement of the public's view of the Bureau, right?

There were other oddities on the form. For example, on the first capital count, nine jurors agreed with defense lawyers that Moussaoui had an "unstable early childhood" and that his father abused his family. But on the other two capital counts, only eight jurors agreed about Moussaoui's childhood and only seven agreed that his father was abusive. What made jurors change their minds about Moussaoui's past from the first count to the others? And why did three jurors, at a minimum, refuse to believe this part of Moussaoui's story altogether? There was no evidence at trial to contradict it.

Why did only five jurors out of the 12 sign off on the statement that Moussaoui "will be incarcerated in prison for the rest of his life..." if he weren't executed? Did the seven other jurors think that Moussaoui is going to be broken out of the Supermax facility in Florence, Colorado, the toughest maximum security prison in the country? Why did 10 jurors refuse to agree that Moussaoui's father abandoned him when there was no evidence to the contrary? Why did nine jurors refuse to believe that the guy was the victim of racism when he was growing up in France? Again, prosecutors offered no evidence to contradict this conclusion.

The form reveals how broadly and deeply both sets of lawyers missed their marks with strategies, theories and arguments. For example, the defense decision to put Moussaoui's mental health into play as a mitigating factor was a complete disaster. No jurors believed that Moussaoui suffers from "a psychotic disorder." Nor, surprisingly to me, did any jurors believe that "the execution of Moussaoui would create a martyr for radical Muslim fundamentalists." And not a single juror bought the argument that a life sentence for Moussaoui would actually be harder than a capital one. These good arguments were snubbed by the panel.

For prosecutors, the verdict form represents a complete repudiation of their efforts to get a death penalty. Perhaps that is why the feds were so visibly glum during their post-verdict press conferences. First off, the jury refused to agree unanimously that Moussaoui committed his offense "in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner." And then, in a reverse coup de grace, three jurors took the unusual step of listing their own "mitigating factor" supporting a life sentence instead of the death penalty. "Zacarias Moussaoui," one juror wrote on behalf of two others, "had limited knowledge of the 9/11 attack plan."

But that affirmative statement by those three jurors contradicts other conclusions in the form. For example, not a single juror believed that Moussaoui's testimony about flying into the White House was "unreliable and contradicted by his statements about other plots he was involved in." So, if the jury unanimously believed Moussaoui's testimony as reliable, why didn't jurors unanimously believe that he was a key part of the hijack plot? After all, that is precisely what he testified to in open court, not once but twice? It just doesn't make any sense.

Likewise, jurors unanimously found that Moussaoui was more than an "ineffectual al Qaeda operative" and that his role while in Afghanistan was not merely as a "security clerk at a guesthouse and as a driver for persons staying at the guesthouse." But the jury also was unwilling to conclude that the Moussaoui's "actions.. resulted in the death of approximately 3,000 people." If this last point accurately reflects the jury's thinking, then why did the panel last month unanimously agree that Moussaoui caused death on 9/11? Which deaths did he cause to get prosecutors past part I of the sentencing trial but not past that part of the verdict form this time around?

When you add up all the numbers, and all the bank shots in logic, and all the contradictions and contrasts, you get the sort of jumble that defense attorneys love and that prosecutors hate. Complexity in a capital case almost always saves the defendant and in this case it did. That is the real story of the Moussaoui capital case; a case that began with unfounded certainty, and endured through unremitting chaos, ends with deep and lasting ambiguities. It is perfectly fitting, when you think about it, that Moussaoui's jurors would have gone off in so many different directions. The government sure did when it came to the defendant. And the defendant sure did when it came to telling his own story about the worst crime in American history.

[SpencerH]

Well that was a tad wordier than my post but yes, if you found the guy guilty, how could you not vote for death. It doesnt make sense.

[One_more_turn]

Actually, I prefer that they put him into a mental asylum for life.

No martyrdom, not even criminal, just mad.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by One_more_turn
Actually, I prefer that they put him into a mental asylum for life.

No martyrdom, not even criminal, just mad.

Indeed, after all you'd have to be mad - wanting to kill yourself by crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands of people...

[Sava]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
He bombed something on 9/11?

No. This guy was arrested for an immigrations violation or something in August of 2001. Something a professional terrorist would do a month before his major plan was about to be carried out, you know?

I seriously doubt this bum was part of the 9-11 hijackings, but the prosecution trotted out 9-11 victims, even Rudy Giuliani. It was a complete circus.

He was part of the network, no doubt... but not guilty of anything directly related to 9-11 I think. Maybe this guy picked up bin Laden's dry cleaning once. I dunno.

I don't really care.

I just thought the whole thing was kind of silly. The trial.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Would you have them on trial altogether?
Tell us, brainiac. What would be your big plan? Let them all go. Adios. See you very soon?

I can't believe you're so stupid you even have to ask the question...!?

You could firstly systematically gather evidence against each of the suspects to ascertain whether they have a case to answer and if they can't come up with anything after about three years of incarceration, then yes - let them go!

I mean you would think that if they were picked up in the first place, there would tons of evidence against them, cause nobody picks up innocent people just on the off chance do they?

Those that you do have evidence against you can put on trial so that justice can be done. Simple really. So simple that even a Texan like you should be able to grasp it...

[SlowwHand]

I don't know who you blow to get away with the things you say, but you must be very practiced at it.

Moussaoui Sentenced to Life at Supermax

By ROBERT WELLER, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 5, 4:30 AM ET

DENVER - A defiant Zacarias Moussaoui spent weeks at trial telling anyone who would listen that he will never feel any remorse for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Now, he has been ordered to spend the rest of his life in a cell with no one to talk to at a prison known as the "Alcatraz of the Rockies."

Moussaoui was sentenced Thursday to life in prison after scolding Americans for missing a chance to learn from him why they are hated by al-Qaida terrorists. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema sentenced the unrepentant 37-year-old Frenchman to six life sentences and told him he would "die with a whimper," isolated from the world and not in the glory of martyrdom.

His next stop is expected to be the federal maximum-security prison in Florence, a small town 90 miles southwest of Denver.

At Supermax, he would spend 23 hours a day in a cell with a tiny window and have little to no contact with other notorious criminals, including Ramzi Yousef, Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski and
Terry Nichols on "bombers' row." Richard Reid, the would-be shoe bomber Moussaoui said was to help him fly a fifth plane into the White House, is also serving a life sentence there.

At the sentencing hearing in Alexandria, Va., the judge told Moussaoui that everyone else in the room would be "free to go any place they want. They can go outside and they can feel the sun, ... smell the fresh air, ... hear the birds. They can eat what they want tonight. They can associate with whom they want."

She went on: "You will never again get a chance to speak and that's an appropriate and fair ending."

Robert Hood, a former warden at Supermax, said the judge's description was accurate. Even when Moussaoui is allowed outside he would "see the sky but not the mountains or other terrain," he said.

Moussaoui would be afforded religious rights as a Muslim and probably a special diet if he behaves. Inmates at Supermax also are allowed telephone calls and visitors if they don't act up. Hood said phone privileges could be as little as 15 minutes a month.

Prison officials declined comment Thursday after Moussaoui was formally sentenced. Carla Wilson, spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons in Washington, would not confirm that Moussaoui will be a Supermax inmate.

Still, she noted the prison is designed for people like him.

"It operates under a special mission and that mission is to handle the most violent and disruptive inmates," she said.

The $60 million Supermax, formally called Administrative Maximum, was built in 1995 in Florence, a town of 3,600 people. It was designed for inmates once held at the U.S. Penitentiary in Marion, Ill., which had replaced Alcatraz when it closed in 1963.

The soundproofed cells were designed so inmates cannot make eye contact with each other. Each 7-by-12-feet cell has a long, narrow window looking out at other prison walls or the small concrete recreation yard.

Concrete platforms topped with mattresses function as beds. Each cell also contains a concrete stool, shower and toilet.

Hood said inmates see no current news on the small black-and-white television, and some of the programming is official prison material. "If a newspaper is allowed it will be time-delayed," the former warden said.

Inmates get one hour out of their cells each day to eat or play basketball or handball. They can take academic courses via closed-circuit TV in each cell.

On Thursday, Moussaoui directed what may be his last public words to three relatives of victims killed on Sept. 11, 2001. Moments before, the relatives described loved ones lost the day four hijacked jetliners crashed into the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

He said Americans feel only their own pain and wondered if they would ever consider "how many people the
CIA has destroyed." He called the trial "a wasted opportunity for this country to understand ... why people like me, like (hijacker) Mohamed Atta and the rest have so much hatred for you."

"As long as you don't want to hear, you will feel, America," he said. "If you don't want to hear, you will feel" pain.

"God curse America and save
Osama bin Laden. You will never get him."

Brinkema told Moussaoui he cannot appeal his guilty plea but could appeal the sentence. She predicted "it would be an act of futility" but asked his attorneys to file the required appeal notice as a precaution and as their last act before relinquishing their court-appointed duty to represent him.

[MOBIUS]

Glad to see you've finally seen sense about the death penalty Sloww, if he was executed his punishment would be at an end - here it's only just beginning...

He said Americans feel only their own pain and wondered if they would ever consider "how many people the
CIA has destroyed." He called the trial "a wasted opportunity for this country to understand ... why people like me, like (hijacker) Mohamed Atta and the rest have so much hatred for you."

He's got a point though...

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Glad to see you've finally seen sense about the death penalty Sloww, if he was executed his punishment would be at an end - here it's only just beginning...



He's got a point though...

He really doesn't have any point. Everything he had to say had been said many times before. No opportunity whatsoever was wasted.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Glad to see you've finally seen sense about the death penalty Sloww, if he was executed his punishment would be at an end - here it's only just beginning...

He shouldn't be executed because he didn't commit any crimes that are worthy of execution.


Also, yet another example of a death penalty opponent stressing how people should be made to suffer for the rest of their lives.


Explain to me again how someone like yourself Mobius, being against the death penalty, can claim to have the moral high ground, but yet, make such remarks?

Hypocrisy