JohnH wrote:
I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).

Sometimes I think too far outside the box. My fear with this case is
that we will wind up killing a man not for a crime that he committed,
but for a crime that he would have committed if he were not arrested
first. Does this open the door for executing anybody
planning a murder? If the police just happen to catch the would be
murderer before he or she can carry out the plan- should they be put to
death anyway? Setting off on a course where we kill people not for what
they did but for what they *thought* about doing is just a baby step
short of simply killing people for harboring certain "politically
incorrect" thoughts or opinions. We can't go there and still be the
USA.

As far as I know, conspiracy to commit murder is not a capital crime.
Give this ******* the maximum allowable term for each of the 3,0000
victimes on 9-11 with no possibiilty of parole. Should be abut 30,000
years. That's justice. I think the Constitution has to be observed and
defended, even when it stands in the way of exacting revenge for one of
the most tragic incidents in American history.

Will now surrender the soap box........

I expected an argument. Instead, I receive support for my point.

I can't help but notice that some of my friends who were so strong in
their support for Bush a year ago are starting to make statements that I
agree with.

Maybe critical thinking is making a come-back.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:
I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he
dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).

Sometimes I think too far outside the box. My fear with this case is
that we will wind up killing a man not for a crime that he committed,
but for a crime that he would have committed if he were not arrested
first. Does this open the door for executing anybody
planning a murder?

Remember the movie "Minority Report"?

Doug Kanter wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:

I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he
dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).

Sometimes I think too far outside the box. My fear with this case is
that we will wind up killing a man not for a crime that he committed,
but for a crime that he would have committed if he were not arrested
first. Does this open the door for executing anybody
planning a murder?


Remember the movie "Minority Report"?


Chuck, more people need to think "out of the box."

I just re-read "1984." If you've never read it, here it is:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/

__________________________________________________ ___
In 1984, Winston Smith lives in London which is part of the country
Oceania. The world is divided into three countries that include the
entire globe: Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia. Oceania, and both of the
others, is a totalitarian society led by Big Brother, which censors
everyone’s behavior, even their thoughts. Winston is disgusted with his
oppressed life and secretly longs to join the fabled Brotherhood, a
supposed group of underground rebels intent on overthrowing the
government. Winston meets Julia and they secretly fall in love and have
an affair, something which is considered a crime. One day, while walking
home, Winston encounters O'Brien, an inner party member, who gives
Winston his address. Winston had exchanged glances with O'Brien before
and had dreams about him giving him the impression that O'Brien was a
member of the Brotherhood. Since Julia hated the party as much as
Winston did, they went to O'Brien’s house together where they were
introduced into the Brotherhood. O'Brien is actually a faithful member
of the Inner-Party and this is actually a trap for Winston, a trap that
O'Brien has been cleverly setting for seven years. Winston and Julia are
sent to the Ministry of Love which is a sort of rehabilitation center
for criminals accused of thoughtcrime. There, Winston was separated from
Julia, and tortured until his beliefs coincided with those of the Party.
Winston denounces everything he believed him, even his love for Julia,
and was released back into the public where he wastes his days at the
Chestnut Tree drinking gin.

wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:
I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he
dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).

Would we be better off to stick him in a typical state prison, and make sure
every other prisoner knows exactly who he is?

From "1984":

The three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Doug Kanter wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

JohnH wrote:

I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he
dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).


Would we be better off to stick him in a typical state prison, and make sure
every other prisoner knows exactly who he is?


Exactly who is he?

He'd be better off in the mental health system.

On 14 Apr 2006 08:28:23 -0700, "
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).

Sometimes I think too far outside the box. My fear with this case is
that we will wind up killing a man not for a crime that he committed,
but for a crime that he would have committed if he were not arrested
first. Does this open the door for executing anybody
planning a murder? If the police just happen to catch the would be
murderer before he or she can carry out the plan- should they be put to
death anyway? Setting off on a course where we kill people not for what
they did but for what they *thought* about doing is just a baby step
short of simply killing people for harboring certain "politically
incorrect" thoughts or opinions. We can't go there and still be the
USA.

As far as I know, conspiracy to commit murder is not a capital crime.
Give this ******* the maximum allowable term for each of the 3,0000
victimes on 9-11 with no possibiilty of parole. Should be abut 30,000
years. That's justice. I think the Constitution has to be observed and
defended, even when it stands in the way of exacting revenge for one of
the most tragic incidents in American history.

Will now surrender the soap box........

Not knowing the pertinent laws in this area (or those given the jury), I
can't argue why the jury found him eligible for the death penalty. I would
tend to think that finding not un-Constitutional, however.

At least we agree on the outcome. Put him in a box. Keep him quiet 'til he
dies.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:49:58 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

wrote in message
roups.com...

JohnH wrote:
I think he should be isolated in a small cage and left there until he
dies.
No martyrdom for him.
--

My relatively rare OT comment, sorry.

Unless he committed a capital crime under common definition, as
reprehensible as the ******* is we should not put him to death. The
prosecution seems to be making a case that
"failure to act" to prevent 9-11 is a capital offense. (If some far out
wack job conspiracy theorists were ever proven correct, that legal
precedent could have some dire and unexpected consequences).

Would we be better off to stick him in a typical state prison, and make sure
every other prisoner knows exactly who he is?


There are too many Muslims in prisons who would think him a hero. He needs
isolation.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:32:04 GMT, Jim wrote:

I expected an argument. Instead, I receive support for my point.

I can't help but notice that some of my friends who were so strong in
their support for Bush a year ago are starting to make statements that I
agree with.

Maybe critical thinking is making a come-back.

Why the attempt to make the discussion political?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************