From one 'stripe' to another....



PLEASE, God...if it were only so!!

He pleaded guilty. And I think that you know where I stand about terrorists and if they should be given the same rights as humans or not. So that's all I'll say about that.

Now all we need is the "what makes one a human and who are and who are not human" post to be made by the other guy from here and we'll have completed the circle!


Don Cardi

I know how you feel about terrorists, DC, and I don't feel all that much differently.

After it's proven that they're terrorists.

So what was there to prove in this case? He confessed!

Don Cardi

Yeah, but at the beginning of this conversation you implied that the guy wasn't etitled to a fair trial because he was a terrorist.

All I'm saying is we have to give these guys a fair trial, otherwise we don't know if they are terrorists or not.

And I still stand by that statement.


See you over in the sports thread my friend.


Don Cardi

If he was sentenced to death he would have had an automatic right to appeal.

This way he doesn't.

But that's not the statement that I disagree with.

What you said there happens to be correct. the guy is a scumbag, and if you believe in the death penalty I can think of no better candidate for it than him.

But what I do disagree with was this:

"Yeah, he deserves a fair trial, like the one that he and his cohorts gave to everyone that they were responsible for executing.....He deserved to be killed. No rights, no second chances."

Which to me means that you don't think he was entitled to a fair trial in the first place.

It would be great if there were some way that we knew for sure, before putting someone on trial, so we could say

"Oh, good. This guy is a terrorist, so we don't have to give him a fair trial because we know that he's a terrorist".

But the purpose of the trial is so that we are sure he's a terrorist, and we can't deny someone their rights until we are sure.

But hell, you know that....

See 'ya in the Sports Forum.....


StatMan

--------------------
na na na na na na na na........
na na na na na na na na........
na na na na na na na na........
Stat Man

I'll uncharastically put my neck out on this, but I believe that the poster was trying to say that while under the legal system Moussaoui (and any other 'terrorist' was entitled to a trial, while he had the right to a fair trial as does any other common scumbag criminal ... he simply didn't deserve a fair trial and should've been taken out and the day it was discovered he was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Just like the rest of them.

We can run that around in circles with the usual sanctimonious attitude...but I believe that's all the poster was intending to convey.



Apple

But how did we know that until the trial, counsel?

The fairest trial of all is with Time, the outcome of which has only one winner.

Why jump the gun and kill him before the demoralisation of old-age...and one in jail, to boot?

Indeed... much better that the radical Islamists are denied a young martyr slain by the "evil" Western regime ... plus it means he will have to wait longer to get those 71 virgins as a reward for his valiant efforts...

i think moussaoui is just a wannabe really who missed his flight but whatever part he did have in 911 is significant just based on the event nevertheless tho he'll have a hard time in jail
hes gonna be treated worse than a cop in jail just based on his associations

That's a good way to avoid the question, counselor.

Shall I rephrase that, or is it considered being "argumentative" and "badgering the witness" if I do?

I can understand the contempt/hatred toward Moussaoui. I'm guessing all of America feels that same contempt/hatred. And believe me, I understand the argument of those he conspired to kill had no rights. I can imagine their loved ones think of nothing else. Yet, we can't forget that we are not the animals that they are. We are a Nation of laws. We can't randomly decide who does or doesn't deserve a fair trial, or we become like them. And who and when would such a decision be made???

To you DC, our entire nation felt the "jolt" that day, but I know it hit closer to home for you and others in your area. I just want you to know that I do understand and respect why you feel the way you do. Maybe that's why it's easier for me to step back, so to speak, I don't know.

TIS

TIS, that was very nicely worded...but in all honesty it shouldn't be easier for you to 'step back, so to speak'...because even though the 9/11 attacks took place in our part of the country...it was an attack on the entire nation. Would you expect anyone on the east coast to step back if the attacks had taken place in California?

As for Mr. Moussaoui, I doubt that Don Cardi or anyone else needs to be preached to that we are a nation of laws. I belive he understands and appreciates that, and is (IMO) simply stating how he wishes Moussaoui could be dealt with. Even if he knows that in this 'nation of laws' it cannot really happen. Oh and by the way I feel the same way.

Personally, the life in prison/solitary confinement/no chance of release sentence was fine with me. Even if he had gotten the death penalty it probably would've been YEARS before it was carried out.

Apple

Apple,

By "stepping back", I am referring to the fact that I had no loved one or friend killed in the attack. I can only imagine how I'd feel if I did.

As far as getting "preachy", I hope DC knows me better than to think that.

TIS

You got that right Apple. I don't understand why they wait years and years and years before they carry out that sentence.

Mig,

Most people on death row are literally on it for years. I don't really know the specific reason. Unless there is a minimum amount of years they wait in case they find the person wasn't guilty????? I don't know, just guessing. Or, maybe that ol "red tape."


TIS

Neither did I.

The fact that I did not happen to suffer a personal loss that day in no way allows me to feel that it's easy to 'step back' from the meaning and intent of those attacks.

Apple

TIS, I really think you're pulling our legs her...but just in case...it's called 'Appeals'.

Death sentencess have been delayed for more than 20 years in some cases (those 2 very recent ones in CA for instance) while lawyers for the condemnded have exhausted the appeals process.

The only reason Timothy McVeigh is dead today is that he ordered his appeals stopped. His lawyers had no choice.

Scott Peterson will probably sit in prison another 10 years at least until he's finally put to death for the murder of his wife and unborn child (unless they find that devil-worshipping cult that clown Mark Geragos tried to put over on the jury).

Apple

Because everyone has the automatic right to an appeal - which is a good thing since past history has shown that they make so many mistakes by convicting and almost executing innocent people.

Gary Scheck and Peter Neufeld, two of OJ Simpson's lawyers, founded and run The Innocence Project, which you can read about here:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

and here:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/ips.htm

To date, they have secured the release of dozens of death row inmates, wrongfully convicted of murder who were awaiting execution.

That's a bit ironic that OJ's lawyers are involved in the innocence project, no? :p

Looking at it in retrospect, it was rather strange that as devoted as they are to using DNA evidence as a tool to free those who are quite probably innocent, that they got themselves involved in a case that required that they kind of prove the unreliability of DNA evidence to help free someone who they had to believe was quite probably guilty.

I do, however, believe that the DNA evidence in the case was very likely compromised and/or tainted and therefore unreliable, and that there quite possibly or probably was misconduct on the part of members of the LAPD.

But I also think that the case against OJ was strong enough to convict him, all of those other factors notwithstanding.

I did read a very interesting book by Alan Dershowitz in which he makes a very compelling argument that the verdict, based on the way in which the case was presented and the way that the trial proceeded, was quite reasonable.

But I'm not looking to turn this into an OJ discussion, either.

Ya, McVeigh stopped the appeals...and did so to become a martyr for his anti-governmental white supremecist cause.

I rather have such glory-seeking scumbags become old reclics within their own lifetimes.

Quote:

I doubt that Don Cardi or anyone else needs to be preached to that we are a nation of laws. I belive he understands and appreciates that, and is (IMO) simply stating how he wishes Moussaoui could be dealt with.

Yes Apple, you are correct I do understand that this is a nation of laws to protect it's people, and that is what makes us such a great nation. Your coming to my defense is admirable, and I sincerely appreciate it. But I also happen to know TIS, and I am very confident that she was not trying to "preach" to me. I can assure you that it is not her style.

If anything, she was probably attempting to give me a Godmotherly "wake up slap" trying to say to me

"what's the matter with you, I think your brains gone sour from all that resentment you've built up towards those bastards, never let their way of doing things bring you down to their level, we're better than that!"

Quote:

As far as getting "preachy", I hope DC knows me better than to think that.

Of course I know you better than that! Your my Godmother, and you have the right to slap me and tell me that I can "act like a man" anytime you want.


The truth is that it looks as if BOTH of you ladies know and understand where I am coming from, and I thank you both for showing that.


Don Cardi

Point taken, DC...and made with your usual gentlemanly class and style.



Apple

ps - truth is, I do know that 'preaching' is not TIS' style. I was being a 'stinker'. Just this once.

He wont get a re-trial, but I bet he takes all kinds of appeals while he is doing time. Most inmates file all kinds of petitions for writs, in state and federal courts without lawyers. 99.99% of them get dismissed out of hand.

One time I did a foreclosure on a house owned by an inmate, who obviously couldnt pay his mortgage, and he turned around and sued me, the judge and the bank for some crazy shit which got thrown out immediately. The he took an appeal which got thrown out, then he took an appeal to the State Supreme Court which got thrown out. Then he sued me, the original judge, the bank, the intermediate court of appeals, and the State Supreme Court in Federal District court. That case got tossed, and he went to the 11th Circuit, which tossed it, and the US Supreme Court which tossed it. Then he went back to federal court alleging that all of us (me, the judges etc) were engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of his "rights." AT that point the Federal District court declared him a "vexacious litigator" and issued a blanket order for the clerk not to accept any pleadings from him unless they were signed by a lawyer. Thats the last we heard of him.

It's a matter of the lengthy court process through our justice system. Appeallate courts and the State & Supreme Courts have many applicants who want their cases heard. It takes a lot of time to sift through the small fraction that actually are considered by a higher court.

To give you an example of how long the process can take, Ted Bundy was captured after escaping prison (for the 2nd time in one year) in February 1978. During the time he was free, he killed or assaulted 6 Florida women and killed a little girl. He was convicted and sentenced to death by two separate juries in 1979 and 1980. Due to the appeals process (Bundy even petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court), Bundy wasn't executed until January 1989.

In Ohio, when the death penalty was reinstated, there was an inmate who made headlines in 1998 because he waived all of his appeals. He would have died sooner had Ohio been using the death penalty prior to 1998. (I can't recall how long capital punishment was inactivated prior to 1998 here.)

Remember before Tim McVeigh died - there was all that talk that he could escape the death penalty due to a technicality involving something the FBI did wrong.

According to a story on heard today on MSN, there was only one juror who voted against the death penalty. He barely made it. I wonder if there was a lot of discussion on that point among jurors?


TIS