scratch-mark

Suffering Fools

I’m woefully behind in my reading so I don’t know what’s being said on other bogs about this Moussaoui deal. Nor am I terribly informed about the case.

I find a lot of things troubling. The guy was in jail on September 11, yet he has been prosecuted–with everything the feds could throw at it–in an effort to invoke capital punishment for, near as I can determine: the crime of not telling the state about an impending crime and incriminating himself in the process. Now, I’m certain that someone will come forth with a comment bearing some "legal twist" that makes the plain reality of the thing look like something other than it is. Be my guest.

I’ll say right now that if a surviving 9/11 family member did away with the guy, I wouldn’t really care a wit about it. But I deplore the notion that anyone at any time has any obligation to tell the state anything–anything. Because: once that box it opened, it is not as far a stretch as you may think to the point of obligation to tell the state everything. The state has no moral rights whatsoever. Let me repeat that: the state has no moral rights whatsoever. Individuals have rights, and therefore, all "interests" of the state–each and every one at all times–is morally subordinate to the rights of even the biggest fool on Earth.

If you believe in moral rights at all, this is the inescapable, logical conclusion of the thing; so if you don’t agree, in total, without slightest equivocation, then you do not believe in moral rights. Period. What you believe in is the sovereignty, supremacy, superiority, power and force of the state–and whatever "legal rights" it may arbitrarily decide to bestow out of a sense of utility and efficiency. The latter has been the condition in the United States since the day the U.S. Constitution was ratified. That day was the day America was trampled by the United States.

Alright, back to the point. If it’s proper to kill or lock up Moussaoui, then the only valid moral reason to do so is because of his credible and reliable oath to continue his efforts to kill innocent people. Such an oath, seriously and credibly given, merits an immediate death penalty, and every person on the face of the Earth has complete moral authority to carry out such a sentence summarily. And do you know what? I trust just about everyone to handle such serious matters a lot father than I trust the state.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

6 Comments

  1. cube on May 4, 2006 at 13:44

    This makes the case for military tribunals. These people have vowed to kill as many Americans as they can & we're concerned about their rights? Sheesh. That's no way to fight a war against a barbaric foe.

  2. prying1 on May 4, 2006 at 20:15

    I have not been following it gavel to gavel.
    One word comes to mind as far as his involvement. – Accessory.

    Two people rob a bank and one pulls out a gun and kills the guard. – They are both charged with murder.

  3. Branden on May 4, 2006 at 22:26

    Its a marvel? How at times common sense can be not that common.

    Branden, Nubbit.com

  4. Larry on May 5, 2006 at 01:23

    Nice post, I was going to write about this myself, but I just didn't get it.
    Like you said this guy was in jail on 9/11, but he's suppose to be the 20th person in this case.
    It was also reported that he wanted to blow up something and others have testified to this, so I just don't get all the charges here.
    What a great line, "the sovereignty, supremacy, superiority, power and force of the state–and whatever "legal rights" it may arbitrarily decide to bestow out of a sense of utility and efficiency". If someone makes a threat then he should be given life for that?
    Like I said, I really don't know this case and I can't understand just what this man did to get Life.
    Was he or was he not involved in 9/11, and if he wasn't and was just a wanna be then, WOW, what are we to say for ourself.

  5. Hank on May 5, 2006 at 15:54

    As Peggy Noonan said,"What we witnessed here was not the higher compassion but a dizzy failure of nerve." This fiasco proves civilian criminal courts are not qualified to fight the war against Islamofacism.

  6. James Shott on May 6, 2006 at 10:51

    As an Al Qaeda member Moussaoui is technically an enemy combatant. 'Nuff said.

    Whatever he did or didn't do to get him into the criminal justice system is irrelevant. In my opinion, he got a proper sentence (Go here for my take on it: Let Him Live), but I think he should have been dealt with through a military tribunal, not a court of law.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780