What, No Chron Eye?
'United 93' and the 20th Hijacker: Moussaoui will never rot in prison (Daniel Henninger, WSJ)
There is reason to believe that pre-9/11 thinking will in time return and prevail.
Defenders of Moussaoui's life sentence say he will "rot in prison." Perhaps in a better world Zacarias Moussaoui would share a cell with Hannibal Lecter. But if our moral betters aren't going to let Saddam's torturers rot in Abu Ghraib, if they aren't going to let the CIA's most important al Qaeda captives rot in "secret" foreign prisons, they certainly aren't going to let Moussaoui rot in Florence, Colo. He will be treated more than well.
Not to mention the Moussaoui trial itself. We arrive at the end of these interminable trial circuses of procedural delay and then claim "the system works" and "justice" has been done. No, it has done damage to the normal idea of justice. He saw the game early on and made a mockery of it. Moussaoui achieved a two-year delay in his trial by demanding to interview al Qaeda detainees. But our moral betters insist that the whole lot of Guantanamo detainees be given access to this same system of justice. They would diminish and crush it.
The odds were strong, as Moussaoui's lawyers knew and the government's should have known, that 9 of 12 jurors would vote that Moussaoui's childhood was "dysfunctional" and "mitigating." This is the therapeutic vocabulary that the West has developed to explain anything in the years from the postwar period to, say, September 11.
I'm surprised the local Hearst daily didn't chip in with a Chron Eye on Moussaoui.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 05/05/06 09:39 | Other | Technorati
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
TrackBack
There are currently no trackbacks for this item.
Incoming trackback pings have been disabled because of abusive spammers. Technorati is now used to track cross-blog conversation.
Comments
Obviously Mr. Henninger feels he is the "moral better" of those twelve Northern Virginia jurors. Funny, because Northern Virgina jurors (like Harris county jurors) are not known to coddle criminals (Virginia is second only to Texas in executions). So when this type of jury returns this type of verdict, you know the government had a weak case.
Our system did work perfectly. It is not a pretty and efficient system. It has procedural roadblocks and delays, and irrelevant facts often dominate criminal proceedings. But in the end, the system generally delivers a fair result. What would Mr. Henninger have us do - bind, chain, and gag Moussaoui in the courtroom? Not allow him to testify in his own defense? Summarily execute Moussaoui? That would be neat and tidy, but it would not be the American system of justice.
Mr. Henninger fears al-quaeda prisoners being given access to the system? Why? Does he think so little of American juries and federal prosecutors (who is claiming to be the moral better here, again)? Does he think that consecutive life sentences in a federal supermax prison without the possibility of parole is not sufficent punishment? Will only blood appease Mr. Henninger?
In the end, the judge and jury seemed to agree that Moussaoui was an al-quaeda wannabee with no serious role or knowledge in 9-11. This verdict seems completely reasonable. The trial was not perfect, but this was the first time the federal courts had addressed many of the difficult issues that will come up again and again in prosecuting terrorists of all types. All things considered, it went well and laid the groundwork and caselaw for future trials. It showed the flexibility and stregth of the American justice system. So what is Mr. Henninger's problem?
Posted by el_longhorn @ 12:01 on 05/05/06
Mr. Henninger fears al-quaeda prisoners being given access to the system? Why?
Because the criminal justice system was not designed to deal with acts of war, which one way of categorizing/characterizing acts of political terrorism (indeed, that takes us back to the whole notion of terrorism as a law-enforcement versus a national-security matter).
It's a perfectly legitimate position to respond "So what?" But it's also a pre-9-11 position, which is Henninger's larger point.
All things considered, it went well and laid the groundwork and caselaw for future trials.
For Henninger and many others, that's the problem. :)
Posted by Kevin @ 12:26 on 05/05/06
I understand that there were concerns about the court's ability to handle terrorism prosecutions, but so far the track record is very strong - Reed and Moussaoui, the Oklahoma City bombers. On the other hand, the military tribunals have looked like a joke, like a kangaroo court, with the prosecutors and judges making up the rules as they go along and with little or no transparency (not to mention the larger constitutional and legal questions as to whether the tribunals are even valid). If and when the courts were unable to handle terrorism cases (for whatever reasons), I would be all for Congress and the President looking at other possibilities. But that simply has not been the case to date.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 13:52 on 05/05/06
Actually, Henninger (and others) would contend that this IS just such a case.
That is the matter in dispute, and one's view on that is determinative of one's view as to what should be done.
I'll agree that the military tribunals were not thought out very well, though. They were a response to a deficiency, but they weren't necessarily a good response, and they may well need some work. That will almost certainly be a matter high on President McCain's agenda. :)
Posted by Kevin @ 18:48 on 05/07/06
I would be happy to see a McCain presidency and a Democratic Congress. Maybe some sort of pragmatism would return to Washington D.C.
Posted by el_longhorn @ 10:51 on 05/08/06
Add Comments
While it is not required, creating an account for commenting provides a number of benefits (such as comment editing and bypassing the captcha challenge). You may log in to your account here.
No flames or impolite behavior. Any questions, see the site policies. Older posts are moderated (because of spammers), so if your post does not appear immediately, that could be why.
HTML will be stripped. URLs will be transformed into hyperlinks.
[b]text[/b] will produce bold text. [i]text[/i] will produce italicized text.
Comments for this post must be approved before being published. Thank you!
BLOG
» Create Account
» Log In
DISCLAIMER
Content and design copyright © 1997-2008, Kevin Whited.
Posts represent the views of Kevin Whited (and occasional guest bloggers) only, and do not necessarily reflect the views of employers, family, friends, or significant others.