NationStates Jolt Archive

Da Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui;_ylt=Ai3MkK1ez9egF98ULq_FWgMTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

So who wants to bet on the verdict? I bet a "You were right and I was wrong" that he gets life in prison.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Looks like it is life in prison so...

We are Right and
- SUmamba Buwhan
- Muravyets
- The Black Forest


you are Wrong
- Drunk Commie Deleted
- Maraque

Da Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui;_ylt=Ai3MkK1ez9egF98ULq_FWgMTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

So who wants to bet on the verdict? I bet a "You were right and I was wrong" that he gets life in prison.
I'll take that bet. He's going to fry.

Da Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060503/ap_on_re_us/moussaoui;_ylt=Ai3MkK1ez9egF98ULq_FWgMTv5UB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

So who wants to bet on the verdict? I bet a "You were right and I was wrong" that he gets life in prison.
I'm not much of a gambler, but 'life' is my guess too.

I'll take that bet. He's going to fry.

oh yeah, it's on!

I'll take that bet. He's going to fry.
If they're just being vindictive -- but he didn't actually kill anyone.

I agree with the first two.

Ready to be served...

I agree with the first two.

Ready to be served...


Wait... which first two? I think the first two have different guesses

If they're just being vindictive -- but he didn't actually kill anyone.
Well, I'd be vindictive. I assume that the jury, after hearing some of the things Moussaoi bragged said, would be at least as angry as I am.

Death, he's definitely getting death.

Well, I'd be vindictive. I assume that the jury, after hearing some of the things Moussaoi bragged said, would be at least as angry as I am.

Were you in 12 angry men?

edit

I figure he will get life.

Well, I'd be vindictive. I assume that the jury, after hearing some of the things Moussaoi bragged said, would be at least as angry as I am.
That's why, although I have no desire to see evil bastards live, I decided to oppose the death penalty. I'm more interested in the fairness of the law that governs me than in satisfying my personal feelings against another individual. People bent on revenge do stupid, brutal things and are almost always wrong.

Well, I'd be vindictive. I assume that the jury, after hearing some of the things Moussaoi bragged said, would be at least as angry as I am.


Yeah but the judge said to the lawyers (and I think the jury) that he doesn't believe that Moussaoui knew anything about the 9/11 plot.

Were you in 12 angry men?

edit

I figure he will get life.
Yeah. I was the guy who actually stabbed the kid's father and framed him for the murder.

Well, I'd be vindictive. I assume that the jury, after hearing some of the things Moussaoi bragged said, would be at least as angry as I am.
Emotion should have no place in the criminal justice system...

Yeah but the judge said to the lawyers (and I think the jury) that he doesn't believe that Moussaoui knew anything about the 9/11 plot.
If he ends up getting, like, 10-15 years, will DCD have a heart attack? Side bet, anyone?

Yeah but the judge said to the lawyers (and I think the jury) that he doesn't believe that Moussaoui knew anything about the 9/11 plot.
That may well not influence the jury's verdict one bit. The jury might have been taking so long so that they could just convince one or two last holdouts that it doesn't matter if his actions actually resulted in deaths, he just needs to die. Granted it's a longshot, but it might happen.

If he ends up getting, like, 10-15 years, will DCD have a heart attack? Side bet, anyone?
Not likely, but if he's released and if I ever meet the fucker you can bet on the verdict in my trial.

hah if he gets like 10 years, I think we might be seeing DCD on trial for the murder of Moussaoui himself :D

That may well not influence the jury's verdict one bit. The jury might have been taking so long so that they could just convince one or two last holdouts that it doesn't matter if his actions actually resulted in deaths, he just needs to die. Granted it's a longshot, but it might happen.


possible. I thin the judges comments are likely to have a profound impact which is why I said "life"

Not likely, but if he's released and if I ever meet the fucker you can bet on the verdict in my trial.


damn - beat me to it

The recommendation is life.....

Looks like he got life..woohoo! score one against death penalty!

ahem -

I was right and you were wrong!

neener neener neener!

Looks like he got life..woohoo! score one against death penalty!
not realy; zog had its chance, now the Aryan Brotherhood has theirs and it is my opinion that they shank him first chance any of them get.

ahem -

I was right and you were wrong!

neener neener neener!
Duly noted. Sumamba Buwhan is right and I'm wrong.

Now who wants to bet how long it takes before he's murdered in prison?

I say two weeks from being admitted.

Duly noted. Sumamba Buwhan is right and I'm wrong.

Now who wants to bet how long it takes before he's murdered in prison?

I say two weeks from being admitted.

lol

aren't there a lot of Muslims in prison? Perhaps they will give him protection.

not realy; zog had its chance, now the Aryan Brotherhood has theirs and it is my opinion that they shank him first chance any of them get.
God bless those boys.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2307/image0763gd.gif

Duly noted. Sumamba Buwhan is right and I'm wrong.

Now who wants to bet how long it takes before he's murdered in prison?

I say two weeks from being admitted.
I don't think he'll even see other prisoners -- the federal supermaximum-security prison in Florence ensures complete separation of the inmates, isn't it? And it is a prison of choice for terrorists.

I think this was the right choice. The government shouldn't risk him becoming a martyr and, IMHO, life in prison, especially in and surrounded by citizens of the country he reviles, is a worse punishment anyway.

lol

aren't there a lot of Muslims in prison? Perhaps they will give him protection.
Black Muslims. Nation of Islam. They don't really go in for all that terrorism bullshit. Plus there were plenty of black folks in the towers and a few dollars by a 9/11 family member in the right person's commissary account and his death is guaranteed.

Duly noted. Sumamba Buwhan is right and I'm wrong.

Now who wants to bet how long it takes before he's murdered in prison?

I say two weeks from being admitted.
i bet they keep him in the hole most the time for his own safty

I don't think he'll even see other prisoners -- the federal supermaximum-security prison in Florence ensures complete separation of the inmates, isn't it? And it is a prison of choice for terrorists.



They're locking him up in FLORENCE?

Score one for AZ.

i bet they keep him in the hole most the time for his own safty
Protective custody maybe? It's still not 100% safe.

He's insane, so its conceivable he may find himself in a psych ward of some sort eventually.

He's insane, so its conceivable he may find himself in a psych ward of some sort eventually.
Or maybe he'll do something like this
http://www.tkb.org/CaseHome.jsp?caseid=424
and end up accidentally dying while being restrained by corrections officers.

They're locking him up in FLORENCE?

Score one for AZ.
That's just a guess -- but the 1993 WTC bombers are there, the 1998 embassy bombers are there, Unabomber too. Even a Japanese terrorist serves his time in Florence...

not realy; zog had its chance, now the Aryan Brotherhood has theirs and it is my opinion that they shank him first chance any of them get.


I would think they would give him his own cell, for safety concerns, yet the time he is outside the cell..now thats a different story..oh yeah...fuck those Aryan bastards ;).

France shouldn't have handled him to the US in the first place. Blood revenge is not France's way and serves no good purpose. Especially in this event where the public was hit to the heart and lost his mind. This verdict is a victory for humanity though.

That's just a guess -- but the 1993 WTC bombers are there, the 1998 embassy bombers are there, Unabomber too. Even a Japanese terrorist serves his time in Florence...


EDIT

Florence is a state prison - ASP Florence, not a federal prison...

EDIT again:

The florence federal prison is in Colorado.

Fallacy of equivocation, on my part ;)

I applaud the decision of Life Imprisionment.

EDIT

Florence is a state prison - ASP Florence, not a federal prison...

EDIT again:

The florence federal prison is in Colorado.

Fallacy of equivocation, on my part ;)
What an abundance of Florences does the US have... and poor Italy has just one! :)

EDIT

Florence is a state prison - ASP Florence, not a federal prison...
Too bad they can't put him in Clinton-Dannemora in upstate NY. I've got a buddy who did time there and he says it's the worst, and he's more likely to meet someone who was in the towers.

What an abundance of Florences does the US have... and poor Italy has just one! :)
Yeah, but they've got the good one. The one in NJ has that stereotypical landfill aroma.

I'm kinda glad he got life because I hope he gets raped because his religion doesn't forgive homosexual acts even if they are involuntary, but you kinda have to wonder what it takes to get death.

That aside, I would hope he misses the sound a fart makes.

I applaud the decision of Life Imprisionment.


Suprising...

I'm kinda glad he got life because I hope he gets raped because his religion doesn't forgive homosexual acts even if they are involuntary, but you kinda have to wonder what it takes to get death.

That aside, I would hope he misses the sound a fart makes.
good one or force feed him pork then kill him

I would think they would give him his own cell, for safety concerns, yet the time he is outside the cell..now thats a different story..oh yeah...fuck those Aryan bastards ;).

:mad: I'm not a fan of capital punishment, and believe my country should be one that supports and cultivate humane treatment of all.


However, I still want him executed. If the Aryan's pull it off, they get a pass in my book.

If the Repub's want real people who are unpatriotic, they need look no further then this jury.


/:headbang:

Suprising...

Why?

:mad: I'm not a fan of capital punishment, and believe my country should be one that supports and cultivate humane treatment of all.


However, I still want him executed. If the Aryan's pull it off, they get a pass in my book.

If the Repub's want real people who are unpatriotic, they need look no further then this jury.


/:headbang:
I feel exactly the same except for the unpatriotic jury part. I know it isn't right, but I want him dead.

i should make it clear that i in no way suport the AB in any way shape or form except in that i would like to see them kill this son of a bitch

If the Repub's want real people who are unpatriotic, they need look no further then this jury.

How can you even being to try to back up that statement?

Oh noes! A jury didn't decide to execute someone! They must hate America! :rolleyes:

I agree Dempublicent. Even I agree that the decision was the right one.

Moussaoui was hoping for a martyr's death so he could enter Heaven and rape 72 virgins.

Quite frankly, I hope the judge sentences Mussaoui to be kept alive by whatever means necessary for at least 200 (and preferably 300) years!

If prison officials decide they want to feed a diet of pork to the SOB -- so be it!

I feel exactly the same except for the unpatriotic jury part. I know it isn't right, but I want him dead.

Guys, you're getting it all wrong here. I'm a Republican, and I love state-sanctioned murder. It's cheap, and if we'd use a firing squad, we get a nice set of organs out of it. Swell. However, putting Moussaoui away for life is a great idea.

1. It spites Moussaoui. Moussaoui said he doesn’t want to die on a toilet, and he wants to be a martyr. Martyrs don’t die on toilets. By giving him life, it could be another 30-40 years before he gets his 72 virgins. The way I see it, why expedite his trip to see Allah? Make him wait for it. Better if he gets a healthy dose of sodomizing in the interim.

2. It makes the anti-death crowd happy. Now, even though we did the best option to fuck Moussaoui’s life, we have a point to say: “Check it. This guy wanted to blow up American stuff, and he wanted us to kill him, and we’re so goddamn full of mercy, we won’t execute him. Isn’t that swell?” We've taken someone who arguably had a role to play in 9/11 (no matter how miniscule) and shown him mercy. Or at least, that's how it looks from an outside perspective, anyway. To the casual observer, this gives us a moral high ground to stand on.

This decision is not only the most appropriate one to make to make Moussaoui miserable, but it's an awesome PR move and makes us look like great guys. That kind of positive image is sorely needed nowadays.

Moussaoui was hoping for a martyr's death so he could enter Heaven and rape 72 virgins.

Ironic isn't it? Since now he'll enter prison and be raped by 72 + thugs.

How can you even being to try to back up that statement?

Oh noes! A jury didn't decide to execute someone! They must hate America! :rolleyes:

There's a fair difference between hate and disloyal.

A way to reason it would be that he tried to kill upwards of 100 of our citizens, maybe even tourists on their way out?

How can you say that murdering him sanitarily & quickly is more cruel then having him raped for 40+ years, and saying "Yeah! Good for them! Rape him!"?

It would seem, in this situation, that execution is the less cruel way to go, as well as giving the families closure, something I'm sure they don't have as they hear about this decision..

:mad: Damn.

wow what a victory for the jury system.

im very impressed that the jurors could go against public sentiment and go with that they think is right.

im glad he got life. i hope he goes to the supermax prison in colorado where inmates are watched 23 hours of the day with only 1 hour of leasure time...

No to the death penalty? Woohoo! :)

He may have gotten life but that doesn't mean that he won't have an "unfortunate accident" on the way to jail, orchestrated by parties unknown.:sniper:

Maybe there is hope for the United States after all...

If they're smart they'll sentence him "Life in Prison" so he won't get into whateversocalled "heaven" his exreamists believe in, and find the prison with the highest rape count.

If they're smart they'll sentence him "Life in Prison" so he won't get into whateversocalled "heaven" his exreamists believe in, and find the prison with the highest rape count.

I'm kinda glad he got life because I hope he gets raped because his religion doesn't forgive homosexual acts even if they are involuntary, but you kinda have to wonder what it takes to get death.

That aside, I would hope he misses the sound a fart makes.

Rape as a form of justice? You are a pair of sick puppies.

I think we ought to keep him in prison for life - but I also think he should be tortured, daily - and live footage of his torture sessions should be shown at all entry points to these here United States, to serv e as an indelible warniing to all the other bastards who think they can get away with a 9/11 of their own.

Usually, I'm all for frying scum bags like this. But the defense was right, killing him would give him the status of a martyr. But he shouldn't be put into one of those comfy max security prisons... Oh no, he should be theown into the woods to fend for himself. They just need to enclose a 10,00 acre area to do so. I think starving bears would be good cell mates, don't you?

Life in prison...

At first, I was somewhat surprised...but I can no longer claim that.

U.S. jails are NOT good places in which to live for the rest of one's life...not even the hope of getting out. Just day after day of drudgery...years to gather burning hate...and years to fall into a deep, hopeless despair.

This was the cruelest punishment...even though Moussaoui thinks he won.

For the savages here who are Murkins, recall that we have a constitution which forbids cruel & unusual punishment.

He'll get life.

He'll get life.
I'm pretty sure that's just what he got...

For the savages here who are Murkins, recall that we have a constitution which forbids cruel & unusual punishment.

They are probably scrambling right now to see whether that '&' means that punishments which are solely cruel, but not unusual, or are unusual, but not cruel, are permitted.

I'm sorry....I meant he'll get to live. In prison. Probably. Whatever, I say we throw him to some cannibals. And they eat him alive. Not that I've really got anything against him. I just wanna see it happen.

They are probably scrambling right now to see whether that '&' means that punishments which are solely cruel, but not unusual, or are unusual, but not cruel, are permitted.
Don't give them any ideas.

Usually, I'm all for frying scum bags like this. But the defense was right, killing him would give him the status of a martyr. But he shouldn't be put into one of those comfy max security prisons... Oh no, he should be theown into the woods to fend for himself. They just need to enclose a 10,00 acre area to do so. I think starving bears would be good cell mates, don't you?Hear hear! Original thought coming through...

No. More original here:
I think we ought to keep him in prison for life - but I also think he should be tortured, daily - and live footage of his torture sessions should be shown at all entry points to these here United States, to serv e as an indelible warniing to all the other bastards who think they can get away with a 9/11 of their own.

All entry points, no less!

I think we ought to keep him in prison for life - but I also think he should be tortured, daily - and live footage of his torture sessions should be shown at all entry points to these here United States, to serv e as an indelible warniing to all the other bastards who think they can get away with a 9/11 of their own.And to show how our civilization is so advanced and cultured as well as why the world should stand with us and not the terrorists.

They are probably scrambling right now to see whether that '&' means that punishments which are solely cruel, but not unusual, or are unusual, but not cruel, are permitted.I think that was actually the reasoning behind raising the maximum possible in some sentences in the "war on drugs".

Life in prison...

At first, I was somewhat surprised...but I can no longer claim that.

U.S. jails are NOT good places in which to live for the rest of one's life...not even the hope of getting out. Just day after day of drudgery...years to gather burning hate...and years to fall into a deep, hopeless despair.

This was the cruelest punishment...even though Moussaoui thinks he won.
But then again he's an intel withholding bastard who let alot of people die. As a US citizen who was personally affected, I want to see him go through the worst possible conditions and see how the USA handles assholes like him.

But then again he's an intel withholding bastard who let alot of people die.

Better get rid of the ol' Fifth Amendment then.

Q: who are the white hats in the war on terror?

A: the ones advocating rape and televised torture. Duh.

It would seem, in this situation, that execution is the less cruel way to go, as well as giving the families closure, something I'm sure they don't have as they hear about this decision..

:mad: Damn.
Closure? That a guy who was in prison at the time of the attcks is executed? What kind of closure is that?

The whole trial has been nothing but a big farse.

Moussaoui is a genius. He disingenuously protrayed himself as a lunatic striving for martyrdom in order to actually avoid the death penalty. He played the whole court like a flute.

It looks like he really did get a jury of his peers.

I'm surprised he got a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
Did jurors actually have sympathy for him....?

Or- where they concerned about the aftermath of sentencing him to death?

It looks like he really did get a jury of his peers.

I'm surprised he got a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
Did jurors actually have sympathy for him....?

Or- where they concerned about the aftermath of sentencing him to death?
As far as I know (and, honestly, that's not much) the jury should have been unanimous on some issues like is he directly responsible for the deaths.

It looks like he really did get a jury of his peers.

I'm surprised he got a life sentence instead of the death penalty.
Did jurors actually have sympathy for him....?

Or- where they concerned about the aftermath of sentencing him to death?
I think the jurors decided to follow the law in the case rather than following some sense of vengeance. The prosecution's case was always iffy, and if Moussaoui hadn't been such a flake in the courtroom, the defense might have gotten him a lesser charge, especially considering how badly the prosecution fucked the case at times.

12 idiots in Virginia have disgraced their country and this barbarian swine still breathes.

12 idiots in Virginia have disgraced their country and this barbarian swine still breathes.
:rolleyes:

He didn't help himself, and it seemed despite his display of false Martydom, we was really too cowardly to die.

12 idiots in Virginia have disgraced their country and this barbarian swine still breathes.

Please tell me this is sarcasm.

I think the jurors decided to follow the law in the case rather than following some sense of vengeance. The prosecution's case was always iffy, and if Moussaoui hadn't been such a flake in the courtroom, the defense might have gotten him a lesser charge, especially considering how badly the prosecution fucked the case at times.
didn't he confessed, though? I thought that mock trial was only to determine the sentence and not the guilt.

Another point: killing him would not have given him 72 virgins or made him a martyr, despite what some people thinks. Otherwise, I'll start believing in a chocolate heaven where I stay thin no matter how much I eat. What is and what you think is are two different matters entirely.

He didn't help himself, and it seemed despite his display of false Martydom, we was really too cowardly to die.
And yet he was ready to highjack a plane and put him in collision with the white house, killing him in the process. :rolleyes:

didn't he confessed, though? I thought that mock trial was only to determine the sentence and not the guilt.

Another point: killing him would not have given him 72 virgins or made him a martyr, despite what some people thinks. Otherwise, I'll start believing in a chocolate heaven where I stay thin no matter how much I eat. What is and what you think is are two different matters entirely.
He confessed and pled guilty at the end, and surprised his defense team bby doing so. I should make it clear that I think the prosecution was going to get some kind of conviction out of this all along--there was no way Moussaoui was walking out of that courtroom a free man. But if he'd actually been trying to fight his case, instead of continually grandstanding, he might have gotten a deal to plead to a lesser charge. The prosecution's case, like I said above, was always iffy. In order to prove murder, they had to argue that because he didn't incriminate himself while in custody, he was part of a conspiracy. Like it or not in this case, I think the 5th Amendment still applies.

He confessed and pled guilty at the end, and surprised his defense team bby doing so. I should make it clear that I think the prosecution was going to get some kind of conviction out of this all along--there was no way Moussaoui was walking out of that courtroom a free man. But if he'd actually been trying to fight his case, instead of continually grandstanding, he might have gotten a deal to plead to a lesser charge. The prosecution's case, like I said above, was always iffy. In order to prove murder, they had to argue that because he didn't incriminate himself while in custody, he was part of a conspiracy. Like it or not in this case, I think the 5th Amendment still applies.
See, I wasn't aware of that part. But I agree that the prosecution's case was weak. How did I reach that conclusion? When I heard they used 9/11 footage to try to stir the jury to kill him. What's the matter? not enough evidence, you need to use emotional plea?

See, I wasn't aware of that part. But I agree that the prosecution's case was weak. How did I reach that conclusion? When I heard they used 9/11 footage to try to stir the jury to kill him. What's the matter? not enough evidence, you need to use emotional plea?
Unfortunately, I think we're moving back to a pre-Orestian, vengeance-over-justice system in the US. I've thought that ever since the institution of victim impact statements being introduced at sentencing hearings. If we, as a society, are going to let families beg for the deaths of criminals, then why don't we just go back to the days of family feuds and revenge killings? Justice is supposed to be blind and even-handed, not driven by bloodlust and revenge.

I just read MSNBC, Judge ordered that he has no human contact with Humans for the rest of his life

Better get rid of the ol' Fifth Amendment then.
He's not a US citizen. Do constitutional protections even apply to him?

He's not a US citizen. Do constitutional protections even apply to him?
yes. Otherwise your logic implies that the trial doesn't apply to him either.

He's not a US citizen. Do constitutional protections even apply to him?
No they do not
Also he wanted to die so why give him what he wants and make him a martry for his people? SOlitary confinement for 23 hours a day in the Ultimax Prison in Colorado has to be worse than death.

See, I wasn't aware of that part. But I agree that the prosecution's case was weak. How did I reach that conclusion? When I heard they used 9/11 footage to try to stir the jury to kill him. What's the matter? not enough evidence, you need to use emotional plea?
That's standard in the sentencing phase of trials. In a rape trial, for example, the victim might give testimony to the jury to show how severely the rape had damaged her physically and psychologically. The defense also gets to try to sway the jury by pointing out childhood abuse or other mitigating factors.

yes. Otherwise your logic implies that the trial doesn't apply to him either.
Fine by me. Torture him with no trial. Televise it worldwide as an example to others. Give him a sex change with no anesthetic then have extremely well endowed men rape him over and over again.



Ok, maybe not, but on some level it would be satisfying knowing that someone who gloated over the deaths of three thousand people and the pain caused to their families is suffering horribly.

Fine by me. Torture him with no trial. Televise it worldwide as an example to others. Give him a sex change with no anesthetic then have extremely well endowed men rape him over and over again.



Ok, maybe not, but on some level it would be satisfying knowing that someone who gloated over the deaths of three thousand people and the pain caused to their families is suffering horribly.
No you don't understand. He cannot be prosecuted by you since he's not a citizen. That is what the logic of "the constitution doesn't apply to him" implies. He would have to be prosecuted by France since he's a french citizen.

No you don't understand. He cannot be prosecuted by you since he's not a citizen. That is what the logic of "the constitution doesn't apply to him" implies. He would have to be prosecuted by France since he's a french citizen.

Buloney. You prosecute 'em in the place where he broke the law.
Rights may be the result of citizenship.
But not being a citizen sho'nuff does not confer a right to break the law.

Buloney. You prosecute 'em in the place where he broke the law.
Rights may be the result of citizenship.
But not being a citizen sho'nuff does not confer a right to break the law.

Well I will tell everyone I know not to visit the USA then. It appears that the law only works against non citizens there. They can be prosecuted under US law but are not protected by it from any sort of abuse.

Or do you think that maybe the constitution refers to all people present rather than just citizens unless it specifies otherwise.

Buloney. You prosecute 'em in the place where he broke the law.
Rights may be the result of citizenship.
But not being a citizen sho'nuff does not confer a right to break the law.
Baloney.

If you prosecute them where they commit the crime, they they are subject of those laws. If they are subject of those laws, they are subject of the constitution, the basis of the law.

If, on the other hand, the constitution does not apply to them. It follows that laws of that country does not apply to them either. As such, flying a plane in a building is not illegal as the law does not apply to them.

Pick your poison. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

No you don't understand. He cannot be prosecuted by you since he's not a citizen. That is what the logic of "the constitution doesn't apply to him" implies. He would have to be prosecuted by France since he's a french citizen.
We do try him as here because "On December 11, 2001, Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Moussaoui was indicted on six felony charges: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy,conspiracy to destroy aircraft, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to murder united states employees, and conspiracy to destroy property The indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui], included supporting conspirators, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and Mustafa al-Hawsawi for their role in the attack "to murder thousands of innocent people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania."" msnbc.com

According to the Geneva convention canuck, even if he is French, he was charged with accounts against the United States. Therefore, by the Accord, The US has a right to try him and give him a punishment that fits with the crime

No you don't understand. He cannot be prosecuted by you since he's not a citizen. That is what the logic of "the constitution doesn't apply to him" implies. He would have to be prosecuted by France since he's a french citizen.
No, you don't understand. I wasn't saying to prosecute him, just nab him off the street and torture him for the rest of his natural life and broadcast it on TV worldwide.

Of course that's just the angry, irrational part of me talking.

Baloney.

If you prosecute them where they commit the crime, they they are subject of those laws. If they are subject of those laws, they are subject of the constitution, the basis of the law.

If, on the other hand, the constitution does not apply to them. It follows that laws of that country does not apply to them either. As such, flying a plane in a building is not illegal as the law does not apply to them.

Pick your poison. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Bingo.

From the BBC:
Moussaoui, 37, will serve his sentence in solitary confinement in a maximum security jail in Colorado.

The French foreign ministry said it might ask the US to allow Moussaoui to serve his sentence in France, following an appeal from Moussaoui's mother, Aicha el-Wafi...

"A possible demand for transferring Zacarias Moussaoui could be looked at," Reuters news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei as saying....

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he had instructed the French embassy in Washington to "remain very attentive to the situation of Zacarias Moussaoui", Reuters reported. ...

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said officials would examine any transfer request, AFP news agency said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4972184.stm

From the BBC:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4972184.stm

According to the Geneva convention canuck, even if he is French, he was charged with accounts against the United States. Therefore, by the Accord, The US has a right to try him and give him a punishment that fits with the crime

And yet that calls for us to ignore the Geneva Convention.

And yet that calls for us to ignore the Geneva Convention.

Why was I quoted there....?

No they do not

Yes they do--if you're tried in a US court, you get US protections. That's the way the system works. Didn't you have to take a Civics class?

No, you don't understand. I wasn't saying to prosecute him, just nab him off the street and torture him for the rest of his natural life and broadcast it on TV worldwide.

Of course that's just the angry, irrational part of me talking.
Ah, I see. You called for mob justice. Well, can't argue with your irrational side. I am just glad we live in a society based on laws and that mob justice has been dealt away with some time ago.

We do try him as here because "On December 11, 2001, Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Moussaoui was indicted on six felony charges: conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy,conspiracy to destroy aircraft, conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction, conspiracy to murder united states employees, and conspiracy to destroy property The indictment of Zacarias Moussaoui], included supporting conspirators, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and Mustafa al-Hawsawi for their role in the attack "to murder thousands of innocent people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania."" msnbc.com

According to the Geneva convention canuck, even if he is French, he was charged with accounts against the United States. Therefore, by the Accord, The US has a right to try him and give him a punishment that fits with the crime
I am well aware of that. If you followed the thread, you'd see I was arguing with those who think that the constitutionnal protections don't apply to him.

Ah, I see. You called for mob justice. Well, can't argue with your irrational side. I am just glad we live in a society based on laws and that mob justice has been dealt away with some time ago.

Can you call it justice if a violent mob is involved? I'd call it revenge by consensus.

Can you call it justice if a violent mob is involved? I'd call it revenge by consensus.
Justice--at least as the ancient Greeks argued it--and revenge are mutually exclusive.

Justice--at least as the ancient Greeks argued it--and revenge are mutually exclusive.

The ancient Greeks were not a homogeneous mass - Thrasymachus, for one, would take issue with your statement.

The ancient Greeks were not a homogeneous mass - Thrasymachus, for one, would take issue with your statement.
Fine--I'm talking specifically about the notion of justice versus mob mentality as set out in the Oresteia.

This thread has the weirdest tangents I've seen in a long while. And all without some kind of troll to change the subject. What's next? A discussion on the right to assemble in mobs and the effect it has on the average IQ of said mob?

A discussion on the right to assemble in mobs and the effect it has on the average IQ of said mob?

Is this hypothetical mob assembly a ritual effort (e.g. bi-weekly) or completely spontaneous?

Is this hypothetical mob assembly a ritual effort (e.g. bi-weekly) or completely spontaneous?

More to the point, how are decisions to be made by the mob? Is it a case of consensus decision making, and if so what possible mechanism other than a unanimous agreement can provide a mandate for consensus decision making?

What's next? A discussion on the right to assemble in mobs and the effect it has on the average IQ of said mob?

Article 20 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right for the assembly of peaceful mobs, but this does not entail that the right to asemble violent mobs does not exist.

More to the point, how are decisions to be made by the mob? Is it a case of consensus decision making, and if so what possible mechanism other than a unanimous agreement can provide a mandate for consensus decision making?

I think it's relevant whether the mob is organised because I think a one-off spontaneous mob action would have negligible effect on the average IQ of the mob. I would also question whether a series of spontaneous mob assemblies would effect the statistic to a significant degree.

...

According to the Geneva convention canuck, even if he is French, he was charged with accounts against the United States. Therefore, by the Accord, The US has a right to try him and give him a punishment that fits with the crime
Care to quote the relevant part of the Geneva convention? (Which one of them, BTW?)

The US tried Moussaoui because it had the jurisdiction, i.e. his crime was committed within the US. You don't need anything else.

I think it's relevant whether the mob is organised because I think a one-off spontaneous mob action would have negligible effect on the average IQ of the mob. I would also question whether a series of spontaneous mob assemblies would effect the statistic to a significant degree.
But there's statistical evidence that a mob, once formed, have a significant decrease in it's IQ, whether it is spontaneous or regular. I would think that a spontaneous mob would lower statisticallyu more the IQ than the bi-weekly as we know what to expect at the bi-weekly mob and thus the drop would gradually be less and less significant as the weeks goes by.

But then, I can't back that up.

But there's statistical evidence that a mob, once formed, have a significant decrease in it's IQ, whether it is spontaneous or regular. I would think that a spontaneous mob would lower statisticallyu more the IQ than the bi-weekly as we know what to expect at the bi-weekly mob and thus the drop would gradually be less and less significant as the weeks goes by.

But then, I can't back that up.

Sir, you have degraded this debate into a farce.

I am not willing to continue this discourse unless you are willing to give serious replies.

I mean the sheer silliness of claiming that statistical evidence exists yet being unable to cite it is groin-grabbingly shocking.

There's a fair difference between hate and disloyal.

Indeed, but I'm still failing to see how "Didn't vote to execute someone" can possibly be equated to disloyal.

Last time I checked, there is no law that says, "You have to vote to execute Moussaoui," or even, "You have to vote to execute terrorists," or even, "You have to agree with the death penalty." And I certainly don't see how not executing him could give aid to our enemies, considering that being a martyr would most likely help them more.

A way to reason it would be that he tried to kill upwards of 100 of our citizens, maybe even tourists on their way out?

And this has what to do with the price of eggs in China? There have been people in this country who actually tortured and killed citizens of our country and didn't get the death penalty. Were all of those juries "unpatriotic"?

*snip* since you obviously aren't referring to me

It would seem, in this situation, that execution is the less cruel way to go, as well as giving the families closure, something I'm sure they don't have as they hear about this decision..

:mad: Damn.

I don't see how the families are going to get any less closure, especially when you consider that some of them didn't want to see him executed. They would receive much more closure by seeing those actually involved in the planning come to justice.

This was the cruelest punishment...even though Moussaoui thinks he won.

I get the impression that he would have said he won no matter what decision was reached.

Sir, you have degraded this debate into a farce.

I am not willing to continue this discourse unless you are willing to give serious replies.

I mean the sheer silliness of claiming that statistical evidence exists yet being unable to cite it is groin-grabbingly shocking.
No, I meant that my hypothesis that the decrease would be less over time has no statistics to prove it.

Statistics exists on the effect of lowered iq in mob setting. I didn't claim I could not prove it. (Though I just spent 5 minutes on google to a particular vexing result)

Article 20 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right for the assembly of peaceful mobs, but this does not entail that the right to asemble violent mobs does not exist.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations but since the UNDHR is not an actual treaty.....its a recommendation. I mean, come on. If there's mob, lets see mob action :D

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution allows for peaceful demonstrations but since the UNDHR is not an actual treaty.....its a recommendation. I mean, come on. If there's mob, lets see mob action :D
Sure, when I see them passing by, I'll direct them to your place.
Lets see how you like it.

Sure, when I see them passing by, I'll direct them to your place.
Lets see how you like it.

AHH my friend, I can call the police and have them arrested for inciting a riot if they want to play mob games. US Constitution states peacefully assembly. Anything oher than that, and they can be dispersed by the cops.

Care to quote the relevant part of the Geneva convention? (Which one of them, BTW?)

The US tried Moussaoui because it had the jurisdiction, i.e. his crime was committed within the US. You don't need anything else.
It was in the Gneva Accord which deals with Civilians, not Maritime ROE. I believe the second version of the ACCORD, Not the Convention. Specific area, I don't know. But i used the Accord In National Qualifiers for Public Forum Debate.

AHH my friend, I can call the police and have them arrested for inciting a riot if they want to play mob games. US Constitution states peacefully assembly. Anything oher than that, and they can be dispersed by the cops.
Be fair here--cops have never had any qualms about dispersing peaceful assemblies either. In fact, they've been known to disburse a bit of violence of their own in order to get a once-peaceful assembly riled up.

It was in the Gneva Accord which deals with Civilians, not Maritime ROE. I believe the second version of the ACCORD, Not the Convention. Specific area, I don't know. But i used the Accord In National Qualifiers for Public Forum Debate.
I am not sure that the accord in question does exist. It is unnecessary.

Statistics exists on the effect of lowered iq in mob setting. I didn't claim I could not prove it. (Though I just spent 5 minutes on google to a particular vexing result)

I would like to see these statistics. We still have not clarified whether the mob matters concerned are organised or spontaneous...or even a mix of both.

I would like to see these statistics. We still have not clarified whether the mob matters concerned are organised or spontaneous...or even a mix of both.
The books of Le Bon (and his French predecessor, too, cannot remember his surname), Durkheim and, probably, McLuhan can be of interest to you, although I don't think that they were concerned with the IQ measurement specifically.

If the Repub's want real people who are unpatriotic, they need look no further then this jury.

So your definition of "patriotism" is following hook, line and sinker with what the Republican party tells you you should think?

im glad he got life. i hope he goes to the supermax prison in colorado where inmates are watched 23 hours of the day with only 1 hour of leasure time...

And leasure in this case is defined as "eating and bathing" and nothing else ;)

I am not sure that the accord in question does exist. It is unnecessary.
It exists. It was written for the treatment of Civilians in times of war and in cases such as Moussaoui. It says that even though he is a foreigner, he is tried by us because he broke OUR rule.

And not all prisoners are alone for 23 hours. They idea behind that prison is to rehabilitate so they leave max security into lesser prisons. That Bastard won't have that option. When i think about 23 hours without human contact and you're all alone without tv, a computer or phone... it seems better to fry then to stay the rest of your life like that.

It exists. It was written for the treatment of Civilians in times of war and in cases such as Moussaoui. It says that even though he is a foreigner, he is tried by us because he broke OUR rule.

And not all prisoners are alone for 23 hours. They idea behind that prison is to rehabilitate so they leave max security into lesser prisons. That Bastard won't have that option. When i think about 23 hours without human contact and you're all alone without tv, a computer or phone... it seems better to fry then to stay the rest of your life like that.

He'll have plenty of time to chant to himself how America lost and he won.