How about some Cal Thomas (will he be more palatable than Ann Coulter)? http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/cthomas.htm Was Moussaoui right? By Cal Thomas May 7, 2006 "America you lost ... I won," shouted Zacarias Moussaoui after an Alexandria, Va., jury rejected the death penalty for his admitted role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack that killed nearly 3,000 people. Some may interpret that remark as self-vindication, but what if it has another meaning? Could he have meant the U.S. has lost its sense of justice and that the verdict was an example of the moral squishiness that Islamofascists believe characterizes so much of this country? He has ample evidence to believe such a thing based on forms filled out by the jurors, which included "mitigating factors" that led them to reject the death penalty in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Nine of the 12 jurors said Moussaoui's "unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family" resulted in his having a home life without structure or emotional and financial support, and his hostile relationship with his mother eventually led to him being placed in an orphanage. There are plenty of people with similar "dysfunctional" backgrounds, but they do not plot to assassinate innocent civilians in pursuit of a creed that has as its ultimate objective world domination and the death or subjugation of all with different faiths and political views. Some of the relatives of those who died on September 11 took solace that the Colorado prison to which Moussaoui will be assigned is no country club. He will be confined in a small cell with a toilet, a sink and a mattress for 23 hours a day. He will get one hour daily for "exercise," which will consist of walking around in a cage. He can be denied television, newspapers and anything else prison officials wish to keep from him. Religious services will be piped in over a speaker. He will not be allowed to associate with other inmates. That Moussaoui will suffer for decades and possibly lose his mind, as some have in similar circumstances, does not speak to the justice issue. If I steal and wreck your car and am forced to pay a fine to the state and/or serve time in jail, is that justice? No. It would be justice if I were forced to buy you a new car, pay a fine to you and then possibly serve time in jail. That's called restitution, and it is the only proper way to assure justice for the victim. It is the same with murder. Depriving one of liberty who has taken a life, or many lives, does not register on the justice meter. If human life has the highest value (and that is debatable, given how it is treated), the only way to validate its worth is to deprive one who takes it of his or her own life. That was known as the doctrine of "just desserts" before we entered into what C.S. Lewis called "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment." This trial should have been held in a military not a civilian court. Civilians are more likely to be stricken with a malady I call Oprah disease, which is all about feelings and little about objective truth. This malady affects every layer of public and private life. That a majority of jurors concluded Moussaoui should not be executed because he had a difficult childhood was famously mocked by Stephen Sondheim's lyrics in the musical "West Side Story." One of the gang members says, "Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived." So, Moussaoui may have been right. He did win, in a sense, by again exposing America's soft moral underpinnings. Moussaoui deserved death. That he won't get it deprives him of justice. He will never have liberty again, but those whose deaths he plotted and rejoiced over will never have life again either. That isn't justice. It isn't even fair. Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.
The Death Penalty is truly a flawed institution in our justice system. This case proves it. To the people who believe in it, it brings the question of why he should live when Americans have been executed for commiting less heinous acts. To those same people who view the necessity to get tough on crime, it exposes a moral weakness. It's only ironic that the column accuses the jurors of being all about feelings and little about objective truth. Congress passed some hastily written laws to include Moussaoui into the death penalty sentence. Those laws might not have stood up under the scrutiny of a higher court. Let alone that Moussaoui's testimony was incoherent or that the prosecution's case hinged on celebrity testimony that essentially pleaded to the feelings of the jurors, this case was about blood and revenge instead of the objective truth. It was that same fervor for revenge that executed Tim McVeigh, who became the focal point of the Oklahoma bombing, and alongside Terry Nichols became the sole culprits for the largest domestic attack in the history of the US. When we executed McVeigh, we laid that case to rest and sighed a collective relief of justice. We totally disregarded the facts and the possibility that he didn't act alone. With the death penalty, we don't ask for justice. We ask for life, sometimes in exchange for another, to cleanse ourselves of that fateful event and ultimately to bury it far into the recesses of our memory.
Cal Thomas is a stooge, but he's not Ann Coulter. Anyway, the fact that he wanted the death penalty in order to become a 'martyr' and didn't get it, is a greater punishment. The very fact that once it finally sank in that he wasn't going to be a martyr, but instead rot in prison, he wanted a new trial, and to change his plea to 'not guilty'. Thomas' own third party blood lust will have to just live with that. His definitive statements on what justice is, has no legal bearing, and no moral bearing in my world. Despite this claim, Thomas' own statement about what does or doesn't register on the justice meter is nothing more than his opinion. His opinion is far from the gold standard.
Cal Thomas is a neanderthal idiot, while Ann Coulter is a cokewhore. Who ya gonna bring out next Giddy....the fat hypocritical Hillbilly Heroin junkie who demands prison time for all drug addicts?
It seems that the US government had to try to make Moussoui sp? the fall guy for 9/11. The jury did not buy it. Our sytem proved its strength. Meanwhile the Bush gans has some of the plotters locked up, but cannot try them because then we would have to show how much we tortured them. Though the American system prevailed with respect to Maossosi, it has lost wrt to the real plotters of 9/11.
"go see cal" bill maher talked about this friday. he was for death for this guy, I think. but I really don't understand this guy's problem with the sentence. we have a death penalty. we have a jury system. he argues that the decision should have been taken out of the hands of the citizens. well that would have proved the jihadists right, we stuck to our system. that's the point we have made to the world and we aren't vindictive animals.
Mr. Thomas doesn't really seem to understand the nature of the charges against Moussaoui nor the legal background issues, so it's difficult to take any of his conclusions seriously.
I wanna hear more! Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty yet he didn't receive it. What's to mistake about "soft moral underpinnings?"
Soft moral underpinnings, like soiled underpants, are the result of a panicky and frightened hatred that does not pause to reflect and cannot muster the grace to let due process be carried out.
"Due Process" had options which it failed to exercise. "Due Process" is not above criticism-- or specifically the players are not above criticism.
LOL, if any side has cause to complain about getting screwed by the system in the US v. Moussaoui, it sure ain't the US. The mistake is that the background of ridiculousness of the case is far from as simplistic as Mr. Thomas portrays, from the government's bizarre, ad hoc interpretation of causation and murder which represented an unprecedented expansion of the law (which would have been reversed on appeal), to the spectacle of the Government knowingly getting false testimony from Moussaoui in order o furthe assisted suicide, which stems from the biggest problem: Moussaoui himself, who happens to be schizophrenic and delusional and probably shouldn't be allowed to conduct his own defense. Put it in perspective - even the suicidial maniacs in Al Qaeda thought Moussaoui was too crazy to work with. Now that's crazy. But, I guess if you want to take all of that relevant background out and use it to make a hackneyed declaration of moral superiority, then Thomas is the man.
Due process was exercised. Cal Thomas is upset because according to him Mousoauii deserved to die. Cal Thomas wasn't a juror, a lawyer in the case or anything else connected with the case. So it might be his opinion, but he is not the person who has, nor should he have the final say over who deserves to live, and who deserves to die. That was an option in the case. The jurors who heard all the arguments decided that wasn't the best carriage of justice. Thomas' blood lust is all the more ridiculous because he so far removed from the case. He wasn't a party to any of it.
Can't anybody just read the transcripts and know what the jury knows? I'm not sure why you think he even asked for the final say; he is certainly welcome to his opinion-- even if YOU disagree with it... Blood "lust" sounds impressive, but where does it come from in this case. Yeah, that Cal is a violent guy. He's like Mr Rogers with an attitude.
Reading the transcript does not let one view the physical evidence, hear intonnation or see non-verbal cues. Like I said Cal can have his opinion. But he states things as if it were fact. He states flat out that Mousoauii deserved to die, and he said that Mousoauii spending the rest of his life behind bars doesn't come close to equalling justice. He is saying that stuff as if his view is correct. I don't trust Cal Thomas to be the final authority on what is and isn't justice.
... but you are? No disrespect intended but why is his right to express his viewpoint somehow abrogated? Doesn't Cal Thomas have a right to disagree with you?
