Mosoui (sp") just got life without parole. A just and sensible and IN-humane judgement. Putting him to death would be the absolute best way for him to be happy and semi-successful. Death would give him what he desired most on this earth and made him a martyr for the radical Islamic world and the community of terrorists.
Moussaoui Case Over
- Thread starter tegemu
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
The jury has spoken...end of story. He got his day in court, and not just some secret kangaroo court. Case closed.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
I'll stand with the jury that sat thru weeks of testimony and days of deliberations vs all us internet quarterbacks who always seem to have the right answers. Had the jury given him death, I'd support that also...the "system" works; perhaps not perfectly, but far better than the alternatives. As his own attorney stated, he came to this country to die. Now he'll get his wish...he just has to sit in solitary in a converted coal mine for about 40 years before it comes true.
One benefit of the Life Sentence is that this guy is already Old News today. He'll never make headlines again. Had he been given Death, he'd get to play in the media for years to come.
But, I'm still trying to understand the charge in the case. It appears that he was charged with a capital crime for lying to the Feds. While I recognize that 9-11 was a heinous act of terror, since when did lying to Federal Officers carry a life sentence, especially in light of Fifth Amendment guarantees against self-incrimination? Can anyone tell me what I missed?
Rich
One benefit of the Life Sentence is that this guy is already Old News today. He'll never make headlines again. Had he been given Death, he'd get to play in the media for years to come.
But, I'm still trying to understand the charge in the case. It appears that he was charged with a capital crime for lying to the Feds. While I recognize that 9-11 was a heinous act of terror, since when did lying to Federal Officers carry a life sentence, especially in light of Fifth Amendment guarantees against self-incrimination? Can anyone tell me what I missed?
Rich
invention_45
New member
Rich
I'm going to guess here, but I don't think the 5th protects him. It's one thing to take the 5th for yourself and refuse to answer questions that would incriminate yourSELF. It's another to tell the police you don't know about a crime in the works to be committed by others when you do. I think that would make you a co-conspirator and subject to the same punishment that would be given to those who actually participated in the crime.
I haven't really followed the reporting on this case, but if he had said nothing at all, as in answering all questions with "I want to see my lawyer", that would be taking the 5th and, absent other evidence, he shouldn't be convicted of anything. But if he was ever asked if he knew and said so much as "I don't know anything about it", then he's voluntarily giving a false statement to the police. If it's later determined that he did know something about it, that's a crime. He'd also be a conspirator.
The way I understand conspiracy laws is that if he was having dinner with the rest of the gang and they discussed their plan, and then he left the table thinking "they'll never have the nerve" and had no further part in the crime, but they actually DID the crime, or any one of the others took a step toward committing the crime, he's a conspirator in whatever got done.
I can't see how he would have gotten into court if he didn't admit conspiring, voluntarily self-incriminate, or lie to the police and get caught, or get busted based on evidence of probable cause obtained from someone other than himself.
Somebody tell me if that's wrong.
I'm going to guess here, but I don't think the 5th protects him. It's one thing to take the 5th for yourself and refuse to answer questions that would incriminate yourSELF. It's another to tell the police you don't know about a crime in the works to be committed by others when you do. I think that would make you a co-conspirator and subject to the same punishment that would be given to those who actually participated in the crime.
I haven't really followed the reporting on this case, but if he had said nothing at all, as in answering all questions with "I want to see my lawyer", that would be taking the 5th and, absent other evidence, he shouldn't be convicted of anything. But if he was ever asked if he knew and said so much as "I don't know anything about it", then he's voluntarily giving a false statement to the police. If it's later determined that he did know something about it, that's a crime. He'd also be a conspirator.
The way I understand conspiracy laws is that if he was having dinner with the rest of the gang and they discussed their plan, and then he left the table thinking "they'll never have the nerve" and had no further part in the crime, but they actually DID the crime, or any one of the others took a step toward committing the crime, he's a conspirator in whatever got done.
I can't see how he would have gotten into court if he didn't admit conspiring, voluntarily self-incriminate, or lie to the police and get caught, or get busted based on evidence of probable cause obtained from someone other than himself.
Somebody tell me if that's wrong.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Invention-
I think you're probably right. The problem I have is with the sweeping repercussions of such "conspiracy" charges. Tell me the following scenarios would not fit the same construct:
1) A single working Mom living in a Gang-controlled neighborhood witnesses an LEO being beaten and abducted from her window. She fails to call for help and later tells the cops that she didn't see anything. The LEO is later found executed. As much as we might fault her for lack of co-operation, is she guilty of Misprision of a Felony or Conspiracy to Commit Murder?
2) A gun owner cruising the vendor tables at a gun show overhears a man tell a woman, "Buy the Glock 23. I'll pay you later." She purchases it in her name. He's later interviewed by the local police and claims he didn't hear anything. Is he guilty of a Firearms Felony? Should he be?
3) Your brother-in-law brags that he won $6K in Vegas and that he didn't report it on his taxes. You're interviewed by the IRS and asked how much he won in Vegas. You answer that you don't know. Are you guilty of Tax Fraud? Should you be?
By no means am I arguing that Moussaoui should not have been charged. I'm simply trying to understand the basis for the charges. It seems to me that knowledge of an impending crime is hardly the equivalent of commission of that crime...except in the most totalitarian societies.
Rich
I think you're probably right. The problem I have is with the sweeping repercussions of such "conspiracy" charges. Tell me the following scenarios would not fit the same construct:
1) A single working Mom living in a Gang-controlled neighborhood witnesses an LEO being beaten and abducted from her window. She fails to call for help and later tells the cops that she didn't see anything. The LEO is later found executed. As much as we might fault her for lack of co-operation, is she guilty of Misprision of a Felony or Conspiracy to Commit Murder?
2) A gun owner cruising the vendor tables at a gun show overhears a man tell a woman, "Buy the Glock 23. I'll pay you later." She purchases it in her name. He's later interviewed by the local police and claims he didn't hear anything. Is he guilty of a Firearms Felony? Should he be?
3) Your brother-in-law brags that he won $6K in Vegas and that he didn't report it on his taxes. You're interviewed by the IRS and asked how much he won in Vegas. You answer that you don't know. Are you guilty of Tax Fraud? Should you be?
By no means am I arguing that Moussaoui should not have been charged. I'm simply trying to understand the basis for the charges. It seems to me that knowledge of an impending crime is hardly the equivalent of commission of that crime...except in the most totalitarian societies.
Rich
Rich,
My thoughts on that are: Technically yes. They are all conspirators.
We have judges and juries.
We have compassion, understanding, and reason.
We don't have a "standard" for punishment.
I think all of this plays into it. He knew about this. He knew it was going to happen. I don't know all of the facts, but this is a crime, an aweful heinous crime.
Your examples are where the understanding, compassion, and reasoning come into play.
#1: Legitimate fear for her life.
I think #2 is the only one where he would be protected by the fifth (if he sold the gun to her).
#3 Definatly conspiring.
I am not saying that any of these situations make those people dirtbags. I am saying they are crimes. Whether or not they should be persued.........Don't know. Punishment for them if it was persued? Thats why we have a judge and a jury....
My thoughts on that are: Technically yes. They are all conspirators.
We have judges and juries.
We have compassion, understanding, and reason.
We don't have a "standard" for punishment.
I think all of this plays into it. He knew about this. He knew it was going to happen. I don't know all of the facts, but this is a crime, an aweful heinous crime.
Your examples are where the understanding, compassion, and reasoning come into play.
#1: Legitimate fear for her life.
I think #2 is the only one where he would be protected by the fifth (if he sold the gun to her).
#3 Definatly conspiring.
I am not saying that any of these situations make those people dirtbags. I am saying they are crimes. Whether or not they should be persued.........Don't know. Punishment for them if it was persued? Thats why we have a judge and a jury....
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Trapp-
If these are all crimes, there is no latitude for a Judge or Jury to add "technical violation" to their decision. Only a prosecutor may do that in the charge decision (to a lesser extent, the Judge, in the sentencing phase). If these are crimes, it is incumbent on the Jury to find the defendant Guilty.
That being said, there isn't a single one of us who is unaware of crimes that have occurred by third parties...tax games, carrying a weapon without valid CCW, speeding, failure to wear seat belts, etc. Should we each be liable for failure to divulge that knowledge? If so, we truly have become a Snitch Nation.
Now I understand that a seat belt violation is not even in the same Crime Universe as murdering 3,000+ innocent Americans. But The Law knows no shade of gray when it comes to crime, except in the Sentencing Phase...and this is as it should be. As far as Justice is concerned, Crime is Crime, not to be overlooked; the sliding scale is only to be applied in the punishment.
All of which brings me back to the original question: was he charged with Murder simply because he lied to Federal Officers?
Rich
If these are all crimes, there is no latitude for a Judge or Jury to add "technical violation" to their decision. Only a prosecutor may do that in the charge decision (to a lesser extent, the Judge, in the sentencing phase). If these are crimes, it is incumbent on the Jury to find the defendant Guilty.
That being said, there isn't a single one of us who is unaware of crimes that have occurred by third parties...tax games, carrying a weapon without valid CCW, speeding, failure to wear seat belts, etc. Should we each be liable for failure to divulge that knowledge? If so, we truly have become a Snitch Nation.
Now I understand that a seat belt violation is not even in the same Crime Universe as murdering 3,000+ innocent Americans. But The Law knows no shade of gray when it comes to crime, except in the Sentencing Phase...and this is as it should be. As far as Justice is concerned, Crime is Crime, not to be overlooked; the sliding scale is only to be applied in the punishment.
All of which brings me back to the original question: was he charged with Murder simply because he lied to Federal Officers?
Rich
Scott Conklin
New member
Rich, every one of us is a criminal today. It's much easier to control a population of criminals than a population of honest Citizens. We gauge how far down the tubes we actually are now based on the fact the Law ALWAYS works on shades of gray, starting with an officer's discretion, and based on that it looks like we're pretty far along...
Whatever, they got him on what they could at the time and made it stick. In this case it was righteous, but what it says in the larger view is up for grabs. As for the verdict itself, it keeps him from martyr status and yet it's unlikely he'll last too long if they stick him in genpop. Someone will get him, whether out of legitimate anger or just to make a name for himself.
Whatever, they got him on what they could at the time and made it stick. In this case it was righteous, but what it says in the larger view is up for grabs. As for the verdict itself, it keeps him from martyr status and yet it's unlikely he'll last too long if they stick him in genpop. Someone will get him, whether out of legitimate anger or just to make a name for himself.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
I say, Death Penalty for Martha Stewart!!! What you missed, Rich, is that our federal crime code has completely run amok in the last 30 years, due to the farces affectionately known as the "War on (some) Drugs" and the "War on Terror" - crimes & punishments are constitutionally the primary province of the states, and federal crimes should be extremely limited in nature. But now the federal code is crawling with them, and many of them are far too egregious of a punishment for facts that can amount to the crime charged - but hey, no problem - the fedgov is going to use 'selective prosecution' to police itself and make sure that it doesn't abuse its power in marginal cases, right? Well we all know how that typically works out eventually. Of course, in THIS case, stretching the code to it's limits was appropriate, but next week/year, it'll apply to anyone the government doesn't like (the scapegoat du jure). You can rest assured that someway, somehow, walking and chewing gun at the same time be be twisted into a federal crime of some sort, if the feds simply choose to scour the code for some vague-language crimes like RICO or whathaveyou, and make the round peg fit in the square hole. But of course you knew that. 
Look what happened to Michael Fortier - he didn't even LIE to investigators - he merely didn't tell them something which they asked about McVeigh (i.e. he exercised his right to remain silent), and he served 10 or 11 years, I think. Now, what they got him on, and perhaps rightly so I suppose, is that since he had done an overt act in some tenous way connected to the conspiracy (driving McVeigh & Nichols out to the country) while knowing of the conspiracy to bomb (he did know of their plans) even though he was NOT one of the conspirators to actually help with it...it was this ACT of driving them which gave rise to an affirmative DUTY under the law to tell investigators of the plot to bomb, when they questioned him, rather than remaining silent. Generally speaking, in our society, you have NO duty to tell law enforcement anything even when someone has told you all about what they plan to do crime-wise. But you DO have a duty not to lie of course, and you also have a new duty to speak up created when you take part in an act that in any way furthers the conspiracy, even if you're not really a part of it, making you amount to a principal of the conspiracy. In this case, the feds said that when he drove McVeigh & Nichols out to the country, this helped them in that they in that they discussed the conspiracy while out there, and that this fact, coupled with him remaining silent, without more (no lying) was enough to make him culpable to the tune of a decade of his life. Kinda weird in my view, that you don't REALLY have the right to remain silent while knowing about plans for a crime, in some circumstances, even if you didn't participate in any active way in the conspiracy.
Look what happened to Michael Fortier - he didn't even LIE to investigators - he merely didn't tell them something which they asked about McVeigh (i.e. he exercised his right to remain silent), and he served 10 or 11 years, I think. Now, what they got him on, and perhaps rightly so I suppose, is that since he had done an overt act in some tenous way connected to the conspiracy (driving McVeigh & Nichols out to the country) while knowing of the conspiracy to bomb (he did know of their plans) even though he was NOT one of the conspirators to actually help with it...it was this ACT of driving them which gave rise to an affirmative DUTY under the law to tell investigators of the plot to bomb, when they questioned him, rather than remaining silent. Generally speaking, in our society, you have NO duty to tell law enforcement anything even when someone has told you all about what they plan to do crime-wise. But you DO have a duty not to lie of course, and you also have a new duty to speak up created when you take part in an act that in any way furthers the conspiracy, even if you're not really a part of it, making you amount to a principal of the conspiracy. In this case, the feds said that when he drove McVeigh & Nichols out to the country, this helped them in that they in that they discussed the conspiracy while out there, and that this fact, coupled with him remaining silent, without more (no lying) was enough to make him culpable to the tune of a decade of his life. Kinda weird in my view, that you don't REALLY have the right to remain silent while knowing about plans for a crime, in some circumstances, even if you didn't participate in any active way in the conspiracy.
We aren't questioned about them either.....
All examples and Moussaui himself were questioned. It would also have to PROVEN that you know/knew about the crimes (without a reasonable doubt).
Am I saying that these crimes should be persued? Depends, but I am entitled to my opinion. I also believe through our code of law that they are crimes (according to law)
100% agreed. No new laws!!
One last thing. I have no Idea if he was charged for murder because he simply knew about the crimes, or had an actual part in them. From what I understand he had a part in them.
The jury did a poor job, polliticaly correct? Yes.
I hope the families of 911 do not have to watch Katie Couric send her idiot squad into that prison this fall, only to see a report on how terrible he's being treated in an American prison.
The price tag to keep that thing alive is $100.000+ per year.
I hope the families of 911 do not have to watch Katie Couric send her idiot squad into that prison this fall, only to see a report on how terrible he's being treated in an American prison.
The price tag to keep that thing alive is $100.000+ per year.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
That's where I'm confused. The news reports have always stated that he was on trial for not "telling" the FBI what he knew or for "lying". To my limited knowledge the Prosecution put forth no evidence that he had any contact with the 9-11 hijackers and the only "evidence" in court was his own statements that he was to fly a fifth plane....of course, he also stated that Bush would grant him amnesty and he'd return to the Middle East to join his brethren.
Again, this is not about the verdict. The guy came here to die and should have been granted his wish at the border. It's more a question on how far we've come....are we now charging people with the crime itself simply for possession of knowledge of that crime?
Alternatively, if we're charging people with the crime itself simply for lying or withholding from a Federal Officer, that would suggest that every citizen who's assistance is sought by a Federal Officer would be wise to refuse to speak to them without presence of an attorney....no matter what the circumstances of the investigation. It's simply too easy to end up a criminal defendant over a mis-statement.
Rich
Too far.
At what point do we stand up? At what point will it take for the American People to realize what's happening?
Though I can't cite any specific case, yes, it has been going on for quite a while now... Is it right? Not in my eyes
First, the driver of the getaway car can be charged with the crime. He played a part in it.
Then, The driver of a car who dropped his friend off at someones house. Drivers friend murders someone without the knowledge of the driver. Driver charged with crime. Unknowingly, he had a part in it.
Now, Lets twist some laws here.....This guy knew that guy murdered someone and didn't tell us that he knew when he was questioned. Conspiracy? Yes. Responsible for it? Maybe, he definatly could have prevented it. Charge him with it? Sure, whats one more step.....He knew about the plans, he knew it happened, he lied. He's just as responsible........right?
invention_45
New member
Rich
I am not sure I like the way conspiracy law is used today, but that doesn't stop it from being the way it is, at least the way I understand it to be.
If nobody sees her at the window (and maybe even if they do) and she invokes the 5th and keeps her mouth shut, she's uninvolved. But if she screams and points, and a neighbor sees her, then there *is* evidence of something, I'm not sure what kind of crime, though. Should she be punished if found guilty of whatever that is? Yes. Any big city has an anonymous reporting system, and I'm sure they can call 911 from there under this circumstance if the woman is afraid to testify because of the gangs. That is what she should have done. That still leaves a very sticky problem if she is routinely (because she has a window overlooking the scene) interrogated by police. If she doesn't lie, she becomes a witness. That could end her life. If she does lie, she commits a crime. This isnt conspiracy, but I admit I can't call this one.
If there's no other evidence against him, there's no way to prove he lied to a police officer. So he's off. But he's guilty of lying to a police officer if there is a way to prove he heard the man. I don't see conspiracy to violate a firearms law here. The gun owner didn't participate in the plan between the man and woman, he only overheard it. Should he be guilty of anything? That depends on what was taking place. If it was somebody who, by law, is prohibited from possessing a firearm and the woman was a strawman buyer, and he can be proven to have heard and understood what was going on (probably extremely difficult) then he should.
This is somewhat analogous to 2). If there's evidence you knew and lied (like your brother-in-law, unable to keep his mouth shut, told the police during *his* interrogation that he told you) well, you are guilty of lying to the police. Now, the chances of that ever happening are slim, unless your brother in law hates you and just added your knowledge of the crime in there to drag you down with him. You could always take the 5th and have your attorney argue the prosecutor hasn't proven anything and has only your brother in law's word under interrogation. In my opinion, you shouldn't be, but see below*.
That may sound inconsistent. I think you should be pursued for not pointing out a scheme that was most likely intended to put a gun in the hands of a convicted felon, something with potentially life-threatening consequences for somebody somewhere. I think you should not be pursued for not pointing out a crime that has no potential for violence to anyone.
So it's not inconsistent. I apply that generally. I see a neighbor obviously running a meth lab in his house. I report it. It's immediately dangerous to you and others. I see two guys in a parking lot, one hands money to the other, the other hands a little baggie to the first. It's obviously a drug sale. It's not immediately dangerous to anybody, so I mind my business.
* Regarding ratting on family or friends. I have an ex-wife who lives in a foreign country. She visits about once a year and we're friendly. She once sent me an e-mail containing jokes about terrorism. I didn't reply to it.
When she visited, I took her out in the front yard by the street. I explained that it would be a good idea to keep such topics in mind for the personal visits, and not to send them by e-mail nor to talk about them on the phone. And I added that if she or anyone in her family were doing anything illegal I didn't need to know about it by any means.
That's what I tell all my family and friends. In return, I don't tell them about every stop sign I roll through. That way nobody gets put in the awkward position of having to choose to lie to police or turn in a friend or relative.
I am not sure I like the way conspiracy law is used today, but that doesn't stop it from being the way it is, at least the way I understand it to be.
If nobody sees her at the window (and maybe even if they do) and she invokes the 5th and keeps her mouth shut, she's uninvolved. But if she screams and points, and a neighbor sees her, then there *is* evidence of something, I'm not sure what kind of crime, though. Should she be punished if found guilty of whatever that is? Yes. Any big city has an anonymous reporting system, and I'm sure they can call 911 from there under this circumstance if the woman is afraid to testify because of the gangs. That is what she should have done. That still leaves a very sticky problem if she is routinely (because she has a window overlooking the scene) interrogated by police. If she doesn't lie, she becomes a witness. That could end her life. If she does lie, she commits a crime. This isnt conspiracy, but I admit I can't call this one.
If there's no other evidence against him, there's no way to prove he lied to a police officer. So he's off. But he's guilty of lying to a police officer if there is a way to prove he heard the man. I don't see conspiracy to violate a firearms law here. The gun owner didn't participate in the plan between the man and woman, he only overheard it. Should he be guilty of anything? That depends on what was taking place. If it was somebody who, by law, is prohibited from possessing a firearm and the woman was a strawman buyer, and he can be proven to have heard and understood what was going on (probably extremely difficult) then he should.
This is somewhat analogous to 2). If there's evidence you knew and lied (like your brother-in-law, unable to keep his mouth shut, told the police during *his* interrogation that he told you) well, you are guilty of lying to the police. Now, the chances of that ever happening are slim, unless your brother in law hates you and just added your knowledge of the crime in there to drag you down with him. You could always take the 5th and have your attorney argue the prosecutor hasn't proven anything and has only your brother in law's word under interrogation. In my opinion, you shouldn't be, but see below*.
That may sound inconsistent. I think you should be pursued for not pointing out a scheme that was most likely intended to put a gun in the hands of a convicted felon, something with potentially life-threatening consequences for somebody somewhere. I think you should not be pursued for not pointing out a crime that has no potential for violence to anyone.
So it's not inconsistent. I apply that generally. I see a neighbor obviously running a meth lab in his house. I report it. It's immediately dangerous to you and others. I see two guys in a parking lot, one hands money to the other, the other hands a little baggie to the first. It's obviously a drug sale. It's not immediately dangerous to anybody, so I mind my business.
* Regarding ratting on family or friends. I have an ex-wife who lives in a foreign country. She visits about once a year and we're friendly. She once sent me an e-mail containing jokes about terrorism. I didn't reply to it.
When she visited, I took her out in the front yard by the street. I explained that it would be a good idea to keep such topics in mind for the personal visits, and not to send them by e-mail nor to talk about them on the phone. And I added that if she or anyone in her family were doing anything illegal I didn't need to know about it by any means.
That's what I tell all my family and friends. In return, I don't tell them about every stop sign I roll through. That way nobody gets put in the awkward position of having to choose to lie to police or turn in a friend or relative.
If the federal government is to have its way, we shall have no right to remain silent, and anything--whether we say it or not--will be used against us in a tribunal of martial law.
The right to speak freely is already headed down the sewer, why not destroy the right to remain silent too?
No one should have to make that choice under any circumstances. Law enforcement is given far too much investigatory power. The common--and encouraged by Big Brother and Big Media--response of "but it helps the police catch criminals, so it must be okay!" only serves to further diminish the liberties of all Americans as they watch--knowingly or not--their once-greatest nation become a police state.
The right to speak freely is already headed down the sewer, why not destroy the right to remain silent too?
No one should have to make that choice under any circumstances. Law enforcement is given far too much investigatory power. The common--and encouraged by Big Brother and Big Media--response of "but it helps the police catch criminals, so it must be okay!" only serves to further diminish the liberties of all Americans as they watch--knowingly or not--their once-greatest nation become a police state.
invention_45
New member
And that's the problem I have with conspiracy laws. If I know you are going to murder somebody because I was part of a plan to do so, but backed out, and you then go do it, I have committed a crime by not reporting your plans. That's a protection I think most people like having in place.
The problem is that it creates a loophole of sorts. People who only want to control behavior through law, behavior having no victim, use conspiracy laws to gather information about "crimes" which, lacking a victim, otherwise would, and should, go unpunished.
I think that any law that proscribes a crime against an actual victim should be paired up with a conspiracy to commit law for that same crime. If it cannot be shown that a victim (other than "society") exists for that crime, there should not be a possibility of charging anyone with conspiracy to commit that crime.
invention_45
New member
He may be charged, but unless some evidence changes the part about "without the knowledge...", he'll be acquitted. No intent.