Let's Talk About Politics - with a German

[Matt]

How would his death make anything worse? In my opinion he's escaping justice. He had a significant role in *a lot* of unnecessary deaths. Remember people jumping to their deaths out of the towers? I just can't pity this terrorist.

[Bennett Cerf]

IMHO, this pretentious, piece of fucking shit terrorist should have received the death penalty.

Is it his pretensiousness that upsets you most?

[Rspaight]

How would his death make anything worse? In my opinion he's escaping justice. He had a significant role in *a lot* of unnecessary deaths. Remember people jumping to their deaths out of the towers? I just can't pity this terrorist.

Sure, you can believe that if that makes you feel better. Moussaoui's just the designated scapegoat for 9/11, a punching bag that we've been told to work out our need for revenge on. (A message which you've apparently received and obeyed.) I'm not convinced (and neither was the jury) that this goofball was anything but a blowhard who wanted to be more important than he really was. His actual connection to 9/11 (as opposed to al Qaeda) has never actually been proven, apart from his own claims, which he tends to contradict every time he opens his mouth.

Now, put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or Ramzi Binalshibh in a courtroom, and that would be a different thing. Or, even better, actually get bin Laden. But that's not going to happen. The best the government can do is to put on trial some nutcase who they already had in jail on 9/11, and this is supposed to be the guy we kill to feel like justice has been served. The jury didn't buy it, and I don't either.

Ryan

[lukpac]

How would his death make anything worse? In my opinion he's escaping justice. He had a significant role in *a lot* of unnecessary deaths. Remember people jumping to their deaths out of the towers? I just can't pity this terrorist.

The question is "what's the point"? How is it "justice" to put him to death? If he had his way he'd probably be dead already. Killing him isn't going to bring anyone back to life, it isn't going to dissuade anyone thinking about doing what he was going to do, and it isn't going to "punish" him any more. Besides, in a case like this, wouldn't living your entire life in prison be *worse* than a quick death?

There's no particular advantage in killing him, and while there many not be (obvious) disadvantages in this case, there certainly are in many cases. Why play that game at all?

[Matt]

Sure, it would be great to have Mohammed or Binalshibh. In fact, I hope Binalshibh is next to face trial. I believe the U.S. still has him in custody somewhere. I'll agree with you that there we people more involved than Moussaoui was.

The fact that Moussaoui supported fellow terrorists Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and Mustafa al-Hawsawi should be more than enough for valid conspiracy charges. Not to mention he was supposedly a substitute pilot. If you want to make him a victim that's certainly your prerogative, but I don't necessarily agree with it.

Sure, you can believe that if that makes you feel better. Moussaoui's just the designated scapegoat for 9/11, a punching bag that we've been told to work out our need for revenge on. (A message which you've apparently received and obeyed.) I'm not convinced (and neither was the jury) that this goofball was anything but a blowhard who wanted to be more important than he really was. His actual connection to 9/11 (as opposed to al Qaeda) has never actually been proven, apart from his own claims, which he tends to contradict every time he opens his mouth.

Now, put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or Ramzi Binalshibh in a courtroom, and that would be a different thing. Or, even better, actually get bin Laden. But that's not going to happen. The best the government can do is to put on trial some nutcase who they already had in jail on 9/11, and this is supposed to be the guy we kill to feel like justice has been served. The jury didn't buy it, and I don't either.

Ryan

[Matt]

IMHO, this pretentious, piece of fucking shit terrorist should have received the death penalty.

Is it his pretensiousness that upsets you most?

No. Who and what he was involved with upsets me the most.

[Matt]

One thing I read was about extradition of him to France. This struck me as odd that the French would really want him to serve his sentence there.

I would hate to see a guy like this "walk" one day as a result of maniplulations of that possible scenario. Life in prison gives him that chance.

The question is "what's the point"? How is it "justice" to put him to death? If he had his way he'd probably be dead already. Killing him isn't going to bring anyone back to life, it isn't going to dissuade anyone thinking about doing what he was going to do, and it isn't going to "punish" him any more. Besides, in a case like this, wouldn't living your entire life in prison be *worse* than a quick death?

There's no particular advantage in killing him, and while there many not be (obvious) disadvantages in this case, there certainly are in many cases. Why play that game at all?

[Rspaight]

Sure, it would be great to have Mohammed or Binalshibh. In fact, I hope Binalshibh is next to face trial. I believe the U.S. still has him in custody somewhere.

We indeed have both Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, held in "undisclosed locations." The government's shown no interest in prosecuting them, since they'd rather use them as sources of intelligence. That's all well and good, but the fact that they let Moussaoui face death means they didn't think he knew anything worth telling. Which is my point.

The fact that Moussaoui supported fellow terrorists Ramzi Bin al-Shibh and Mustafa al-Hawsawi should be more than enough for valid conspiracy charges.

I thought it was the other way around, that those guys gave Moussaoui money for his crop dusting training. But whatever. So conspiracy merits the death penalty? Think real hard about that one.

If you want to make him a victim that's certainly your prerogative, but I don't necessarily agree with it.

I never said he was a victim. (Whenever someone suggests that a criminal gets a penalty other than death, you accuse them of calling the criminal a "victim." What's up with that?) While we don't know what (if anything) he was actually planning to do, we know that he deserves to be locked up and that's what happened. All I'm saying is that the government and the media want you to think that killing Moussaoui somehow avenges 9/11. That's bunk.

Ryan

[Bennett Cerf]

Honestly, Ryan. Must you piss on the graves of the people who jumped to their deaths out of the towers?

[Rspaight]

Sorry. I drank a lot of water today.

Ryan

[Matt]

I thought it was the other way around, that those guys gave Moussaoui money for his crop dusting training. But whatever. So conspiracy merits the death penalty? Think real hard about that one.

He did not deny, or try to hide, his culpability. But, without knowing exactly what evidence and testimony the jury heard it's hard to call either way. Had he not been in custody at the time, he could have very well participated in a terrorist attack.

All I'm saying is that the government and the media want you to think that killing Moussaoui somehow avenges 9/11. That's bunk.

I totaly agree with you on that! Because I wanted him to receive the death penalty doesn't mean I am obeying any media messages. Executing him or not would not avenge 9/11. Can 9/11 ever truly be avenged?

[lukpac]

Death penalty on ballot

Senate agrees to advisory referendum in November
By STACY FORSTER
sforster@journalsentinel.com
Posted: May 16, 2006

Madison - Voters in the November election will be asked whether Wisconsin should reinstate the death penalty, after action Tuesday by the state Senate.

The Senate voted 18-15 to agree with changes made by the Assembly earlier this month and send the issue to voters on Nov. 7, rather than the September primary as called for in an earlier version of the measure.

Those who backed the resolution to ask voters about capital punishment for certain crimes said it is important to allow residents a chance to weigh in on an important issue at a time when there is likely to be the greatest turnout. But opponents dismissed the resolution as a political ploy.

The advisory referendum question will be on ballots along with races for governor, attorney general and other state officials, as well as a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and substantially similar relationships, such as civil unions.

Because of the large number of important races and issues, voters won't have a chance to participate in a full debate on the death penalty, said Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton).

"The only thing missing from the ballot this fall is flag desecration and guns," Erpenbach said. "It's the political equivalent of a Hail Mary."

The death penalty vote also will play out at the same time as the trial of Steven Avery, scheduled to begin Oct. 16. In 2003, Avery was released from prison after being wrongfully convicted of a sexual assault but has since been charged in the death of Teresa Halbach.
Seeking public opinion

But Sen. Alan Lasee (R-De Pere), who has been pushing for the death penalty for more than 30 years, said he drafted the advisory referendum proposal in early 2005 with the intent of getting input from constituents.

"It's time for people to have their say on this important issue," Lasee said.

The question, which won't be binding, will read: "Should the death penalty be enacted in the State of Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?"

The referendum question wouldn't affect Avery because the harshest penalty Wisconsin defendants now face is life in prison.

Wisconsin has not had capital punishment since 1853.

The Senate initially passed a similar resolution in March on a 20-13 vote, but that version would have put the question on September primary election ballots.

Earlier this month, the Assembly voted 47-45 to put the question to voters, but shifted the referendum to the November ballot and eliminated the word "vicious" to describe crimes eligible for the death penalty.

Senators engaged in a three-hour debate Tuesday about the application and cost of the death penalty.

"All we're trying to do is give people the opportunity to tell us what they believe," said Sen. Cathy Stepp (R-Sturtevant). "What are we so afraid of?"

But by leaving tough issues to a referendum, lawmakers aren't taking care of their responsibilities, some opponents said. "They spoke when they sent us here," Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee) said of voters. "We represent them."

Opponents also questioned how much lawmakers would learn from such an advisory referendum.

"It would only serve as an emotional diversion from some of the other important issues people are talking about," said Senate Democratic Leader Judy Robson of Beloit. "The referendum is less about learning about the will of the people and more about the desire to inflame."

Opponents also questioned such reliance on DNA evidence. If tainted or mishandled, it could result in a wrongful conviction and execution, said Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay).

Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) said it is important to get voters' opinions on record to provide better information on the issue if lawmakers ever decide to introduce legislation on the death penalty.

"I want to know what parts of the state are going to be very much in favor and which won't," Zien said, adding that he believes the death penalty is a deterrent to those who might commit a violent crime.

Polls show the idea has popularity among Wisconsin residents. A March 29 to April 7 survey by the St. Norbert College Survey Center and Wisconsin Public Radio asked 400 respondents whether they favored language similar - but not identical - to what would be in the referendum.

Nearly two-thirds - 61% - said they supported it, while 33% were opposed, 5% were not sure and 1% refused to answer the question. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

From the May 17, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel