• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moussaoui Trial... Unconstitutional?

Darkdale

World Leader Pretend
So, I was listening to the man Rush Limbaugh today, and he brought up something I've been thinking about for the last few weeks, but haven't really cared enough about to really investigate it. In the Moussaoui trial, the jury has decided that he qualifies for the death penalty. Why?

1. The guy was a screw up. Even the other terrorists didn't really want anything to do with him or Richard "The Foot" Reid.

2. He could have prevented 9/11 if he had wanted to, if he would have told the FBI about it. But he didn't. Is that illegal? Is that really punishable by death?

3. Isn't it the FBI's job to find out what Moussaoui knew? Can we really kill Moussaoui because our FBI, who had Moussaoui under investigation and knew he was a risk to fly planes into buildings, was incompetent and failed to get a warrant due to Red Tape (tape our President has thankfully removed post-9/11). All of the information about the other 9/11 terrorists were on Moussaoui’s computer, but the FBI failed to search it.

While I think killing Moussaoui is a cool idea and all, I’m not quite comfortable with our courts being able to kill someone because he didn’t help our FBI in their investigations.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
Darkdale said:
So, I was listening to the man Rush Limbaugh today, and he brought up something I've been thinking about for the last few weeks, but haven't really cared enough about to really investigate it. In the Moussaoui trial, the jury has decided that he qualifies for the death penalty. Why?

1. The guy was a screw up. Even the other terrorists didn't really want anything to do with him or Richard "The Foot" Reid.

2. He could have prevented 9/11 if he had wanted to, if he would have told the FBI about it. But he didn't. Is that illegal? Is that really punishable by death?

3. Isn't it the FBI's job to find out what Moussaoui knew? Can we really kill Moussaoui because our FBI, who had Moussaoui under investigation and knew he was a risk to fly planes into buildings, was incompetent and failed to get a warrant due to Red Tape (tape our President has thankfully removed post-9/11). All of the information about the other 9/11 terrorists were on Moussaoui’s computer, but the FBI failed to search it.

While I think killing Moussaoui is a cool idea and all, I’m not quite comfortable with our courts being able to kill someone because he didn’t help our FBI in their investigations.

It's not that he didn't help them, it's that he lied, which, in turn, allowed a horrendous crime to be accomplished.

If you witness a crime and lie about it you can be charged as well due to culpability.
 

Darkdale

World Leader Pretend
nutshell said:
It's not that he didn't help them, it's that he lied, which, in turn, allowed a horrendous crime to be accomplished.

If you witness a crime and lie about it you can be charged as well due to culpability.

But killed? you can be killed for that?
 

c0da

Active Member
I'm not really pro-death penalty, but 9/11 was hella serious. If ever there was a crime you could be killed for lying about, it was the 9/11 attacks.
 

standing_on_one_foot

Well-Known Member
Well, no, not for withholding information. For conspiracy to commit it, perhaps. But basically we really want to kill someone right now, and, as it happens, the people who actually did it are already dead.
 

Darkdale

World Leader Pretend
standing_on_one_foot said:
Well, no, not for withholding information. For conspiracy to commit it, perhaps. But basically we really want to kill someone right now, and, as it happens, the people who actually did it are already dead.

That's not a good reason though.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Darkdale said:
That's not a good reason though.

That is the only reason. The Ameican government has to show the public that she is doing something, that is, make sure the bad guy is put to death, and even though that this bad guy is indirectly responsible for thousands of death in NY and Washington on 9/11, to provide sort of a comfort to all those victims' families and love one, to see justice being done, to show future terrorists that they will be excecuted for the crime of not reporting a plan that they know.

Actually I think the real motive behind the trial is to divert Americans attention from looking for those who are also partially responsible for 9/11 - that is, those who knew, and failed to act. It is easy to put the blame onto a single Islamic terrorist, then to blame a whole big group of those in charge of security, intellegence, and the government itself.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
They also did not consider this line of defense:

Al-Qaida official plays down Moussaoui's role

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Charlotte Moore and agencies
Tuesday March 28, 2006


[/FONT]
A senior al-Qaida official today said Zacarias Moussaoui, who is on trial for his life over his knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, pestered him with phone calls, ignored the terrorist group's protocol and had no involvement in the attacks.
Moussaoui is a self-confessed co-conspirator to the British-born shoe bomber, Richard Reid. He stunned the Virginia court earlier this week by claiming he was supposed to be the fifth pilot and fly into the White House on September 11 2001.
A captured al-Qaida official, Waleed bin Attash, considered to be the mastermind of the suicide attack on the warship USS Cole and an early planner of the 9/11 attacks, said in a statement that he did not know of any role for Mr Moussaoui in the terrorist attacks.
Bin Attash, known simply as Khallad, portrayed Moussaoui as something of a loose cannon during a trip to Malaysia in 2000, where he met members of a radical group affiliated with al-Qaida. Khallad said Mr Moussaoui breached security measures and al-Qaida protocol.
For example, Mr Moussaoui called Khallad daily, despite instructions to only call in an emergency, to the point where Khallad switched his mobile phone off.
The news is the latest twist in a bizarre case that has been dominated by prosecution gaffes and a parade of witnesses from security agencies who told the court how their warnings about an impending al-Qaida attack went ignored. Highlights have included the government lawyer who allowed seven witnesses to see trial transcripts, coached them on what to say, and told one not to respond to a subpoena issued by the defence, resulting in only two "untainted" aviation witnesses being allowed to court.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,,1741603,00.html
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Anyone paying attention to the Zacarias Moussaoui trial gets it now. All the 9/11 blanks are filled in, and the picture is complete. Sorry, conspiracy freaks and blind partisan hacks. Dull, common, gross incompetence is again at the heart of a deadly government cluster-hump.

Do not linger on Moussaoui's bizarre suicide-by-testimony or the literal cheerleading for his execution—He knew. He lied. And 2,749 people died.
Neither of these is the real story of this case. Rather, the story is the definitive proof Moussaoui's case provides that the U.S. government—pre-PATRIOT Act, pre-NSA wiretaps and all—had and missed clear opportunities to stop 9/11. The FBI uniquely and repeatedly punted carefully gathered evidence of an attack in favor of adherence to bureaucratic hierarchies and power trips. The testimony of FBI agent Harry Samit forever buries the quaint notion that 9/11 was unforeseen and unpreventable. Beginning with Moussaoui's August 16, 2001 arrest Samit mounted a global and indefatigable investigation of the man and concluded that an attack involving hijacked airplanes was imminent.
The flipside of Samit is Michael Rolince, former head of the FBI's International Terrorism Operations Section. Rolince is the man who previously deflected questions about the FBI's pursuit, or lack thereof, of pre-9/11 terror suspects with the line, "Would CNN have really aired their photos if we'd asked them?"
Rolince smugly insisted at trial that Samit's "suppositions, hunches and suspicions were one thing and what we knew" was another. Yet Rolince, in service of the government's desire to link Moussaoui to 9/11 and trigger the death penalty, also tried to argue that, had Moussaoui spilled his guts, everything would have changed. 9/11 might have been prevented. In short, Samit's investigation and leads were not enough; Moussaoui had to speak up for the FBI brass to hear anything.
When defense lawyer Edward MacMahon cross-examined Rolince, possibly the first and only time a government security official has been so challenged on 9/11, the disconnect between the official story and reality was plain. Rolince knew nothing of the August 18, 2001 memo Samit had sent to his office warning of terror links. In that memo, Samit warned that Moussaoui wanted to hijack a plane and had the weapons to do it. Samit also warned that Moussaoui "believes it is acceptable to kill civilians" and that he approved of martyrdom. Rolince testified he never read the memo.
On August 17 Samit sent an e-mail to his direct superiors at FBI headquarters recounting Moussaoui's training on 747 simulators. "His excuse is weak, he just wants to learn how to do it... That's pretty ominous and obviously suggests some sort of hijacking plan," Samit wrote.
Rebuffed by his superiors and ignored by Rolince, Samit still sought out more info worldwide and from sources as diverse as the FBI's London, Paris, and Oklahoma City offices, FBI headquarters files, the CIA's counterterrorism center, the Secret Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, probably the National Security Agency, and the FBI's Iran and OBL offices.
He was sufficiently alarmed by what he heard that Samit sent an August 21 e-mail requesting that the Secret Service be informed about Moussaoui's intentions to see the White House and that he was interested in flight training.
Samit testified that on August 22 he had learned from the French—the French!—that Moussaoui had recruited a fighter to go to Chechnya in 2000 to fight with Islamic radicals with previous links, so the CIA told Samit, to Osama bin Laden. The FBI brass remained unmoved.
Defense attorney MacMahon then displayed an August 30, 2001 communication addressed to Samit and FBI headquarters agent Mike Maltbie from a Bureau agent in Paris. It passed along that French intelligence thought Moussaoui was "very dangerous" and had soaked up radical views at London's infamous Finnsbury Park mosque. The French also said Moussaoui was "completely devoted" to bin Laden-style jihadism and, significantly, had traveled to Afghanistan.
Yet on August 31 Maltbie stopped Samit from sending a letter to FAA headquarters in Washington advising them of "a potential threat to security of commercial aircraft" based on the Moussaoui case. Maltbie said he would handle that, but it is not clear if he ever did.
"Minneapolis believes Moussaoui, [Moussaoui's roommate Hussein] Al Attas and others not yet known were...engaged in preparing to seize 747s," the aborted warning said.
Samit did directly tell FAA officials in Minneapolis of his concerns on September 5.
In total, the information Samit pulled together dovetailed with his belief that, based on interviews with the suspect, Moussaoui had been to Afghan terror training camps. Because he did not have proof of the suspected terror camp connection, however, Samit never passed this hunch on to the FBI headquarters. Maltbie and Maltbie's boss, David Frasca, chief of the radical fundamentalist unit at headquarters, were clearly pressing Samit for facts only, as Rolince's disdain for "suppositions" from far-off Minneapolis confirms.
http://www.reason.com/links/links033006.shtml
 
Top