Zacarias Moussaoui Trial

TheSpacePope · 04-12-2006, 07:57 PM

I was reading the newspaper this morning and saw an article that piqued my curiosity. According to the article, Zacarias Moussaoui's jurors were shown film and picture evidence from the pentagon crash site, as well as witness testimony. Accordin to the artice, jurors were shown pictures of bodies and also heard testimony from men who crawled to safety. Now, I was under the impression that the plane had hit an unoccupied area of the pentagon, I believe that it was being remodeled. So my question is, is the original report that the building was unoccupied valid? Or are these new claims with the pictures of bodies, and men who were burned that survived valid? I am not sure, what do you guys think, did I just remember incorrectly? I am having trouble even finding articles that pertain to the original crash, all I can find are whacked out conspiracy websites. Just look into it, because if this is untrue then the Zacarias Moussaoui trial is a fallacy right? I'm not saying that this was intentional, I just can't find an artice about deaths in the pentagon dated before last week. Was that information just classified? I don't know, but I think it's worth chatting about.

Althane · 04-12-2006, 08:55 PM

I heard that there were people in it... where did you hear that it wasn't occupied?

Then again, a plane hitting a building and exploding, or whatever, tends to leave very little biological remains that are identifiable.

So... well, I 've heard conspiracy theorists say that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, and they pictures and all, but I saw it (not really up close, but within good range), and it looked like something massive had slammed into there.

So, is the original report valid? As I never SAW the origial report, and all I've heard is that there were people in there, then I have to say, on basis of information that I have been given, that no, it isn't. However, that statment is really just a statement, and I'm completely up for grabs in this debate.

However, Zacarias Moussaoui, if he is indeed an Al-Queda member... should be given the death penalty. Not because I want him to die, but simply because he's too dangerous to let live. If we let him loose, he'll probably only try to do the same thing again.

Esquire · 04-12-2006, 09:06 PM

Yeah, there were people in it. Just because it's being remodeled, doesn't mean that people still weren't using their offices. It is the Pentagon, after all.

TheSpacePope · 04-12-2006, 11:18 PM

No I completely understand that, but I was watching the news the morning of the attack and saw very strange things. The pentagon, "unoccupied" Reports of bombs going off, just wierd stuff that I have not heard since that day in 2002. I just wish I could find articles.
And yea, if the guy did it then he probably should die, but that is if this info is NOT true.

Sky Warrior Bob · 04-13-2006, 10:54 AM

The problem I have with thse details & images related to 9/11 coming forward, is that the direct link to Moussaoui is not being shown. The real purpose seems to be to whip the jury into an emotional frenzy in which they'd sentence anyone to death if its even hinted that they have some some sort of connection to 9/11, regardless of whether or not they do.

Personally, I'm worried that Moussaoui isn't much more than a blowhard who's making claims to be much more important than he is. He obviouslly believes in what happened on 9/11, and loves the idea of being associated with those people, but has any damning tie-in come forward? Maybe its just because I haven't been following this case all that closely, but I'm at least left with that impression.

SWB

TheSpacePope · 04-13-2006, 11:55 AM

Agreed bob, there does not seem to be any real connection here. I believe what that is called is pandering to the jury. The prosecution has nothing other than the emotions of the jury to go on. I mean, you're exactly correct, the jury will execute anyone with a whif of involvement.
Is there anyone that has more information?

lifebecomeslessdefined · 04-19-2006, 07:07 PM

Personally, I think that we should have put a bullet in his head when we realized he was a terrorist.

But that's what he wants. He wants to be a martyr.

This raises an interesting point:
Execute a confessed terrorist involved in the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, make him a martyr and give terrorists a rallying point.

-OR-

Spare his life, make him rot in prison, and allow defense lawyers to say, "If not a terrorist, then why my client?"

Certainly a slippery slope, hmm? I'm in favor of option 2, but it's really loose-loose situation.

Ryanderman · 05-05-2006, 08:42 AM

Reviving this topic in liew of creating a new one since it's still about this trial. I've got a rhetorical question:

Pretend you are one of the jury for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. Pretend that, no matter how much you abhor the death penalty and would never execute anyone in real life, that you are someone who has stated that you are willing and able to consider the death penalty for certain cases.

If you were on this jury, and capable of considering the death penalty as a viable option, would you have voted for or against death in this case?

Personally, I think I would have voted against, as the jury did, because he does want to be a martyr. But at the same time, with him alive, give it six or seven years and Hollywood will come back and make a movie about him, maybe turn him into a hero. I don't think I could stand that. Though that really shouldn't be a factor in deciding death, so scratch that.

Thing is, we don't know for certain how much he knew when he knew it. He could have exaggerated his involvement when he testified. It sounds like something he would do. Since his crime is withholding information and conspiracy to commit the act, and he didn't actually do it, I don't think we could kill him for it. As much as I'd want to. Life in prison is the right thing I think, despite the cost. No parole. Ever.

Though I'd wish we could outsource his prison sentence to China.

Althane · 05-05-2006, 08:57 AM

Good solution for keeping him "safe", and making sure he isn't made a martyr.

Ship him off to the highest security prison ever, don't let anyone see him for a month.

Then blow his brains out. Or just leave him there forever, but that costs, what, thirty, fourty thousand grand a month? I don't want that tax money to be spent o him.

MatticusPrime · 05-11-2006, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Althane

Good solution for keeping him "safe", and making sure he isn't made a martyr.

Ship him off to the highest security prison ever, don't let anyone see him for a month.

Then blow his brains out. Or just leave him there forever, but that costs, what, thirty, fourty thousand grand a month? I don't want that tax money to be spent o him.

So... your solution if he is not given the death penalty (which I believe he was not) is to send him to the highest security prison ever, then completely ignore the rule of law and murder him.

Sounds like a forward thinking solution that adheres to the values on which the US was founded.

04-12-2006, 07:57 PM	#1
TheSpacePope Gigity Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lincoln. Nebraska Posts: 1,536	Zacarias Moussaoui Trial I was reading the newspaper this morning and saw an article that piqued my curiosity. According to the article, Zacarias Moussaoui's jurors were shown film and picture evidence from the pentagon crash site, as well as witness testimony. Accordin to the artice, jurors were shown pictures of bodies and also heard testimony from men who crawled to safety. Now, I was under the impression that the plane had hit an unoccupied area of the pentagon, I believe that it was being remodeled. So my question is, is the original report that the building was unoccupied valid? Or are these new claims with the pictures of bodies, and men who were burned that survived valid? I am not sure, what do you guys think, did I just remember incorrectly? I am having trouble even finding articles that pertain to the original crash, all I can find are whacked out conspiracy websites. Just look into it, because if this is untrue then the Zacarias Moussaoui trial is a fallacy right? I'm not saying that this was intentional, I just can't find an artice about deaths in the pentagon dated before last week. Was that information just classified? I don't know, but I think it's worth chatting about. __________________ Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

04-12-2006, 11:18 PM	#4
TheSpacePope Gigity Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lincoln. Nebraska Posts: 1,536	No I completely understand that, but I was watching the news the morning of the attack and saw very strange things. The pentagon, "unoccupied" Reports of bombs going off, just wierd stuff that I have not heard since that day in 2002. I just wish I could find articles. And yea, if the guy did it then he probably should die, but that is if this info is NOT true. __________________ Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

04-13-2006, 10:54 AM	#5
Sky Warrior Bob bOB iZ brOkeN Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a nice place to visit... Posts: 3,755	The problem I have with thse details & images related to 9/11 coming forward, is that the direct link to Moussaoui is not being shown. The real purpose seems to be to whip the jury into an emotional frenzy in which they'd sentence anyone to death if its even hinted that they have some some sort of connection to 9/11, regardless of whether or not they do. Personally, I'm worried that Moussaoui isn't much more than a blowhard who's making claims to be much more important than he is. He obviouslly believes in what happened on 9/11, and loves the idea of being associated with those people, but has any damning tie-in come forward? Maybe its just because I haven't been following this case all that closely, but I'm at least left with that impression. SWB __________________ :bmage: Because breakdancing is evil, and so am I, you will click on this link: The power of evil compels you... You are in error. No one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation. Yes I know the breakdancing BM link doesn't work, and I don't care.

04-13-2006, 11:55 AM	#6
TheSpacePope Gigity Join Date: May 2005 Location: Lincoln. Nebraska Posts: 1,536	Agreed bob, there does not seem to be any real connection here. I believe what that is called is pandering to the jury. The prosecution has nothing other than the emotions of the jury to go on. I mean, you're exactly correct, the jury will execute anyone with a whif of involvement. Is there anyone that has more information? __________________ Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust

04-19-2006, 07:07 PM	#7
lifebecomeslessdefined In the face Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: follow the brassies Posts: 97	Personally, I think that we should have put a bullet in his head when we realized he was a terrorist. But that's what he wants. He wants to be a martyr. This raises an interesting point: Execute a confessed terrorist involved in the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, make him a martyr and give terrorists a rallying point. -OR- Spare his life, make him rot in prison, and allow defense lawyers to say, "If not a terrorist, then why my client?" Certainly a slippery slope, hmm? I'm in favor of option 2, but it's really loose-loose situation. __________________ I NEED A NEW SIGNATURE. ...and i need to get the l337 [spoiler] tech over here. i hate not having spoilerboxes.

04-12-2006, 09:06 PM	#3
Esquire Suicide is Painless Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 25	Yeah, there were people in it. Just because it's being remodeled, doesn't mean that people still weren't using their offices. It is the Pentagon, after all.

05-05-2006, 08:42 AM	#8
Ryanderman Beard of Leadership Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 827	Rhetorical Question Reviving this topic in liew of creating a new one since it's still about this trial. I've got a rhetorical question: Pretend you are one of the jury for the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. Pretend that, no matter how much you abhor the death penalty and would never execute anyone in real life, that you are someone who has stated that you are willing and able to consider the death penalty for certain cases. If you were on this jury, and capable of considering the death penalty as a viable option, would you have voted for or against death in this case? Personally, I think I would have voted against, as the jury did, because he does want to be a martyr. But at the same time, with him alive, give it six or seven years and Hollywood will come back and make a movie about him, maybe turn him into a hero. I don't think I could stand that. Though that really shouldn't be a factor in deciding death, so scratch that. Thing is, we don't know for certain how much he knew when he knew it. He could have exaggerated his involvement when he testified. It sounds like something he would do. Since his crime is withholding information and conspiracy to commit the act, and he didn't actually do it, I don't think we could kill him for it. As much as I'd want to. Life in prison is the right thing I think, despite the cost. No parole. Ever. Though I'd wish we could outsource his prison sentence to China. __________________ ~Your robot reminds me of you. You tell it to stop, it turns. You tell it to turn, it stops. You tell it to take out the trash, it watches reruns of Firefly.~ Last edited by Ryanderman; 05-05-2006 at 09:19 AM.