Moussaoui Jury Pusses Out

[Annie]

Hate to be lawyerly here, but the purpose of a criminal trial is not to exact revenge on a person for their evil associations, but to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they committed a crime. Then, to affix punishment. I don't know the whole of the complaint against the little Muhammad here (I think he actually pleaded guilty and the jury was just there to decide die or no), but mostly what I heard about was about whether his failure to tell the FBI about 9/11 was the proximate cause of it. In a civilian context, that would be very weak indeed.

My own view is that this didn't belong in a civilian court to begin with. A military determination that he was 1) not a citizen of our country and 2) a member of AQ is enough for a cigarette and bullet, period.

By the standard we applied to Mouse-awee, if one million Red Chinese paratrooped in tomorrow, each and every one would be entitled to a full-dress trial, one at a time.

I agree, should have been military tribunal.

 

[jillian]

I agree, should have been military tribunal.

Why? He was a civilian and terrorism hasn't been designated a miliatary offense.

 

[Annie]

Why? He was a civilian and terrorism hasn't been designated a miliatary offense.

French at best. Really al queda, thus Afghanistani if one must put a country there. Not giving the excuse of 'world warrior' here. They are fing dweebs.

 

[Gunny]

The one and only good thing to come out of this fiasco is that it reveals once again the pointlessness of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. It's not about crime. It's about war. This waste of oxygen never should have set foot in a civilian court. He is an agent of a hostile foreign power, (albeit not a nation-state, but that's hardly exculpatory) caught red-handed in the act of planning violent attacks on American civilian, military, and government targets. There is no doubt of his guilt; he himself proclaims it with a pathetic sneer.

Like the Nazi sabateours captured during World War II, Moussaoui should have been turned over to the military, tried by a tribunal, and executed.

Had it been handled in this manner, I would have no problem with it. I still conted however that the United States of America executing him plays right into his and the Islamic extremists hands. He would be protrayed as a martyr on recruiting posters for years to come, and established as a benchmark for achievement.

 

[Annie]

Had it been handled in this manner, I would have no problem with it. I still conted however that the United States of America executing him plays right into his and the Islamic extremists hands. He would be protrayed as a martyr on recruiting posters for years to come, and established as a benchmark for achievement.

I agree. The idea that a 'bad childhood' excuses thus is pc to nth degree. Suicidal agreement all around. Many of us had terrible home lives, yet didn't go where Moussaoui went.

 

[William Joyce]

Why? He was a civilian and terrorism hasn't been designated a miliatary offense.

I'm not sure there's a clear legal distinction between "military offense" and domestic crime. As a question of international law, this should be settled, but probably won't be. Where does crime end and war start? I'd call a lot of stuff assaults on our country that I'm sure would cause liberal whining. For instance, I'd say illegal Mexicans marching in our streets are waging war on our country. But since liberals control the legal culture, well...

 

[1549]

For instance, I'd say illegal Mexicans marching in our streets are waging war on our country. But since liberals control the legal culture, well...

Most of us actually refer to this as freedom.

 

[Gunny]

Most of us actually refer to this as freedom.

And just what "freedom" are illegal immigrants entitled to? They're criminals by their presence. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Phaedrus]

What have they done to garner your hatred Gunny? You actually seem contemptous of them... Most certainly they are illegal immigrants, a point lost to most, but what is that they have done besides not aquiring a legal Visa that offends you so?

There is the argument that they are taking jobs, but I don't begrudge them that. They seem to seek freedom and to support their families. I don't believe in mercantilism, and thus they aren't "taking" anything that we haven't already freely given.

Don't blame them, if anybody, look at those who hire them for such pitiable wages. They are hired because they are willing to work for less, and there is such a thing as a minimum wage. They are being exploited, and are accepting it because of hope.

Hope that we gave them. Would you rather not have given it them at all?

 

[Gunny]

What have they done to garner your hatred Gunny? You actually seem contemptous of them... Most certainly they are illegal immigrants, a point lost to most, but what is that they have done besides not aquiring a legal Visa that offends you so?

There is the argument that they are taking jobs, but I don't begrudge them that. They seem to seek freedom and to support their families. I don't believe in mercantilism, and thus they aren't "taking" anything that we haven't already freely given.

Don't blame them, if anybody, look at those who hire them for such pitiable wages. They are hired because they are willing to work for less, and there is such a thing as a minimum wage. They are being exploited, and are accepting it because of hope.

Hope that we gave them. Would you rather not have given it them at all?

You're reading between the lines things I have not said. They are illegal immigrants -- criminals. No hatred involved. As I've stated on many occasions, I have no problem with legal immigrants.

My problem with them is they completely undermine our social infrastructure by using resources paid for by taxpayers but not by them.

Don't tell me not to blame them. While I DO hold the people who hire them just as accountable for their crimes, the illegal immigrant made a conscious effort to break the law on his own. He/she didn't get hired until AFTER they were here.

 

[Phaedrus]

Thanks for the clarifiaction, sorry for the misinterpretation.

 

[1549]

And just what "freedom" are illegal immigrants entitled to? They're criminals by their presence. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not true. Humans on this soil are offered basic freedom, hospital beds, and education.

We are the hub of freedom, and should do a better job of taking care of these people, but as long as no ID is required, they are allowed to protest .

 

[Gunny]

Not true. Humans on this soil are offered basic freedom, hospital beds, and education.

We are the hub of freedom, and should do a better job of taking care of these people, but as long as no ID is required, they are allowed to protest .

Why? They are non-citizens of the US and criminals by their presence. They have no voice, and are entitled to nothing but a bus ride back across the Rio Grande.

By law, if it was known that illegals were gathering somewhere, INS should have rounded them up and deported them. Not ignore their presence.

 

[1549]

Why? They are non-citizens of the US and criminals by their presence. They have no voice, and are entitled to nothing but a bus ride back across the Rio Grande.

By law, if it was known that illegals were gathering somewhere, INS should have rounded them up and deported them. Not ignore their presence.

I am not sure what your 'why' is in regards to, but like I said illegal immigrants can protest until the cows come home.

EDIT: unless, like I said earlier, they are carded. But if I can protest an illegal immigrant can protest. The difference is that the immigrant better make damn sure he doesn't do anything illegal in front of any cops.

 

[Gunny]

I am not sure what your 'why' is in regards to, but like I said illegal immigrants can protest until the cows come home.

EDIT: unless, like I said earlier, they are carded. But if I can protest an illegal immigrant can protest. The difference is that the immigrant better make damn sure he doesn't do anything illegal in front of any cops.

You're talking around my point. They are here illegally and are not citizens of this country. They do not have the "right" to do anything but get deported.

 

[1549]

You're talking around my point. They are here illegally and are not citizens of this country. They do not have the "right" to do anything but get deported.

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying before.

Your argument about not having any rights is simply wrong. As I said, they are allowed to be educated and hospitals are not allowed to question citizenship. So while it is illegal to be here, while they are here they are not deprived of all human rights.

So getting back to my original point...freedom allows protest. Therefore it would be illegal to charge any alien with a crime for protesting. They can only be punished for being here illegally.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying before.

Your argument about not having any rights is simply wrong. As I said, they are allowed to be educated and hospitals are not allowed to question citizenship. So while it is illegal to be here, while they are here they are not deprived of all human rights.

So getting back to my original point...freedom allows protest. Therefore it would be illegal to charge any alien with a crime for protesting. They can only be punished for being here illegally.

Well let's get on with it.

 

[Gunny]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you were saying before.

Your argument about not having any rights is simply wrong. As I said, they are allowed to be educated and hospitals are not allowed to question citizenship. So while it is illegal to be here, while they are here they are not deprived of all human rights.

So getting back to my original point...freedom allows protest. Therefore it would be illegal to charge any alien with a crime for protesting. They can only be punished for being here illegally.

I am not wrong. I am expressing my opinion, not citing some moronic judicial ruling. I am well aware they allowed to avail themselves of our social services without contributing a dime.

That doesn't make it right. If they were where they were supposed to be, then the necessity of using our social services would be moot, now wouldn't it?

I did not say anything about charging them for protesting. I said they should be detained and deported. You don't get deported for protesting, so I would assume the implication was pretty clear.

 

[1549]

I did not say anything about charging them for protesting. I said they should be detained and deported. You don't get deported for protesting, so I would assume the implication was pretty clear.

That is why my original point that you contested was directed at william joyce, Who seems to feel that they should be charged with a crime for protesting. Hence my original statement: "Most of us actually refer to this as freedom".

If you agree with my statement, I am not really sure why you challenged it.

 

[Gunny]

That is why my original point that you contested was directed at william joyce, Who seems to feel that they should be charged with a crime for protesting. Hence my original statement: "Most of us actually refer to this as freedom".

If you agree with my statement, I am not really sure why you challenged it.

But again, you ignore the fact they are here illegally. Anything they do here is secondary to THAT fact.

Protesting is "freedom" to US citizens. It is not for people whose mere presence is a violation of the law. Your statement that they can as long as they don't get carded can be said about committing ANY crime. It's only a crime if you get caught.

That is wrong, no matter how you want to argue it.