Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Revenge and Moussaoui.

The government is doing their best to make sure Zacarias Moussaoui lives a long and healthy life behind bars. In the ongoing death penalty trial, the prosecution, after recovering from the Carla J. Martin fiasco, has managed to show that 9/11 was pretty much no surprise to anyone in the government. It was an open secret to just about everyone, but no one bothered to do anything about it. The testimony of FBI agent Harry Samit was the real nail in the coffin for the prosecution's case when he said he had sent seventy emails warning of an attack involving the hijacking of planes and his superiors did nothing. In fact, he called their inaction "criminal negligence." [WaPo]

The NYT reported that, "The F.B.I.'s top counterterrorism official at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks, Michael Rolince, told a jury...that he did not know that a bureau agent had filed a report three weeks earlier detailing his suspicions that Zacarias Moussaoui was involved in an imminent airline hijacking plot." In a perfect example of the pigheaded arrogance of this administration's serial blundering, he testily asked Moussaoui's public defender, Edward B. MacMahon Jr, "Can I ask what document that's coming from?" MacMahon answered, "That's Mr. Samit's communication to your office, Aug. 18, 2001."

Nice! I feel a promotion coming on. That's how this administration rewards incompetence at every level. If I were a family member of a 9/11 victim sitting in that court room, I'd be madder at the governemnt than I would be at Moussaoui. So what, he lied about his conection to 9/11? You know, criminals lie to the police all the time. What we're paying the FBI and the CIA to do is use all the resouces they have to figure out the truth before we get attacked, but they didn't do it. They blew it.

Is the death penaly in this case really justifed? Is all the time and resourses being expended to put this guy to death really worth it? The threat of death is not exactly a deterent to these people, they actually want to die. If the death penaly isn't a deterent in this case, then what purpose does it serve? Is it all about revenge? Revenge is undertsandable, but I don't think it's a part of our jurisprudence, is it? Is it all about an eye for any eye? Sounds more like Middle Eastern justice to me.


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter script Top Blog Lists Favourite Blogs Top List
My Zimbio
Top Stories