“The death penalty has a meaning, and it isn’t vengeance.” From Peggy Noonan, WSJ:
Excuse me, I’m sorry, and I beg your pardon, but the jury’s decision on Moussaoui gives me a very bad feeling. What we witnessed here was not the higher compassion but a dizzy failure of nerve.
From the moment the decision was announced yesterday, everyone, all the parties involved–the cable jockeys, the legal analysts, the politicians, the victim representatives–showed an elaborate and jarring politesse. “We thank the jury.” “I accept the verdict of course.” “We can’t question their hard work.” “I know they did their best.” “We thank the media for their hard work in covering this trial.” “I don’t want to second-guess the jury.”
How removed from our base passions we’ve become. Or hope to seem.
It is as if we’ve become sophisticated beyond our intelligence, savvy beyond wisdom. Some might say we are showing a great and careful generosity, as befits a great nation. But maybe we’re just, or also, rolling in our high-mindedness like a puppy in the grass. Maybe we are losing some crude old grit. Maybe it’s not good we lose it.
Uh oh. Has Peggy been reading her Shelby Steele? Does she not understand that he in an inauthentic black who does nothing but give voice to the frustration of the neocons who are coming to realize they supported a doomed war?
Because if yesterday’s verdict is any indication, people like Glenn Greenwald and Lt General William E. Odom are correct: the war is doomed. We simply lack the collective stones to prosecute it with any firm conviction—“we” being the country as a whole (not the bedwetters who cling to Dear Leader, necessarily; those folks—this particular chickenhawk General / keyboard commander among them—are all bloodthirsty warmongers willing to “exterminate” “indiscriminately” “brown children” simply to “look tough” and bring ourselves to “wargasm,” which is a condition where blood and shell casings shoot out of our tiny but bloodfilled penises. Unless we’re women, that is. In which case I suppose it involves sitting on a rifle barrel or somesuch).
Which is not to say that the country as a whole is not prepared to execute terrorists: it’s just that, well, not everybody can be as white as Timothy McVeigh. He apparently should have know better.
No one wants to say, “They should have killed him.” This is understandable, for no one wants to be called vengeful, angry or, far worse, unenlightened. But we should have put him to death, and for one big reason.
This is what Moussaoui did: He was in jail on a visa violation in August 2001. He knew of the upcoming attacks. In fact, he had taken flight lessons to take part in them. He told no one what was coming. He lied to the FBI so the attacks could go forward. He pled guilty last year to conspiring with al Qaeda; at his trial he bragged to the court that he had intended to be on the fifth aircraft, which was supposed to destroy the White House.
He knew the trigger was about to be pulled. He knew innocent people had been targeted, and were about to meet gruesome, unjust deaths.
He could have stopped it. He did nothing. And so 2,700 people died.
This is what the jury announced yesterday. They did not doubt Moussaoui was guilty of conspiracy. They did not doubt his own testimony as to his guilt. They did not think he was incapable of telling right from wrong. They did not find him insane. They did believe, however, that he had had an unstable childhood, that his father was abusive and then abandoning, and that as a child, in his native France, he’d suffered the trauma of being exposed to racial slurs.
As I listened to the court officer read the jury’s conclusions yesterday I thought: This isn’t a decision, it’s a non sequitur.
Is it really, though, Peggy?
Philosophically, we have been trained to elevate “blowback” and “root causes” to near exculpatory status in this country—with concepts like personal responsibility being cast as nothing more than reactionary code indicating support for tax cuts for the rich and the gutting of social services meant to help the destitute and infirm.
Similarly, we have elevated offense taken based on particular identity attributes to that same status—even going so far as to create special legal categories, “hate crimes,” to punish those whose violence is directed against a particular subset of societal identity groups, most specifically, protected races and sexual orientations—whose status is akin to that of endangered species.
So why are we suprised when a jury finds mitigating root causes in the case of Moussaoui? He was, after all, the victim of “racism”—and because his father was abusive, as well, it follows that, well, he’d grow up to join a group whose political and religious ideology involves the destruction of the West.
2700 people died? Horrible, to be sure. But, well, that’s what happens when we allow French racism to thrive.
Or, to echo what Noonan notes, we’ve simply become too “nuanced” for our own protection—the irony being that much of this grows out of mostly good-hearted (though misguided) intentions to pretend to understand, intellectually, what animates the seemingly inexplicable actions of others—particularly those others who are, you know, “Others.”
Which is not to say we shouldn’t strive to understand different cultures. Just that we have a tendency to excuse many of the actions that grow from other cultures because we don’t wish to presume to pass judgment on what it must be like to have been them.
In the case of Moussaoui, he could not have made it more clear what he had become, and it is for what he had become—and what he was prepared to do as a result—that he was on trial.
And the jury failed to rule on that, deciding instead that mitigating factors—racism, childhood abuse, Otherness—caused him to do what he did, though they would frame this as “mitigation.”
Perhaps Shelby Steele was wrong and “white guilt” didn’t contribute to this verdict. But something allowed a jury—who did not doubt Moussaoui’s guilt, nor his mental capacity to understand right from wrong, nor his own admission of that guilt—to rule that, at base, the causal connection between his his childhood and 911 were sufficient to save his life.
In short, they became armchair social workers and cultural theorists—and those of the ilk who believe that no crime is so heinous that it can’t be explained away, in part, by an unkind word at a pivotal developmental moment, or a bad prom experience, or even a Twinkie.
Rosebud.
This is not the signature of moral sophistication. It is the signature of moral sophistry—and it is a product of the victim culture that has taken over this country. How the victim culture relates to identity politics, whose failings I have catalogued here on numerous occasions, I’ll leave it to you to puzzle out.
But as Peggy Noonan much more eloquently puts it:
[…] You don’t become a killer because you started out with love and sweetness. Of course he came from unhappiness. So, chances are, did the nice man sitting on the train the other day who rose to give you his seat. Life is hard and sometimes terrible, and that is a tragedy. It explains much, but it is not a free pass.
I have the sense that many good people in our country, normal modest folk who used to be forced to endure being patronized and instructed by the elites of all spheres—the academy and law and the media—have sort of given up and cut to the chase. They don’t wait to be instructed in the higher virtues by the professional class now. They immediately incorporate and reflect the correct wisdom before they’re lectured.
I’m not sure this is progress. It feels not like the higher compassion but the lower evasion. It feels dainty in a way that speaks not of gentleness but fear.
[My emphasis]
Formulations like Ms Noonan’s (and mine), of course, bring out howls of protest by those who have spent their lives making sure the “higher virtues” of victim politics and relativistic hermeneutics that drive such decisions are insinuated throughout the culture, or at least, defending those things as part of a “progressive” mindset.
This is typically followed-on by the predictable snarky claims about how ridiculous—not to mention “pseudo-intellectual”—it is even to suggest that particular philosophical assumptions underpinning the culture (those that are being promoted by humanities departments and are reinforced by our very understanding of how language itself functions) are affecting sweeping cultural changes and framing our entire worldview. Unless, that is, the philosophical underpinning in question happens to be a fidelity to materialism, where capitalistic greed and inveterate bigotry brought on by institutionalized power differentials lead to a necessary anti-egalitarianism, which it is up to our betters to engineer out of existence—in which case, well, that’s just true.
Concludes Noonan:
I happen, as most adults do, to feel a general ambivalence toward the death penalty. But I know why it exists. It is the expression of a certitude, of a shared national conviction, about the value of a human life. It says the deliberate and planned taking of a human life is so serious, such a wound to justice, such a tearing at the human fabric, that there is only one price that is justly paid for it, and that is the forfeiting of the life of the perpetrator. It is society’s way of saying that murder is serious, dreadfully serious, the most serious of all human transgressions.
It is not a matter of vengeance. Murder can never be avenged, it can only be answered.If Moussaoui didn’t deserve the death penalty, who does? Who ever did?
And if he didn’t receive it, do we still have it?
I don’t want to end with an air of hopelessness, so here’s some hope, offered to the bureau of prisons. I hope he doesn’t get cable TV in his cell. I hope he doesn’t get to use his hour a day in general population getting buff and converting prisoners to jihad. I hope he isn’t allowed visitors with whom he can do impolite things like plot against our country. I hope he isn’t allowed anniversary interviews. I hope his jolly colleagues don’t take captives whom they threaten to kill unless Moussaoui is released.
I hope he doesn’t do any more damage. I hope this is the last we hear of him. But I’m not hopeful about my hopes.
I can hardly blame you, Peggy.
But I’m sure we’ll be hearing from Mike Farrell and some of our progressive friends on the left to set us straight anytime now…
****
somewhat related.
update: For a thoughtful opposing view, see Rick Moran—who we wingnuts allow to dissent without threatening to excommunicate him from our club.
Is that possible?
Greenwald wept.
On my radio station a long list of jury votes was recounted “explaining” the verdict. (I’m pretty sure it was the jury foreman). Waste of airtime and my time. I cringed.
Shall I give you a preview, or perhaps a head start? Ahem…
“We have refused to stoop to his/their level by killing”
“We are better than ‘an eye for an eye’…”
“Killing him wouldn’t bring back any of the 9-11 victims.”
I am sure we’ll see more and varied versions of the above. Makes me sick, it does.
Hmmm…good ending. I will also be interested to hear what our friends in the ME press are saying today about this.
– How many times a day, reading and listening to the America-hating words of the cockroach Liberals among us, do I wish that 3000 of the leading Marxist bastards could be made to take the place of all of the innocents that died in the WTC that day. I take comfort in the knowledge that for each of these maggots thier judgement day too, is coming, and Farrel and all those like him will be in that group. That is one cemetary they won’t be able to whistle their way past.
Also, by the reaction, some people just can’t understand the rule of law.
You can read part of the jury’s finding here.
Pages 14, 28 and 42 of the jury questionnaire would help here.
They weren’t asked to rule on any of these things.
The Moussaoui case calls attention to the burden on the average American public citizen sitting on a jury—asked to make important, difficult decisions with very little guidance. On what do they base their decision, besides gut feelings and emotion—both subject to manipulation by courtroom theatrics?
Ongoing forensic research asks the general public to help shape criminal sentencing standards. At http://www.depravityscale.org, the public can have a direct voice in the development of community-based standards to aid juries—to replace arbitrariness with evidence-based, objective fairness.
The survey asks participants to rank intents, actions, and attitudes of crimes against eachother, to identify what society feels constitutes “the worst of the worst”—thus warranting more severe punishments.
Participation takes approximately 10 minutes. Questions? Email
http://www.depravityscale.org
Unfortunately, this conversation is too important to waste time talking about.
Keep on keeping on, Jeff. I appreciate it.
Never, never, never surrender.
Three of the jurors claimed that Moussaoui’s role in 9/11 was minor and that his knowledge of what was going to happen was also minor. This would be consistent with information obtained from Khalid Sheik Mohammed (there were four planes, not five) and even Bin Laden himself, who gloated on video tape that even most of the hijackers didn’t know they were on a “martyrdom” operation until they were boarding the plane. I guess one could say with some confidence that if the government had known before 9/11 what Moussaoui had known before 9/11 that we would have been aware that there was a plot afoot, but whether that would have been enough to stop the attacks is an open question.
And let’s not forget the little episode of the government coaching witnesses. Had Moussaoui gotten the death penalty this would have triggered an immediate appeal that would likely have been successful.
And believe it or not there is a conservative argument against the death penalty: a government that can use due process to take away the life of a citizen can take away anything it wants to from anyone it wants to at anytime it wants to. That’s not a government of limited powers in my book.
yours/
peter.
Actus, as a veteran of your future profession, it is patently obvious that you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about. Instead of informing me I don’t understand the rule of law, why don’t you explain it to me ? With all your real world legal experience, I would assume you would want to share that wisdom but instead, you don’t. Please explain yourself. I realize I’m not supposed to engage you but if you pull a stunt like that (throw out an argument with no support) while in private practice, you’ll be pounded into the ground like a stake by somebody thats alot smarter then you.
Quite honestly, this “crappy homelife” excuse is being used far too much in court and its being used b/c “progressives” like yourself have spent 15 years selling the lack of responsibility due to “mitigating circumstances” to the general public. Now, thanks to liberals, every single criminal tries to play this card- “I didnt have no daddy” or “The white man keeps me down”. I hate to break this to you but bad circumstances are rarely an excuse to commit a crime. When I see 9 jurors basically agreeing to the excuse, to some extent, Moussoui’s actions makes me physically ill. The man admitted he was a part of a conspiracy to commit murder- his “home life” had nothing to do with that.
Plus, have you looked at what Palestinian children are subjected to ? Training, dogma, guns ?? If that generation of Palestinians grows up to be killers (which I have no doubt it will, in light of the indoctrination), will every one of them be able to use the same excuse ? Except now, its an entire culture that has abused them. Do they get a pass ?
So please actually form an argument or, at the very least, an explanation. You spend too much time flapping your gums and not nearly enough making your points.
TW “Woman”- Too easy.
Are We not Men? We are Devo…
Too bad Jackson wasn’t there in 1787 to let Madison, et al know that they were deluding themselves into thinking they were creating a limited government.
Also, by the reaction, some people just can’t understand the rule of law.
Do you care to explain and defend this statement, or is it just another one of the sand-poundingly stupid rhetorical turds you periodically drop into Jeff’s comments?
Read the jury’s findings. Thats the rule of law at work.
Wow. The only 9/11 conspirator we get our hands on, and we can’t bring ourselves to execute him.
This was the moment I realized America will lose the so-called War on terror.
you? I have no idea about what you think. But some people think this is about some grand theme in the war on terror. Its not. Its a jury deciding a specific case. Its the operation of the rule of law
From the death penalty jurisprudence I understand, the jury considers aggravating and mitigating factors. And home life does have to do with those. Admitting to “conspiracy to commit murder” isn’t the end, at least as far the death penalty is concerned.
Go for it. I’m sure it’ll be clever.
Matt, this is what i’m talking about.
– No one has need of “clever” in your case actus. Your own mouth declares you an idiot, everytime you open it.
– Of course this case has nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists attack on our country, or the WOT.
– You give new meaning to “idiotarian dolt”
Yeah, and I probably would have said something about that thing where Negros are only 3/5ths of a person. If that would be okay with you, of course.
Now if you have an argument about a government being able to do anything it wants to it’s citizens and still be a limited government, go for it.
yours/
peter.
*you? I have no idea about what you think. But some people think this is about some grand theme in the war on terror. Its not. Its a jury deciding a specific case. Its the operation of the rule of law *
Well apparently you must thing I don’t understand what the “rule of law” means, as you referenced everybody.
I’m glad you explained b/c quite honestly, you’re inability to engage in an on-topic argument is staggering. This topic has little to do with the “global war on terror” and much more to do with the failure to apply the death penalty in a case that warrants it.
The point many of us were trying ot make is the jury was greatly influenced by the “touchy feely” horseshit. Oh yes, the jury was no doubt swayed by poor little Zacharius’s upbringing and somehow, apparently, 9 of them were convinced that his upbringing excused his behavior sufficiently to avoid the death penalty. One juror, laughably, agreed that Mouss’s 4 years of incident free incarceration constituted a “mitigating circumstance”.
It is written absolutely nowhere that you can’t question juror’s decisions following a verdict- and we’re certainly well within our rights to question the reasons behind a jury verdict. Personally, looking through the jury questionaire, my impression is there was a number of jurors who didn’t want to turn him into a martyr and one or two who were opposed to the death penalty from the outset.
*From the death penalty jurisprudence I understand, the jury considers aggravating and mitigating factors. And home life does have to do with those.*
Again, I see you missed the point. Of course jurors are allowed to consider mitigating circumstances- we question the application of these “mitigating factors” – juries are more and more inclined to let defendants off the hook (or significantly reduce their penalties) because of the focus on these mitigating factors. When a man participates in a conspiracy that kills 3 thousand americans, his home life means absolutely nothing to me. I’m dismayed that it actually made that much of a difference in the jurors decision. Again, we question the WISDOM of the juries decision, not that they had a right to make that decision.
I shudder to think if if we had to try the Rosenbergs with a modern jury- they’d get 3 years probation and a $5000.00 fine.
Ow, hopefully that’ll leave a mark.
Translation: Fuck off, actuse.
That was alot of poor spelling and grammar in my last post. My apologies.
*This was the moment I realized America will lose the so-called War on terror.*
Hrmmm, I think you’ve mis-read the intent of that statement. My take on that comment is simply if a jury of 12 average americans can’t put an admitted 9-11 conspirator to death, we’ll never have the stones to prosecute the war on terror effectively. Something I left out in my above take on the jury decision was I also think they didn’t find Moussaui as threatening as say, Mohammad Atta would have been. His credibility was certainly questionable and I assume there would be people on the jury who “wanted to be sure”. To me, an admission, while in sound mind, is sure enough- but I’ve told juries is up to them to determine the voracity of the witness. I can only assume that Zac’s circus stunts during the proceeding convinced some of the jury he was not to be taken seriously.
Interestingly, this trial brings up what I can consider to be another important point- the war on terror CANNOT be a law enforcement action, which is the left’s preferred method of “prosecuting” the wot. We cannot have trials like this for every terror suspect we take into custody – it would turn the prosecution of the case into a farce. Look no further than the miscarriage of justice that was the Sami Al Arian trial in Tampa- the man is only going to have serve a little jail time and god only knows how many woman and children that scumbag was responsible for blowing to pieces.
TW “Europe”
Not until the bag guys get through me and the rest of the US Armed Forces.
This was a civilian jury, deep breath man! Disappointing and bitterly so – yes. Evidence the War is lost? I think not.
I referenced “some people.” But you’re entitled to think that words mean whatever you want them to mean. Don’t expect me to though.
And the consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors in a death penalty phase is part of our system of the rule of law.
Did they find that it was mitigation, or did they find that it was true that he was incident free for 4 years?
Its not quite focus. They’re supposed to weigh them contra the aggravating factors.
“Its not quite focus. They’re supposed to weigh them contra the aggravating factors.”
– It would seem too many people these days, that jurors are not “weighing” them as much as using them as an excuse to avoid the hard decisions, which is in turn, undermining one leg of our legal system, “Deterence by example”.
Read the jury’s findings. Thats the rule of law at work.
Come again? The jury’s findings are the jury’s findings. One can disagree with the jury’s findings, and believe that the jury got things catastrophically wrong for a whole host of reasons, while still maintaining a firm understanding of the rule of law.
So, I ask again: do you care to explain and defend your earlier statement, or is it another one of the sand-poundingly stupid rhetorical turds you frequently drop in Jeff’s comments?
the latter, Brett. Toujours, toujours, mon ami.
Thats not what the signed statement says.
Then they’d know that this is the rule of law at work, rather than some big meaningful statement about our ability to wage the war on terror.
– Mitigation….
Agrivating circumstance: – “His silence led directly, or indirectly to the wholesale slaughter of almost 3000 American citizens, willfully and without remorse, when with a few words he very likely could have prevented it from happening.. (In the manner of Ghingus Kaun?)”.
– Mitigating circumstance: “Your Honor, Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, my client has not been involved in any killing in four years.”
– Wtf is this country coming too?
– At any rate, this is precisely why this sort of case should never have been tried in a civilian court in the first place.
Way too many words.
Bottom line, from Noonan:
“How removed from our base passions we’ve become.”
As if thats a bad thing.
The wordsmiths are so intoxiciated with their own output, and it all amounts to evading their core truths. It is about the vengenace.
Permanently taking this guy out of circulation and letting him sit in a small room for the next 40 years is not enough to satisfy those base passions.
Well its quite enough for me, and it has nothing to do with fear or to some well-turned phrase that amounts to nothing more than an insult. We are better than those who act on base passions, and we don’t take kindly to those who wish to drag us down.
Actually, see page 2, question B
C’mon guys. Please do it for me if you can’t bring yourself to do it for your own sanity. PLEASE ignore acthole.
Please don’t feed the acthole.
Oh but you do Tano. You support the Terrorists in every manner possible, which is why the left is quickly descending to a level of the occult, and the target of outright derision from the rest of America. And just think, Although I see no way its possible, if your anti-everything-American were to work, the “freedom” fighters of al Qaeda would be coming to your neighborhood next. They are more than happy to “take you down” to their level. In fact the more you insist on demuring, the more excited they would be in cutting off your fucking brainless head.
– Ok…ok….the “ignore actout” lamp is lit….
good time too. You might find out some bad news about your agrivating circumstance.
Me in the second comment…
Took a bit longer than I thought, but there it is.
– As I’ve posted on other occassions, its pretty sure that the entire moonbat nattering screech would disappear almost overnight if we started a call for deferments on demand.
– Since not once, has any Libtard protested, I would say thats pretty good proof its the real reason behind all the clamour.
– Instead of having the stones to just state unequivicly: “I don’t think putting you life on the line for this or any war, or fighting for your country is worth it”, which people could understand maybe, if disagree with, we get Libraries worth of cover and code words to avoid the simple truth.
– Theres no shame in being afraid. Theres no honor in evading, and lying about your true feelings.
Then they’d know that this is the rule of law at work, rather than some big meaningful statement about our ability to wage the war on terror.
You keep saying “rule of law”. I do not think that term means what you think it means.
Perhaps he has committed one of the classic blunders!
The outcome of the ZM trial was not so much a failure of verdict as a failure of venue. Treating the acts of AQ, or any such non-state actors as ordinary criminals deserving of all the benefits and conveniences of our criminal justice system is to fit a square peg in a round hole. Confronting the realities of the GWOT means redefining certain acts and creating alternative mechanisms for defeating them. In an existential conflict the order of the day is victory then justice. Failure properly prioritize may lead to doom.
Yes, but it is an argument that doesn’t get very far. Any legitimate government, not pre-doomed to failure, must, at a minimum, allow for its own defense and therefore must support some sort of state sanctioned violence, up to and including lethal force. Failure to do so means eventual defeat.
The rule of law, due process, and all that, are certainly important. And they certainly have their place. But this is a guy who helped kill nearly 3000 Americans. He deserved death. If a court wasn’t going to give it to him, we should have a tribunal. If that wasn’t going to work, we should have had an “accident” during interrogation.
Actually, see page 2, question B
Yes, that’s called war. But for whatever reason our government decided to try Moussaoui in a civilian court according to civilian rules, so we’re talking about two different kettles of fish here.
In the civil sphere, such ultimate power simply means that our rights aren’t really rights at all, but merely a privilege in which the government permits us to indulge for now, anyway.
yours/
peter.
At the risk of repeating what others have said, I’d like to say that I didn’t think he should get the DP. And it’s not because of my fundamental dislike of the DP. I think it’s better that we kept him around. He obviously wanted us to kill him, what better way of showing our disrespect than by not caring enough about him to go through with it. That’s what I saw on the news anyway, the families of the 9-11 victims saying things that amounted to “well yeah, jerk never amounted to much anyway, toss him in a hole.”
Of course I couls be wrong, but I was like, hell yeah, suck on that punk, no-one gives enough of a crap to snuff you.
No on’e going to read this far down the comments anyway, maybe I should do some yodelling.
Yo-dilly-oh-dilly-oh-dill-who!
Big Bang Hunter,
So whats up with you bud? Did you just figure out how to work a keyboard or something? Your comment is so 90’s – like when legions of bitter, twisted old farts suddenly found that they could broadcast their “thoughts” to the world, and we had to wade through piles and piles of “stuff”. Most of them, once they passed that first bolus of bile, settled down to actually integrate a few brain cells in the pathway to the fingertips. Heres wishing you the best.
Or are you on some lefty plant out to make us all believe that the true loonies really are on the right?
Thanks, Maj. T. If I’d been on the jury, I’d have voted life in supermax myself. Not because I’m anti-death penalty, but life in supermax seems much, much worse to me than the needle.
Now, if “Old Sparky” had been on the table….
Noonan asks: “If Moussaoui didn’t deserve the death penalty, who does? Who ever did?”
How about Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, who is now being held in U.S. custody.
– Hit a nerve did I Tanto…..Oh how I love to watch the moonbats shake and rant….and don’t worry your pea brain about my computer skills Sparky…Computers were going strong when you were a sad discovery in your mamma’s tumtum. Moron…..
Peggy nails the “lower evasion” nature of the verdict. Then Jeff nails the perfect storm of “moral sophistry” brewing–some of it right here.
Forget the cable, I just hope the feds don’t start hunting for virgins. . . ‘Course if cable is mandated, maybe they could follow Sheriff Joe’s model, limiting it to the Weather Channel and Disney.
Yes, and no. Yes, in the case of ZM I believe we are talking about war, which is why we should not have chosen the civilian venue. A basic example of GIGO.
But a government (even a limited one) cannot be limited in its use of lethal force to strictly external forces. Surely internal forces can be just as threatening as any other. One could even posit that the most limited form of lasting government would be one that limits itself strictly to matters of self defense and nothing more. As much as I appreciate your writings the statment “a government that can use due process to take away the life of a citizen can take away anything it wants to from anyone it wants to at anytime it wants to” while perhaps accurate is not a conservative argument, libertarian or perhaps anarcho-libertarian, but not truly conservative. Conservatism will always recognize the power inherent within the state. It is axiomatic that any state which can kill to gain power must therefore possess the ability to kill to maintain power.
I do not wish to hijack this thread, but the mention of rights is immaterial. Whether a government recognizes rights, or tramples them does not confirm or deny their existence. Rights only exist by and to the extent individuals are willing to exercise them. It is the consent of the governed that makes a government just. ZM, by the manner and intent of his presence in our country, never consented to be governed and therefore should not be made part of our civil criminal procedings but should have been dealt with otherwise.
Except that in our groves of academe, where I work, we don’t so much try to understand other cultures, which would imply intellectual inquiry, but instead be sensitive to them, or exempt them from inquiry, an unintellectual activity.
I think he was quite clearly following some laws but not others. He used money, and probably participated in many lawful activities. There was plenty of consent to be governed there. Plenty enough for there to be a trial.
Like when?
What the fuck?
oh you know, Verc, he probably drove a car and had it properly licensed and registered as well. so he wasn’t, like, totally lawless.
i keep thinking i get the money thing, but then i can’t expain it. it figures. maybe it’s something to do with “legal tender” being printed on it. i don’t know.
Act-ually, hole, there was plenty of intent to be covert there, “ungoverned” as it were. Keep working your field of memes, though, the groves of academe love day laborers.
TW: Act-ually’s glass is “half” empty.
Theres no shame in being afraid.
After 911, you’d be a fool not to be afraid. We are facing the most treacherous enemy we have ever faced. And in many cases, the left is trying to force us to fight with one hand tied behind our back. It is a testimony to the effectiveness of this administration that we’re winning the fight despite all of this.
But make no mistake: in a post-911 world, fear is the most natural of emotions. Those leftists who go on about not being afraid of terrorism are fooling only themselves.
I think Peggy missed a critical “hope”, that I’ll endorse:
“I hope he gets a shank in the back on day one of his sentence (and every day thereafter if necessary) until dead. Now THAT would be the death penalty. Instead of state-sponsored death after a torturous and long debated process of endless appeals, he can die in pain, bleeding on the dirty concrete floor of the prison at the hands of common criminals. THAT is what he really deserves.
So does every criminal though. No criminal wants to be governed over their illegal activities. But this guy was governed enough to be on trial.
The only thing we have is fear.
contra: the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
I’ve used American tender in South Asia and South America, so I guess we can charge all of them under our laws. After all, alot of those people have never killed anyone, and we have laws against not killing folks, so I mean that they could be governed by our…
Ahh, screw it, everyone go home. Actus has won the stupidest fucking commenter ever to tap on a keyboard. In perpetuity.
You’re participating in the economy, counting on the laws that set up and run the economy. You’re agreeing to be governed for that.
Yep, Verc, you nailed it. Since those souvenir peddlers in South Asia and South America accepted US currency, they accepted the United States of America as the de facto world guvmint. President Bush rules the world. actus sez so, dammit!!!!!!
TW: We is the World Police!!!!!
At leats in civil trials, there are certain minimim contacts with a jurisdiction that allow a court there to exercise personal jurisdiction over you. Doing business, going to school, paying rent, etc.. all count. Even if your goal is a longshot to join an al-qaeda cell.