quote:A federal jury decided today to spare the life of Zacarias Moussaoui, sentencing the avowed al-Qaeda conspirator to life in prison for his role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist plot.
The verdict was reached after seven days of deliberations following a two-phase death penalty trial that lasted six weeks.
The jury of nine men and three women began deliberating April 24 to determine whether Moussaoui, 37, a member of the al-Qaeda network headed by Osama bin Laden, would get the death penalty or life imprisonment for his role in the Sept. 11 plot.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Do you really think he'll survive jail? As much as he has spouted about hating all Americans, I give it less than a year before he would be dead in there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you really think he'll survive jail?
Since it's "life in prison", I don't think so. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why do they specify 'nine men and three women'? It doesn't seem like very important information. Also, I thought it was the judge who would give out the sentence, and the jury only decides guilt?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
A death sentence has to be decided by a jury, I believe -- just one person can't make that decision. Dagonee can probably clarify that
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That's welcome news by me.
Let's hope that the prison system decides to keep him alive. Prisons can and do protect prisoners from violence when they choose to do so. I think that the last thing the US needs right now, is a high profile prison killing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why do they specify 'nine men and three women'? It doesn't seem like very important information. Also, I thought it was the judge who would give out the sentence, and the jury only decides guilt?
The death penalty requires aggravating circumstances to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. Even after that, a judge can alter the sentence to life.
Several states have jury sentencing. In Virginia, juries decide sentences after a second, brief "sentencing phase." The judge can reduce the sentence but not increase it.
As for him surviving prison, he'll probably be in protective custody. 23 hours in a cell, no contact with prisoners.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ouch. 23 hours a day without seeing anyone? I seem to recall the Amnesty recently condemned Norway for that practice; torture, they called it. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for the guy; he hates Americans so much, fine, he can live without 'em.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know how else to protect him, myself. But it's definitely a terrible punishment.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: "America, you lost," Moussaoui stated as he left the courtroom. "I won."
quote: Moussaoui, who said he is willing to kill Americans "any time, anywhere."
I can't imagine how that prison time is going to go.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
But if he's killed in prison, by other prisoners, then he's not been martyred on the horns of the Great American Satan.
Seems like a win/win situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: "America, you lost," Moussaoui stated as he left the courtroom. "I won."
Nope. America played by its rules and lived with the results.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I agree.
I also have to add, however, that I would've been disappointed if the jury had decided in favor of giving him the death penalty.
I don't know that "living with the results" would've exactly captured my mood had it worked out that way.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Dag (or anyone else who knows), what kinds of recreational options does a person in solitary confinement have? Do they have access to books, writing materials, and so forth? Can they request time with priests, imams, or whathaveyou? Psychologists? Additionally, if someone is in prison for life, with no chance of parole, is any effort made to rehabilitate them?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure about most of that. They definitely have access to clergy (or equivalent).
The federal prison system officially does not have the goal of rehabilitation; that's left for probation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They get a TV, but not much else.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Now, that's cruel and unusual. TV, but no books? Brrrr.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They might be allowed books. Not sure.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I wouldn't want him to even have tv. Why? But then, I was pulling for capital punishment on this one. Oh well, life goes on.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Even for Moussaoui. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Historically, when "tough on crime" folk have succeeded in getting TVs removed from prisons the guards have organized to get them back. TV is a pacifier.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Since it was never entirely clear to me that he didn't want to die, I don't know that death would have been a just sentence even if you believe in the death penalty.
And yes, everything I heard leading up to the case suggested life imprisonment for Moussaoui would be in solitary.
Now, to deny someone in solitary any form of sensory stimulation would fit into my personal definition of cruel and unusual punishment. The mind feeds on itself in such circumstances; death might be more merciful.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
I think it's a good think he was not condamned to death, because else, he will become a marthyr for islamist. The jugement is wise.
Just for information, i read that his mother asked to french authority to have Zacarias Moussaoui in a French prison.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Historically, when "tough on crime" folk have succeeded in getting TVs removed from prisons the guards have organized to get them back. TV is a pacifier.
Cigarettes, too.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I would be willing to be he stays in a US facility, as it should be.
Posted by Choobak (Member # 7083) on :
I agree with you Kwea. I don't want him in France. Else we will have problems.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:But if he's killed in prison, by other prisoners, then he's not been martyred on the horns of the Great American Satan.
Seems like a win/win situation.
Except that he'd be dead - that could be hardly called a "win" for anyone. It seems to me that whenever you are talking about sacrificing a life, you have already reached a lose/lose situation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Historically, when "tough on crime" folk have succeeded in getting TVs removed from prisons the guards have organized to get them back. TV is a pacifier.
Cigarettes, too.
Anything to help them forget they can make shankers with their bed springs or a combination of fire and rolled up magazines.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think condemning him to death would have reinforced the rest of the world's beliefs that Americans are barbaric because we have the death penalty.
-pH
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, even though many of you may be surprised at this (knowing some of my political stances) but I'm also glad he did not get the death penalty.
Just because I would have seen it as a breakdown in our justice system in a way.
I mean, Moussaoui wanted to kill Americans, really really wanted to. Still does. Planned to, and everything. But he himself actually didn't kill any (except by not telling about others who were going to do that, I agree). But he didn't physically himself kill anyone, and so personally I would have had problems with him getting death penalty.
Even though I know the law on guilt-by-association and all of that. I realized that. But in my book, the ones that deserve to die for what happened, DID die, as they did it.
FG
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I just hope he is forgotten in prison and we don't have constant headlines about him. I can see in a few months news outlets giving wall to wall coverage on all the abuses, true or not, that he claims happened to him in prison.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not the death penalty, but convicted al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will soon face a punishment that some consider even worse: up to 23 hours a day in a soundproof, concrete cell, cut off from contact with anyone other than his guards and, perhaps, the lawyers who helped save him from execution. Moussaoui is expected to be transferred within days to the Administrative Maximum United States Penitentiary, or Admax, in Florence, Colo., the federal government's most secure prison, located in the high desert 90 miles south of Denver.
Dubbed the "Alcatraz of the Rockies" by prison experts -- and "The Tombs" by many prisoners and their lawyers -- the 12-year-old "supermax" facility houses about 400 of the most dangerous and infamous prisoners in the federal system, from "Unabomber" Theodore J. Kaczynski to Ramzi Yousef, architect of the 1993 World Trade center bombing. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons transferred most, if not all, of its terrorism-related inmates to the prison.
But Moussaoui is unlikely to meet, or even glimpse, Yousef or any other fellow jihadists at the Florence facility anytime soon, according to federal officials, lawyers and others familiar with operations there.
In the most tightly monitored part of the facility, known as the "control unit," inmates are kept in segregation at all times -- living, sleeping and eating in individual cells poured from concrete that measure approximately 7 feet by 11 feet. They are designed to ensure that inmates cannot speak to or make eye contact with each other, according to defense lawyers, human rights advocates and others who have had access to the facility. Some prisoners are monitored 24 hours a day by surveillance cameras in their cells, as Moussaoui has been during his years in the Alexandria jail.
Most of the facility's cells are outfitted with small black-and-white televisions with a limited number of channels. It is unclear whether Moussaoui will be allowed to watch one.
Some inmates are allowed a handful of visitors and phone calls each month, but many of those incarcerated for terrorism-related crimes have no visitors other than their attorneys and the guards who shackle them whenever they are removed from their cells, according to defense attorneys and court testimony.
He's not getting off lightly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
^^ I'd probably trade the TV for a decent selection of books. I wonder if they are allowed to watch the Crime channel.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't have a link handy, but our local paper talked a bit about the SuperMax prison yesterday. Those limited number of channels broadcast mostly anger management and parenting classes, and to a lesser extent religious services and I think it said literacy classes. The desk and stool are also made of poured concrete, and the shower head is in the ceiling and the drain in the floor. Both the shower and the toilet have automatic shut-off valves so the drains can't be plugged and flood the cell. I don't remember if the bed is also concrete, but it doesn't have springs to make shanks out of.
He will be safe from other prisoners, the world will be safe from him, and he will quietly slip into obscurity.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: That sounds good. Almost as good as the Oubliette I advocate as a substitute for the death penalty.
Still, by NOT killing him we've shown our unwillingness to fight back. I'm afraid this will be perceived as more weakness....
*sigh*
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It may be perceived as weakness, but it is strength. Weak people can kill; only a strong people can afford mercy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Plus, locking him away in a hole and then forgetting about him is probably the best thing we could have done in terms of outcome.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
People don't tell stories of heroic martyrs spending 50 years in jail and dying in obscurity.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
As long as he stays in obscurity, I have a bigger fear of him claiming to be tortured and the press dutifully running that as their top story for weeks and weeks
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: Actually, yeah they do. Otherwise there wouldn't be all those acts of terror aimed at getting them freed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
By dont tell stories I mean "They don't become icons" yes daring prison breaks and rescuing people from Jail make compelling stories, but nobody tells their kids about "The amazing revolutionary that was jailed by the government and died alone in his cell 50 years later."
If by some sort of providence he gets out then yes its an AMAZING story but not otherwise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: As long as he stays in obscurity, I have a bigger fear of him claiming to be tortured and the press dutifully running that as their top story for weeks and weeks
Sad that these kinds of claims are so credible these days.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
kmb: Only with the terrorists and their allies
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Really. Those are the only people that believe that we are capable of torturing a prisoner?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think there's a lot less chance of stories of torture being credible at this prison than, say, at Gitmo. (Why no, I can't spell it.) He's isolated from everyone, including his guards, and there will probably be a security camera trained on him 24 hours a day. If he claims torture, they can run the tapes for journalists. *shrug* This one I think is a non-issue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know, I just remember when, for most of the world - and for us, the idea that we would torture a prisoner was unthinkable. That is no longer true.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Really? when was that? We have always tortured or beaten or allowed rape to many people throughout our entire history. The idea is much more popular now because 'everyone' hates Bush, and 'everyone' knows he wants to torture every Muslim that we can get our hands on
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Unless he IS tortured and then they just refuse to release the tapes on the grounds that it will hurt the War on Terror. They've done (or tried to do) that before.
The saddest thing isn't really that the claims of torture is credible. The truly sad thing is that some claims or torture have apparently been true.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So in the entire history of the US we have never tortured before Gitmo?!!? We were all perfect beings never allowing any prisoners to come to harm until evil Bush took office and made all of our soldiers violently maim and cruelly torture the innocent prisoners who should have received a fair and just trial?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Actually, I was referring to Abu Ghraib, but Gitmo has certainly hurt our moral standing as well. That we have to clarify which group of tortured prisoners also makes me sad and ashamed.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Are you sad and ashamed towards the people who tortured and killed Americans and dragged the bodies through the streets and then hung the corpses off a bridge? Or you are more sad and ashamed because we kept people up for long hours?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Undoubtedly, DarkKnight, individual and groups of USemployees had engaged in maltreatment of prisoners before, but always in direct*disobedience of official policy.
The problem is that approval of the torture/mistreatment methods was discussed at the top level of the USgovernment. Which when combined with the types of torture/mistreatment actually used&alleged very much makes it appear as if those methods discussed at the top level were deliberately disseminated and "wink wink" approved by the DubyaAdministration.
* Even if it hadn't been in direct disobedience, having done evil in the past does not justify committing evil in the present or future.
[ May 05, 2006, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Good thing you snuck the word 'alleged' in there. I'm sure you have proof for your "wink wink" that President Bush completely authorized everything that happened to a few prisoners. Or no, wait, it's Dubya, and you just need to accuse Dubya and that is enough proof.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DK, of course evil on both sides make me sad. I am ashamed of what was done by our country and in our name.
Also, for the record, I didn't bring the President into the conversation. You did. And I find it offensive that you are trivialize what we did you human beings by "kept people up for long hours". I suggest that if you think this is all that happened, you might want to do some research.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Evil on both sides. So we are the same as them? We have committed the same evil acts that have been to us? Did we break bones? Cut off heads? Burn? Electrocute? Drag their bodies through the street? I think you might need to do a little more research before you make the equivalency between what we did, and what was done to us.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I refuse to let my standards of behavior or the behavior I expect from those who act in my name be defined by the lowest example. Our evil actions are not justified by theirs. It is no excuse.
And, aside from dragging bodies through the streets and cut off heads, yes, we did.
I can't help feeling that if you loved your country as much as you claim to you would expect better of us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DarkKnight,
Please consider what I say as coming from someone who is much closer to your own politics than, say, kmbboots or aspectre is...
As an American, you should be ashamed and angry of torture done to prisoners held in our custody. Whether or not it was done under lawful orders-whether such an order would be lawful or not is debatable.
As an American, you should realize that people have rights, even non-Americans, and some of those rights-some of the most important ones-don't factor in whatever the scumbag may or may not have done.
'What was done to us'? How many Americans, exactly, have been tortured by Arabic terrorists? No one has said that we are the same as them. Suggesting that there is 'evil on both sides' is not a statement of equivalency, it's a statement of similarity. Since we're all homo sapiens, we're always going to have some things in common, as much as it would be nice to disregard our enemies as totally Other.
Yes, there are many worse forms of torture than those that have been (provably) laid at the USA's doorstep. I am even ambivalent about sleep-deprivation as 'torture' at all. But there are other things that are now part of the public record which you are blithely dismissing, smug in your self-righteousness that basically comes down to, "They're a whole lot worse."
That is not the way an American should think about how Americans treat their prisoners.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thank you, Rakeesh. That was very well said.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Because all we do is feel ashamed of ourselves and say how terrible we are. We just keep talking about how bad we are, how evil we are. We make mistakes, we do bad things BUT we do far more good than harm. It's getting to the point where you can't even say America is a good country anymore. If Moussaui just claims he was tortured that will be good enough to make it true. Just like claiming we flushed the Koran was enough to run with the story. Insurgents
I truly can understand the longing to feel only good things about the US, truly I can. I cry for the days when my love for my country could be uncomplicated.
But we require citizens, not cheerleaders. Putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to face our problems is harmful to the country. It is like denying that a beloved spouse has a disease. It takes courage to face, but refusing to see the problem only lets it get worse.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
DarkKnight, what is that in response to? I'd assume that it was a response to Rakeesh, but it doesn't really seem to address anything he said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mostly agree with Rakeesh's well assembled statement.
The atrocities of Abu Gharib cause me grief because those soldiers are for all intents and purposes, ambasadors of the United States. They represent what we are, and they betrayed that office. I expected nothing less then immediate dismissal for the lesser offenses and criminal proceedings against the more vagrant offenders.
That is all I expected of the Bush administration. I do not hold Bush accountable for the actions of soldiers at the ground level, I hold him accountable for how the military is run though, and that includes dicipline.
My philosophy on all this is based in my own experience as a missionary. We were expected to do our job, but nobody was there to make sure I did. There were of course lvls of authority and checks to make sure everyone was accountable for their performance, but it was not fail safe, you could have missionaries commit immoral acts against other people, i.e fist fighting, or carnal relations with people of the opposite/same sex. Missionaries guilty of that were interviewed, and dismissed or transferred. Nobody yelled at the mission president much less the general leadership of the church because it was not their fault, they didnt do anything wrong.
As for "They do worse, why does everyone point fingers at us?" It is hypocritical, but you should also realize that we ought not to base our acts on the acts of others. America already has a policy amongst its military, and people in that military should follow it.
I too am glad Moussaoui got life in prison, he wishes to spend his life infringing on other's freedom, he loses that freedom. Thats where it ends, no amount of physical discomfort or pain will equalize the punishment with the crime commited.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DarkKnight,
quote:Because all we do is feel ashamed of ourselves and say how terrible we are. We just keep talking about how bad we are, how evil we are. We make mistakes, we do bad things BUT we do far more good than harm. It's getting to the point where you can't even say America is a good country anymore. If Moussaui just claims he was tortured that will be good enough to make it true. Just like claiming we flushed the Koran was enough to run with the story.
Highlighting the good things we do while minimalizing the bad things we do with the defense of, "They're much worse," does not achieve the goal you desire, DarkKnight. It does not help people recognize that America is, on the whole, a good place and has been a benefit to the world, much better than many potential alternatives.
Instead, it encourages people to focus on the bad things we do because you aren't admitting to them. It's like you and I have a fight in which I say something to piss you off and I say, "I'm sorry you felt offended...but you know, you've said much worse to me in the past." You and I aren't going to get anywhere at all because in the first place, my apology and admission wasn't real and in the second place I made it more of a retribution in pointing out that you had said worse things. We wouldn't get past the fight that way.
America will not become better the way you're going about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That is all I expected of the Bush administration. I do not hold Bush accountable for the actions of soldiers at the ground level, I hold him accountable for how the military is run though, and that includes dicipline.
I do hold President Bush accountable, if not directly and personally. For instance, I would not support impeaching and imprisoning President Bush because of what individual soldiers did.
However, as Commander-in-Chief it is his responsibility to put into place a command structure and a command philosophy that makes such things impossible. Or at least highly, highly improbable. That part is my own personal opinion.
What is not my personal opinion is that the buck stops somewhere, and that place is the top. This is not simply an economic wave that rises or falls due largely to factors already decided before the President was even sworn in. This is something that soldiers under President Bush's command-however far-removed-did, and he is accountable for that in that he is their CiC.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
He'll be treated much better than the average U.S. citizen inmate. The things we already do here at home (or allow to be done) to those we have incarcerated is just as bad as Gitmo or Abu Gharab IMO. I wish the press and others were as up in arms about this as they were about the foreign prison abuses. However, it's never talked about and just shoved under a rug. People on this board have even said they deserve the rape and abuses here. And this is occuring on a much more widespread base than the other stuff. It all makes me sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Only one juror stood between the death penalty and Zacarias Moussaoui and that juror frustrated his colleagues because he never explained his vote, according to the foreman of the jury that sentenced the al-Qaeda operative to life in prison last week. The foreman, a Northern Virginia math teacher, said in an interview that the panel voted 11 to 1, 10 to 2 and 10 to 2 in favor of the death penalty on three terrorism charges for which Moussaoui was eligible for execution. A unanimous vote on any one of them would have resulted in a death sentence.
The foreman said deliberations reached a critical point on the third day, when the process nearly broke down. Frustrations built because of the repeated 11 to 1 votes on one charge without any dissenting arguments during discussions. All the ballots were anonymous, and the other jurors were relying on the discussions to identify the holdout.
"Wednesday [April 26] was a very intense day," she said. "But there was no yelling. It was as if a heavy cloud of doom had fallen over the deliberation room, and many of us realized that all our beliefs and our conclusions were being vetoed by one person. . . . We tried to discuss the pros and cons. But I would have to say that most of the arguments we heard around the deliberation table were" in favor of the death penalty.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm glad that unanimity is required before we put a person to death.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Me too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, I'm not sure if they could have hung the jury or not.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Only if they got a unanimous vote.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sorry, I wasn't clear. In criminal trials, one holdout means a hung jury and requires a new trial.
This was a capital sentencing hearing. It had many of the same requirements of a trial: reasonable doubt, unanimity, etc., but also many differences: type of evidence allowed, not determining guilt, etc.
So I'm not sure if 1 holdout meant mistrial (which means the 11 who wanted to kill him changed their vote) or if 1 holdout means a finding that the aggravating circumstances to execute don't exist.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(Dana was being funny.)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, I'm disappointed in you.
I mean, technically, I know it should have been hanged, not hung, but it wasn't that big a stretch.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Really going out on a limb there, aren't you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oops. That was noose to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's no wonder...Seems like you were at the end of your rope.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Let's not get tied up in knots about this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, Belle, I love your gallowing wit.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)