Man Sentenced to Death for Killing Sikh

[jimnyc]

*** So he gets death and courts rule out death penalty for Moussaoui? ***

MESA, Ariz. - A man was sentenced to death Thursday for killing an Indian immigrant during a shooting rampage four days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Frank Silva Roque was convicted of murder last week in the death of gas station owner Balbir Singh Sodhi.

Prosecutors said Roque targeted Sodhi because he thought he was an Arab. Sodhi wore a turban and beard as part of his Sikh faith.

After Sodhi's shooting, Roque shot at another gas station where the clerk was a man of Lebanese descent, and shot at the home of an Afghan family, authorities said. They were not injured.

Defense attorneys argued that Roque suffered from a mental illness and that the terrorist attacks triggered an episode of insanity.

 

[janeeng]

hmmmm, amazing isn't it? Moussaoui will wind up in Jail, and who knows knowing the way things are running, will probably get out too, but this guy sentenced to death!

 

[Bry]

Originally posted by janeeng
hmmmm, amazing isn't it? Moussaoui will wind up in Jail, and who knows knowing the way things are running, will probably get out too, but this guy sentenced to death!

Am I to understand that you two believe that running around the US taking pot shots at people that look Arab should not be a capital offence? I'm confused. If, for a moment, we assume that capital puishment is EVER appropriate, how do you figure that this isn't one of those times?

What does Moussaoui have to do with it? It's a separate case. As I understand it, though, conspiracy to do anything is not a capital offence.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
Am I to understand that you two believe that running around the US taking pot shots at people that look Arab should not be a capital offence? I'm confused. If, for a moment, we assume that capital puishment is EVER appropriate, how do you figure that this isn't one of those times?

What does Moussaoui have to do with it? It's a separate case. As I understand it, though, conspiracy to do anything is not a capital offence.

Show me where either one of us defended the actions of Frank Roque. Oh, you can't? So I guess the answer to your question is NO, you didn't understand us correctly.

What does Moussaoui have to do with it? The actions of both were either direct involvement with 9/11 or as a result of.

Kill one and you get the death penalty, but conspire to kill thousands and that option is removed?

And the death penalty is in fact an option when the act of terrorism that is conspired involves national boundaries and US employees, and it is in fact carried out. You need not be the one committing the act directly to be responsible for the deaths.

 

[Bry]

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought what you meant by "So he gets death and courts rule out death penalty for Moussaoui?" was that Roque shouldn't get death and Moussiaui should. Or perhaps that they both should get death, or perhaps neither? What do you think should happen with Roque? Perhaps you think we should wait and see first what happens with Moussaoui?

Kill one and you get the death penalty, but conspire to kill thousands and that option is removed?

I don't know what the law is with respect to this, and I can't find any sufficient analysis of the case to make any sense of it.

And the death penalty is in fact an option when the act of terrorism that is conspired involves national boundaries and US employees, and it is in fact carried out. You need not be the one committing the act directly to be responsible for the deaths.

Is that right? I would have guessed that it would need to be tried in a military court under those circumstances, but like I said, I don't know. If you know of a good and complete analysis of the case as it relates to our jurisprudence, I would be grateful.

-Bry

 

[jimnyc]

Here you go, one of the statutes he has actually been charged with. This also includes the penalties. This is the exact portion he has been charged with:

Sec. 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries

(2) Treatment of threats, attempts and conspiracies. - Whoever threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (1), or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished under subsection (c).

And here is the harshest penalty, if in fact death resulted from the conspiracy:

(A) for a killing, or if death results to any person from any other conduct prohibited by this section, by death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;

Here is the link:
http://www.capdefnet.org/fdprc/contents/fed_cap_off/18_usc_2332b.htm

Here is a link to his actual charges from the courts:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/mous_indict.html

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought what you meant by "So he gets death and courts rule out death penalty for Moussaoui?" was that Roque shouldn't get death and Moussiaui should. Or perhaps that they both should get death, or perhaps neither? What do you think should happen with Roque? Perhaps you think we should wait and see first what happens with Moussaoui?

My belief is that Moussaoui should receive the death penalty from the 9/11 families directly, but lethal injection will suffice.

Roque appeared to be sane to me, so he deserves the sentence he received as well.

 

[Bry]

Thanks for the info, jim.

 

[Bry]

The judge, it seems to me, appears to make a solid decision here. Mousaoui was denied access to the very witnesses which could definitively determine his relation to the conspiracy, and as the offence is a crime which carries a potential penalty of "death, or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life", he should not be subject to the stiffest of the sentences.

...as unjust as it may seem. If you ask me, you have John Ashcroft to blame. As I see it unlikely that the government will allow Mousaoui to be acquitted, they will probably have to wisk him away to a military court where they can convict him of whatever they damn well please.

 

[jimnyc]

I agree to the extent that the ruling was needed to preserve the integrity of our courts.

I also believe it would be appropriate to move the prosecution to a military tribunal. I think it is warranted in such a high profile case that involves national security.

I'm sure the liberals will get their panties in a bunch if that ever happens!

Now, if you want to talk about a case where capital punishment is appropriate, THIS is the case.

Brinkema said in her ruling, "Because a criminal trial is a quest for the truth ... both the defendant and the public will be denied a fair trial if Moussaoui is deprived of the opportunity to present testimony."

Predicting dire consequences if the interview takes place, prosecutors said in written pleadings that "almost any indicted terrorist could undermine his prosecution by claiming a need for access to enemy combatants." The government holds senior al-Qaida captives like Binalshibh in secret locations, and does not want any unauthorized people - let alone terrorism suspects - to interfere with interrogations.

While defendants normally have such access to witnesses and information that might exonerate them, the government argued the rules changed in this case because Binalshibh is an enemy combatant and courts have no authority to interfere with his interrogation.

The appellate judges must decide whether terrorism defendants have the same rights as others charged with crimes.

Binalshibh is considered by U.S. officials to have been an al-Qaida coordinator of the Sept. 11 hijackings. Moussaoui has also asked for access to other al-Qaida captives, including alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-06022003-100523.html

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
If you ask me, you have John Ashcroft to blame.

By the way, I don't blame anyone. I thank them for thinking of national security over the rights of a terrorist that was hell bent on blowing up our buildings and civilians.

 

[janeeng]

ha! you just thought you were going to start picking on me ha Bry! don't be picking on me, I meant what I said, if he should get death for killing, then all should!!! yes, he deserves it for the killing, but so do the scum that come here and kill!

 

[Bry]

Naw, I wouldn't go picking on you, Janeeng. That's why I said "you two".

Ashcroft was making a point by having the case tried in the US court system, rather than in military kangaroo courts. It was to prove before the world that our US laws can function on an international level. But that little bit of attempted propaganda has backfired. At least that's how it looks to me. at this point, intervening with a military court would be tantamount to admitting defeat.

 

[janeeng]

yes, you are right!! but I just bummed that one guy death, other not!! not right!!!!

 

[5stringJeff]

I think that an approproiate punishment would be for Moussaoui to walk from Harlem to Manhattan - while an NRA convention was meeting in Central Park. If he makes it to the Brooklyn Bridge alive, he's free to go.

 

[janeeng]

That's not a bad idea Jeff!