I am not a legal eagle, but don't understand the case against Moussaoui

Seems that the prosecutors are saying that he could have, should have alerted them about the impending attack on 9/11 and therefore should be executed.

Since when do we prosecute people about what they should have said?

Our jails are full with people who "would not cooperate" with police and are held as material witnesses (I think that this is the correct term). People who are suspected as knowing something but who do not tell.

What am I missing?

Moussaoui wasn't obligated to tell the FBI anything, because any statement would have incriminated
himself.

He has already pleaded guilty, all that they are doing now is deciding his sentence. The prosecutor
is trying to use the fact that if Moussaoui had incriminated himself then law enforcement might have been able to prevent 9/11. Yet FBI agents have testified that they tried to get their superiors to
bring criminal charges but were basically told to go pound sand.

So the leadership of the FBI dropped the ball and now they want to point the finger at Moussaoui, and say that it was all his fault.

I think that this issue was raised, probably still is, about the rights of illegal immigrants.

I suppose they could have tortured him to spill the beans, but I cannot see how they can indict anyone, not to mention execute, for not cooperating with investigators.

Unless, of course, we want to follow the example of dictatorial regimes where someone can just be killed on the spot, or given a make believe trial.

Recall that the morons in the administration can't decide who is an enemy combatant, a POW, a criminal, or whatever.

Since Moose was arrested before Afghanistan, he has due process rights of a common criminal, even though they would have LOVED to declare him something else (they actually tried, but even the numb-nuts figured out that it wouldn't fly).

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

At least that was the way it used to be but Padilla may have a different answer.

this trial is essentially the manifestation of the desire of a lot of people to kill someone, anyone, for complicity in '9/11'.

All the TV coverage is news anchors explaining whether the bungling means Moussaoui gets killed, or doesn't. All the ranting by '9/11' victim relatives on courthouse steps is about how badly they want to see Moussaoui killed.

You never see the TV news interview anyone who thinks Moussaoui's actions don't rise to the level, or anyone who thinks he might as well be spared and proof of the mercy and integrity of the American people, or anyone who approaches him with a Christian attitude of forgiveness.

Well, he pled guilty, and the government (to look "tough," and to make sure that SOMEBODY was held accountable because the suicide bombers had already been immolated), insisted on going for the death penalty.

What did they get? Well...
-a lawyer who tampered with witnesses despite specific warnings, making them look VERY foolish,
-pretty strong testimony to surviving relatives that the FBI had everything they needed to prevent 9/11, and
-either a "martyr for the cause" if they win, or an al Qaeda "spokesman" who WON if they lose.

IMHO, they shoulda just gone for life imprisonment - this guy's a loon. If they could draw a direct connection between Moose and the 9/11 plot, they might have had a case, but obviously, they couldn't do that.

The death penalty should not be on the table....

I think Moussaoui should be treated like Terry Nichols from the OK bombings. Life in prison without parole...

Moussaoui did have communications with Al Queda on his laptop...so at best he is an accomplice to the plan.

The government is in such dissaray that they have yet to successfully prosecute any of these cases.

The first time the towers were hit the Clinton admin successfully prosecuted and jailed the terrorist.

Moussaoui is going to pay for something he really had nothing to do with. He should go to jail for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and nothing else.

that turned to a fight had the police telling us some bullshit like that. Asking why none of us had called, to which the answer was that it wasn't our business. And he started mouthing about failing to report a crime.

This is really a very blurred issue, I think. Remember in the 60s when the whole country was shaken when a woman was murdered in New York, her neighbors heard her cries for help but decided it was none of their business?

And is there a difference between reporting a crime in progress or a crime being planned?

And if one is found guilty in conspiring to commit a crime, or knowledge of one planned, is the death penalty even on the book in such cases? (even in murderous states like Texas and Florida?)

I really don't know excatly how federal or various state laws treat such, I'll defer to those who work in the field to answer that for you.

"American Taliban" guy who got caught up in the post 9/11 frenzy.

He would have helped hijack the plane if the flight-school instructor hadn't turned him in.

Regardless of what the case is, it's amazing how the government is botching it.

Do we now indict people for what they planned to do (but did not?) I think that a few years ago there was a movie about this..

At least, he can be indicted for a conspiracy but not for actually doing this.

"could've,should've" situation, then can't we also charge and execute the entire administration for ignoring the PDB and the FBI agents who didn't follow up on what they were told?

you should be put to death.

not giving him that chance and sending him to a facility where he can meditate is the best penalty. If it is possible I'll give him the chance to meet with moderate Islamic clerics and thinkers, so he can come back to his senses, and I don't talk about "brainwashing". That would be the best victory against the terrorists : both showing that humanity and reason can save people.

The government might not be able to get a DP if it tries.

What part of "Don't show the witnesses the evidence" is so hard?

that he was tortured into confessing? I don't kow if that issue has been raised. I there any hard evidence that he was involved?

himself and exhibited a really bizarre behavior.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that he was part of a cell, perhaps even the "20 terrorist" but in our system of law (still) can we actually punish someone for a crime that he intended to do but did not? Beyond abating a criminal, or conspiracy?

And if the indictment is for the lesser charge, can the maximum punishment be applied?

I hope that even if the jury will try to satisfy the need for revenge did give him the death penalty, that the judge will clear this judgment.

I can see this going all the way to the Supreme Court and by then we really don't know who will be there.

What will cost the taxpayers more: keeping him in jail for life, or keeping him in jail for life while appealing?