Moussaoui Verdict Probably Just, But Not Justice

Rusty has details and updates on the Moussaoui verdict of life in prision. He feels it's an injustice. Ultimately, I might agree but can't say I'm surprised. The civilian courts were always a poor venue for the case. It's likely that jurors voting for death allowed their emotions to over rule their logic and the law.

Given the state of our justice system, I find it hard to believe anyone would be sentenced to death if they weren't one-hundred percent, directly linked to a specific crime. Had Moussaoui, as one of the hijackers, surived a place crash which took lives, he'd probably have gotten death. But even then it wouldn't have been certain. Still, it may have been the only way.

There are two larger questions I'd posit, the second more significant than the first.

First, was Moussaoui not made an enemy combatant to appease the French, or was it to avoid a challenge from them through the UN, or the world court? Moussaoui was a French citizen after all and always seemed as worthy of enemy combatant status than Richard Reid and some others. I'm not sure one can even argue with that. Obviously there was some reason for putting him through the civilian courts.

Secondly, I'd point back to the Dana Priest prison story once again. One motivation behind the Left trying to attack the administration's detention policy is to try and get every terrorist rights in International or Federal Courts.

the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

The Washington Post and more than just the anti-death penalty crowd on the Left should be celebrating the Moussaoui verdict. In the end, it's their victory, after all.

Comments

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

I too, have mixed feelings about the verdict, but in the end, we weren't in the jury room or privy to all the information and evidence.

I wrote- and it bears repeating- seeking vengeance isn't justice.

Would we have given Moussaoui the death penalty if we could have tried Atta?

[abigail]

My husband read that it will cost $100,000 a year to keep this guy alive in prison. WHY? A family of 3 in a 2000 square foot house does not cost that much--not even half that in VA! He will be in a block probably smaller than our out building and hopefully get more meager meals then we do and not have the "luxuries" we think we need to survive. That's my beef. The good folks of America that live paycheck to paycheck are paying taxes to keep this guy living a 6 figure a year life in prison? I have never murdered, in fact I've got a squeaky clean record, you could not find anything on me and yet we freak about real estate taxes twice a year and if can we take a weekend vacation. Are the good citizens of these United States rewarded? No, we are taxed beyond belief for the cold heartedness of others, just so we can keep them away until their time is up on earth. Freaking Amazing!

[Bill]

Ex parte Milligan from Wikipedia:

The Court's decision
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.

It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may be only held without charges, not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement.

The Court also stated:

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times [p*121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false, for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)

[jh]

Most places put the cost of housing a prisoner in Supermax at $35,000 per year per prisoner.

It is likely that the cost to execute an inmate, when court time, reviews, and his government provided attorneys are taken into account, it is likely that that cost would be much higher. A lot of lawyers will take cases like his probono to write off taxes at rates of thousands of dollars per hour. Ultimately that would be money that is a cost since it would not enter the tax system.

The long and short of it is that no, we're not spending any more by having him locked up in the middle of Colorado vs execution. You've seen this guy. He'd fight and clog up the system right up to the end, and he'd be in the same supermax prison the full time. He was wasting our money every day in court, and he'd continue to waste our money. Now, the only line item that we have for him is $35,000 per year. We don't even have to worry about getting everyone involved together in 30 years for parole hearings.