The devil's advocate
I have to say, the sentence of life without parole recently handed down to accused 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. The man is clearly crazy, and I certainly would like him to be incarcerated for the protection of others, but quite honestly, had I been on the jury and had he not pled guilty, I probably would have voted to acquit.
First of all, consider the government's allegation that Moussaoui was to have been the "20th hijacker." Remember how dramatic that revelation was when it was first splashed across the papers? If he had been preparing to carry out the 9/11 attacks, then, why, he's surely as morally guilty as those who did. The only problem is, he's apparently not the only "20th hijacker."
Consider this article, published in Time Magazine earlier this year, detaling the plight of Guantanamó Bay inmate Mohammad al-Qahtani, who claims that the "intelligence" he earlier provided was extracted under torture. Particularly notable is the fact that the government is now referring to al-Qahtani as "the 20th hijacker."
Now, I don't know about you, but it doesn't fill me with confidence when the government engages in prosecutorial retcon (or non-prosecutorial retcon, as al-Qahtani is being held without charge). I take the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" very seriously, and if the government changes their story, especially this dramatically, that by itself is likely to provide me with reasonable doubt.
In some ways more disturbing than this, however, is what seems to me to be a serious Constitutional issue raised by the charge leveled at Moussaoui that made him eligible for life without parole or a death sentence. It was ruled that Moussaoui was responsible for the 9/11 deaths, because he did not inform the Feds of the plot, and if he had, they might have been able to stop it.
That's a pretty big maybe, and it's hardly a proof that he was responsible for anyone's death, but the bigger problem is that holding him criminally liable for not having essentially confessed seems to be a pretty gross violation of his right against self-incrimination. I mean, seriously. It's hard to imagine something more incriminating than saying to your local FBI agent, "Hey, my buddies and I are planning to fly a 747 into a skyscraper, and here are the details." If he had said this, he would have immediately been charged with a multitude of crimes. And that would have been entirely appropriate. But considering that giving the authorities this information would have been about as self-incriminating as you can get, it seems like a real Constitutional violation to punish him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right.
None of which is to say that Moussaoui is an innocent man by any measure, but that it's really disturbing when the government gets a free pass in a prosecution just because a certain defendant is "obviously" guilty.
First of all, consider the government's allegation that Moussaoui was to have been the "20th hijacker." Remember how dramatic that revelation was when it was first splashed across the papers? If he had been preparing to carry out the 9/11 attacks, then, why, he's surely as morally guilty as those who did. The only problem is, he's apparently not the only "20th hijacker."
Consider this article, published in Time Magazine earlier this year, detaling the plight of Guantanamó Bay inmate Mohammad al-Qahtani, who claims that the "intelligence" he earlier provided was extracted under torture. Particularly notable is the fact that the government is now referring to al-Qahtani as "the 20th hijacker."
Now, I don't know about you, but it doesn't fill me with confidence when the government engages in prosecutorial retcon (or non-prosecutorial retcon, as al-Qahtani is being held without charge). I take the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" very seriously, and if the government changes their story, especially this dramatically, that by itself is likely to provide me with reasonable doubt.
In some ways more disturbing than this, however, is what seems to me to be a serious Constitutional issue raised by the charge leveled at Moussaoui that made him eligible for life without parole or a death sentence. It was ruled that Moussaoui was responsible for the 9/11 deaths, because he did not inform the Feds of the plot, and if he had, they might have been able to stop it.
That's a pretty big maybe, and it's hardly a proof that he was responsible for anyone's death, but the bigger problem is that holding him criminally liable for not having essentially confessed seems to be a pretty gross violation of his right against self-incrimination. I mean, seriously. It's hard to imagine something more incriminating than saying to your local FBI agent, "Hey, my buddies and I are planning to fly a 747 into a skyscraper, and here are the details." If he had said this, he would have immediately been charged with a multitude of crimes. And that would have been entirely appropriate. But considering that giving the authorities this information would have been about as self-incriminating as you can get, it seems like a real Constitutional violation to punish him for exercising his Fifth Amendment right.
None of which is to say that Moussaoui is an innocent man by any measure, but that it's really disturbing when the government gets a free pass in a prosecution just because a certain defendant is "obviously" guilty.