Death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui?

I've not heard any decisions yet, but can't imagine any sentence other than the death penalty. It's a clear case - a confessed conspirator to a terrorist attack killing 3000 people?!

It's just curious to me to imagine the pro/con arguments on the death penalty, you know the old "Deterrent" versus "Justice" versus "Revenge" arguments...

Of course it seems clear that Moussaoui is prepared to die. Certainty he WOULD HAVE DIED had he successfully been one of the hijackers himself. There's no issue of "Deterrent", and neither is "Revenge" particularly satisfying against someone who WANTS to die. Making him live imprisoned for life - that would clearly be a greater punishment. Justice says nothing clearly beween death versus life imprisonment.

So basically we come down to "pain relief" - let's end his life and "move on". It should be a cheap execution since he's confessed - perhaps can be done in a few weeks from sentencing? He's ready. We're ready. What else is there?

Sure "Revenge" could offer torture and the security guards could try to torture him in other ways, like saying all his family will be killed by paid assassins or whatever fun things people say for revenge. Perhaps it'd hurt him, but I'd imagine he considered such questions long before agreeing to participate.

I'm sort of reminded of the idiotic myth of a Saumurai's pride, cornering the assassin who killed his lord, and gets spit in the face and gets angry and then stops and walks away rather than kill in passion. He represented cool justice, not revenge. Of course the story suggests anyone can spit at a Samurai to make him angry so he can't kill you. Well, not a game you'd want to play on a dare, but good knowledge as a last resort.

It's fun to imagine what I'd do with Moussaoui, with my supposed "progressiveness"? I suppose I can pretend to be a cool justice minded samurai as well.

I suppose the first thing is that "warriors" show respect to other warriors. So you do NOT slay him and drag his dead body behind a chariot in front of his family. That just causes trouble. Warriors deserve honorable deaths. I suppose we might give him an airplane in the middle of a desert with just enough fuel to take off and ram into a nice mountain range to his death. Well, just thinking that an "airplane" was his weapon, so we'd let him kill himself. He could fly a really cheap plane.

Some people get angry at the suggestion that the terrorists were cowardly for killing civilians, but if you allow me to be cool-headed, I sort of admire people who are willing to give up their own lives for a cause. I don't admire "causes", merely the bravery at going beyond self-interest. Equally, however futile, I accept a "world trade tower" as a clear military target since much of our interaction in the world occurs through economic power. Of course the Pentagon as well as the White House would be valid targets for a group declaring war on our country.

Most of all I'm against the death penalty for it being "inflicted upon" a person against their will. I don't have a problem with people being killed necessarily, but I'd prefer it as a negociated position. Seriously, I don't like to have to feel sorry for people, and if you kill him as a victim, then he invokes my pity, and by contrast the government becomes the tormentor, and the government is ME!

So I'd basically give Moussaoui a choice how he wants to die. I'm not even sure if I particularly want to even give him the "choice" of life in prison - what's he point? Although I'd probably have to offer mercy if that's really what he wanted.

The other side, I'd probably feel obligated to allow him a public statement on his choice of death mechanisms, and anything else he can offer.

That's a funny issue - whether murders (or conspirators) deserve a soapbox to preach their mind-viruses. That's probably my biggest uncertainty Letting him have an honorable death is one thing, but empowering his speech is another completely. I lean towards the belief that words can't hurt us. Perhaps he'll convert a million followers if he gets a high enough perch to offer his vision of death to america.

He might find "God's voice" like Moses and proclaim his demands boldly, and the consequences if we fail to submit to the will of Allah. Those consequences will surely talk of our suffering, first born being killed, all that.

And you know how the Christian Fundamentalists like to preach abouts AIDS being a punishment for sins, every Hurricane and every natural dissaster of any form against America - the symbol of Islamic repression - will be praised in the name of Allah the vengeful, or whatever. He would be in a position to tell a great story - well in this case perhaps just in time for some serious economic blows to the world economy - all started by 20 brave men who were willing to die for Allah.

Giving a voice may or may not affect the future, but do we want to take the risk? Hitler had power in his voice to sow hatred. It's a tough issue for me. I like things "out in the open", but when dealing with suffering and jealousy and hatred, there's much room for evil to grow.

So giving my "fear" of "causing" future violence by giving a voice to a confessed conspirator, I'd have to more seriously consider the atmosphere of repression that is encouraging the terrorism.

It's insane to give any voice to madmen who live through their hate. There's surely a million other better voices from Islam to get attention. It's insane to offer any reward at all. I claim the death penalty is not a deterrent for people willing to die, but heck - to be given a choice of my death AND a public stage to present my mad ideas, that would seem an encouragement to future recruits - you win even if you are caught!

I'm progressive enough to see that there's more good things we can do than we do, but I'm also pessimistic that simple charity, or at least top-down charity can really do much to improve the world. I have little hope for the future well-being for the masses of the middle east to make it through the next 100 years.

In short I would see what more I can do for the world, but I'd rather direct effort towards "cleaning up my own house" first which would mean ending our borrowing, reducing our dependence upon depleting resources, and invest in solutions.

I just have a hard time holding hatred against a group of people that I pity. I pity their backwardness, looking towards religious dogma for answers, I pity their dependence upon oil wealth for their economy, the corruption and exponentially growing problems. I see no happy ending in middle east oil, even as I know they'll control the vast proportion of oil production in 50 years. Power and wealth can not help but corrupt and I have no hope.

I still can not defend even the invasion of Afghanistan, much less Iraq. I mean I can't defend an offense alone as a solution to anything for our own corruption. We're no safer now than we were in 2001 - we just owe more money to others, and have a possibly intractable responsibility towards the people of Iraq.

In short, I can see no solution to any problem, not even a successful execution, without changing our goals, without admitting we are ALL on a suicide course unless we pick a new goal and start working at it!