Justice?
Its mandatory to weigh in on the 20th bastard highjacker and the ‘life’ verdict handed down by the jury this afternoon.
I’m generally pro-death penalty. I’m waffling a bit on that in recent years. However, if any crime deserved the death penalty, isn’t this the one? Sure, this idiot wasn’t THERE when it happened, but he conspired, he plotted, and he had just a much of a hand in these deaths as those unreachable bastards who vaporized themselves.
Watch the last minute of this.
Now today’s defendent gets to spend the rest of his life in a better accomodation than Bin Laden presently enjoys. Meanwhile, the guy on the other end of that cell call you just watched is still dead.
Certainly killing today’s monster isn’t going to change that.
But what has NOT killing him accomplished?
How long before his fellow monsters start snatching westerners and demanding his release?
“We can’t make him into a martyr. That’s what he wants.” Excuse me? Does this mean we should avoid killing any and all Jihadists who want nothing more than to die fighting us? That’ll show ‘em!
This is the primary reason you can’t treat terrorism and the Islamic War as a law enforcement issue. These are enemies engaged in unlawful combat. They stand outside of the protections of the Geneva Convention. They do not honor ‘rules’ of warfare and they do not conform to the social contract of Civilizations.
This guy could have easily been martialed before a military tribunal and executed before the rubble heap in Manhattan had stopped smoldering. And that might have been the best thing, for the impression it makes on our enemies, and perhaps more importantly, for the attitude of our nation. A summary execution, carried out with such startling haste, might have impressed upon the casual American that not only are we at war, but we are being quite serious about this war.
Instead, this monster gets to sit in jail, and someday give interviews to the occasional sympathetic journalist as the horror of 9/11 continues to fade.
Nice.
Filed under: The War
Disclaimer: I am pro-death penalty. I am pro “War on Terror”. I want this guy to die.
I have some trouble with this one though. Here is how I understand it.
The argument seems like this; “He knew, he plotted, he didn’t tell us so we couldn’t stop it, he should die”.
Let’s take each of those arguments in turn.
The Feds are saying that he new about 9/11 ahead of time. Was part of the planning. But we are not certain HOW much he really knew, and how much he is saying he knew to beef up his importance or to provide misdirection as he has been trained.
He plotted, maybe. He sought out flight training, yes, but it’s not certain if he was aware of the end result of that training. I heard it said that many of the hijackers were kept in the dark about the complete plan until that morning. It seems like a tough thing to prove that he knew enough about what he was training for. Plus, he was saying it was him and the Shoe Bomber dude, possibly the worst terrorist of the modern era. Come on, would YOU put your trust in that guy pulling off this mission (I know, I shouldn’t use humor, I’ve just sunk to a new low).
He didn’t tell us all he knew, so we couldn’t stop it from happening. This is my biggest problem, even if he had spilled his guts, the way the systems worked (FBI – CIA – Local Law) at the time, that information had little chance of being acted upon. Would it have been enough to stop 9/11 from happening? We don’t know, and we can’t ever be certain that anyone would have taken it seriously/acted upon it.
An analogy. I know a guy, he tells me he is going to kill someone, somehow, someway, but doesn’t give me specifics. I say yeah let’s do it, but meanwhile I go to jail for something else. This guy one day walks into a McD’s and shoots someone. Now, am I an “accomplice”, probably, should I be punished if found to be an accomplice, absolutely. Should I be put to death? I don’t think so.
How is this different from Terry Nichols? He didn’t get the death penalty, McVeigh did.
What is different is the emotion and the context (barely). Sure, he’s a terrorist, no doubt. He is the enemy in our international war, I agree. But unfortunately, he is in a DOMESTIC court. You can argue and I would agree that he doesn’t belong there, he belongs in a court martial, treated as an enemy combatant and shot without ceremony. But if he is in a domestic court, we have to play by different rules and I honestly don’t think the death penalty applies.
If that would have happened, where does that slippery slope lead? You could be proven to have some slight, advance knowledge of an unspecific potential murder and be put to death.
I understand the emotion, I understand the magnitude of the event, I’m not trying to belittle or demean 9/11 or the war on terror by essentially ignoring the magnitude in the decision of the case, but I think this is what the Law had to do.
I’m open to having my mind changed, I’m not super versed on the case, but this is how I stand on it today.
Hmmm…got to go with Mark on this one for pretty much the same reasons. Also, if you give this guy the death penalty, what does that leave for people like Osama Bin Laden?
Good points from both, but I have some responses. In the end it is opinion, so take what you will.
The difference between Nichols and this guy (whom I refuse to name) is still fairly dramatic – Nichols never admitted guilt, if I recall, until he had cut a deal to provide testimony against McVeigh. He was certainly qualified for the death penalty given the conspiracy and the nature of the crime. Legally, it was a sanctioned penalty only waived for cooperation by the prosecutor.
This guy isn’t cutting deals (he can’t offer anything), and he is proudly claiming that he desired to kill as many Americans as he could, and he would do it today if given the chance. His own testimony, freely given, makes it quite clear that this is more than just some accomplice who simply didn’t help with our investigation.
This is more reinforcement for me that this should not be a criminal justice matter. I know that isn’t the crux of your argument Mark, but I can’t help but repeat it. These very issues we are discussing makes it clear that this system isn’t appropriate for this guy.
But even within the legal system, I’m pretty sure that the Nichols situation illustrates the difference.
Here are the counts against him : source
Count One – Conspiracy to Commit Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries
Count Two – Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy
Count Three – Conspiracy to Destroy Aircraft
Count Four – Conspiracy to Use Weapons of Mass Destruction
Count Five – Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees
Count Six – Conspiracy to Murder United States Employees
Is he guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt) of any of these? The jury found him guilty.
The penalty for Count One alone can be found here.
(1) Penalties.— Whoever violates this section shall be punished—
(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;
(B) for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
(C) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than 35 years;
(D) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;
(E) for destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property, by imprisonment for not more than 25 years;
(F) for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had the offense been completed; and
(G) for threatening to commit an offense under this section, by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
While certainly a life term is lawfully sanctioned here, I think it is going to cause us a lot of problems going forward.
Sure, we chose the legal system to try him. It is a done deal. He should serve life, and we need to protect him in prison. As much as I hate that, civilization demands we adhere to the decisions of our legal system. I can live with that.
But I think this whole thing is/was/will be a mistake. Our last chance to end this properly was with a death verdict, and the jury, for whatever reason, seemed to swerve away. A death sentence was legal in this case.
Bah.
Yeah, I’m emotional about it. I was angry when they decided to try him as a criminal. This is the result I feared. Now the barbarians have confirmation that we are still in the crime fighting mode while they fight a war.
As for the ‘what’s left for Bin Laden’, I have to respectfully disagree. Under that logic, Hitler would have been the only man facing death at Nuremburg. Some of the men who danced on the gallows there never personally killed a Jew (that I’m aware of).
Anyway, we’re all entitled to opinion on this one. Thanks for the debate.
Under that logic, Hitler would have been the only man facing death at Nuremburg. Some of the men who danced on the gallows there never personally killed a Jew (that I’m aware of).
No, there were clearly others who were put to death that either directly ordered the killing of innocent or did the killing themselves – not just Hitler. In this case, the “20th Hijacker” is only claiming what he admitted to and there seems to be some question as to whether what he is claiming was his actual role in the events in question. Regardless, we weren’t in the courtroom and do not have the full story. I’m willing to support our judicial system and believe that the jury made the right decision based on all the information they had witnessed – and not just what I have heard in the media.
That’s a good thing. The media hardly ever gives the full story. That’s one of the reasons I’m trying to find the court docs available on the DOJ site.
Of course I support the court decision, once made. That can’t be altered, nor should it be. I just wish we had removed this from that system from day one and treated this in the proper context. War tribunals are the proper forum here.
Thanks for the comments.