Given the #days they took to come to this decision, is anybody surprised?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 3, 2006 5:19 PM

I'm so glad that the jurors wanted to err on the side of caution and did not want to give him the death penalty, just in case he didn't really know too, too much about 9/11 beforehad. It would be such a shame to kill a terrorist if he "didn't deserve it".

/sarcasm

http://www.islam-watch.blogspot.com

You realize now Robert, that you will need another site: Moussaouiwatch.org

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 5:20 PM

This trial highlights the wrongheaded approach to fighting the enemy that currently prevails.

In a well-ordered society this man would have had a 15 minute trial followed a short walk to the firing squad. His identity and sentence would have been revealed only months or years after the execution had been carried out.

Posted by: CufferHarvey at May 3, 2006 5:31 PM

what is interesting to note is that, in the aftermath of 9/11, America has not executed a single jihadist that they have gotten their hands on. Not one.

Execution tally since 9/10/2001:

Islam vs. West

4000+ 0

Is that a sign of strength or weakness? Well, it may not be a sign of weakness, but it sure as hell ain't proof of any strength.

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 5:34 PM

Islam = 4000+ (3000 on 9/11 and a hell of lot of executions since then)

The West = 0

Does that make us better than them? Or just softer?

Posted by: thethinker at May 3, 2006 5:36 PM

Zachary was smart by playing the looney near the end with this 'Bush will pardon me stuff and fly me out of the country.' There are complex legal issues here. One issue is a. he was an Al Queda wannabe--with KSM apparently not trusting him or wanting him among the 19 butchers because of fears of incompetance. I can believe this but what about the FBI agents sworn testimony that his computer would have given names of operatives linked to the plot. Zachary knew why he was taking flying lessons. He must have known he was part of a broader plot. This knowledge alone might have led to no 911. But I think his wacky behavior helped ensure him life in prison.

Posted by: biorabbi at May 3, 2006 5:39 PM

Better this way, The Jihadists are denied the additional media coverage that would have led up to (after many years) his execution. Let him fade into obscurity now. Bye Zacharias, we'll miss you and Jihad Johnny...

Posted by: WIDEAWAKE at May 3, 2006 5:46 PM

At least now I will not be hearing his rantings any more. This is a victory for the victims of 9/11/01.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 3, 2006 5:51 PM

WIDEAWAKE and any who are "happy he will rot" must be sound asleep. Any Jihadi in prison is a reason for another jihadi to kidnap a reporter, an aid worker, a school or a plane and hold them hostage as a bargaining chip for release. If Moussaoiu were executed he would be a dead body. Jihadis don't need to hold a school yard of kids to bargain for a dead body. Keeping these captured jihadis at 98.6 is the kind of misplaced compassion that gets others taken hostage and killed in the future.

I am so tired of the jelly-spined, panty waists who mistake their squemishness about the death penalty for some sort of moral superiority. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.

Posted by: bevc at May 3, 2006 5:56 PM

Maybe he should be put in a cell with a patriotic convict.....who will treat him as a muslim treats his woman.

And he can consider himself a martyr(loser) all he wants. For the rest of his life.

Posted by: freewoman at May 3, 2006 5:57 PM

If they had the chance of giving him a lighter sentence, they would have.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 3, 2006 6:00 PM

pathetic! all the hand wringing do gooders got the boy a cosy cell and his fu..in koran to read as much as he wants to.
maybe we deserve to lose!

Posted by: johnmac at May 3, 2006 6:12 PM

For many things, the jury system does not work. Some issues become tied up with the desire to redistribute the wealth. Thus an individual plaintiff may be awarded millions that plaintiff does not deserve, only because of the deep pockets of the corporate defendant, who might better be punished not by being forced to give large sums to a particular lucky individual, but after giving that particular plaintiff a reasonable (not unreasonable) settlement, would be forced to give the rest of the money to the government for relevant services (for example, a car manufacturer could be made to pay a Highway Safety Fund tens of millions of dollars). Jurors sometimes come to incorrect verdicts because they do not understand the fallibility, or infallibility(DNA) of the evidence, or don't care, and are making a point that has nothing to do with justice (the O.J. Simpson verdict).

Some issues are too complicated. There are special Tax Courts and Admiralty Courts and Patent Courts, where judges and not juries decide. Do not a number of cases about terrorism already show that jurors are not quite up to the task -- the Al-Arian case, the Moussaoui case, and that this should be a job for specially trained judges?

Why is legislation not introduced to this effect? Essentially, this is not a matter of criminal justice. This is a war; the deliberate attacks on civlians is a war crime. Sentimentality about twelve good men and true has no place here.

As for the verdict -- disgusting.

Posted by: Hugh at May 3, 2006 6:23 PM

The jurors in this case have a fear of muslim retribution. This is one reason why terrorists shouldn't have acess to our court system. They need a military tribunal.

Posted by: freewoman at May 3, 2006 6:29 PM

O.T. but interesting.

Someone linked to from LGF reckons that Osama bin Laden sounds as if he reads some of the wackier outpourings of the blogosphere. I wasn't aware that OBL's positions and justifications had drifted around as much as they had, nor that the shifts often seem to mirror what certain sectors of Western opinion were saying.

Bin Laden’s parasitical relationship with Western debate really came into its own from 2004 onward. During this period he has sounded almost indistinguishable from various left-wing blogs. In April 2004 he ranted about “big media,” describing them as “agents of deception and exploitation.” He said the war in Iraq “is making billions of dollars for the big corporations, whether it be those who manufacture weapons or reconstruction firms like Halliburton and its offshoot sister companies.” ...

Bin Laden frequently drops the names of the anti-war blogosphere’s favorite authors and activists ... Robert Fisk ... Michael Moore ... Now he has suggested that Bush and company read William Blum’s Rogue State.

The Shocking Truth About Osama bin Laden

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 3, 2006 6:39 PM

freewoman,

I would not be suprised if that is why the jurie decided to go the route to put this terrorist away for life is really two-fold, fear of Muslim revenge and also so as not to make Moussaoui another martyr. The bad news from all this is that it really shows the weakness of the federal justice system in this country.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 3, 2006 6:39 PM

Some issues are too complicated. There are special Tax Courts and Admiralty Courts and Patent Courts, where judges and not juries decide. Do not a number of cases about terrorism already show that jurors are not quite up to the task -- the Al-Arian case, the Moussaoui case, and that this should be a job for specially trained judges?

All very well if the "specially trained judges" have read, as a minimum, Robert Spencer's PIG guide. But what if they haven't?

Hard cases make bad law. Ditch the jury system for these cases and there is a danger of politicising law enforcement. If a panel of experts were called on to decide these cases, who would appoint them? And would those who appoint them perhaps feel obliged, in the name of balance, to appoint some who understood Islam and disliked it and spoke out against it, and some, with equal knowledge, who had not yet admitted the truth, to themselves or to others.

Sharia courts have no juries. Their decisions are made by 'scholars'. Think about it.

Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2006 6:46 PM

To his credit as a person(not necessarily as a lawyer), Zach's lawyer sounded like he really hated his client. I have a question on Zach's jail sentence. His lawyer said he will be held in a special jail under a coal mine in Colorado? Does anybody know what jail this is? I would have preferred Zach to be in the general population . . . as the Judge, I would have googled which prison has the most aryan brothers and send Zach there Fed Express. His lawyer said he had not said a word to his client in months. What a joke.

Posted by: biorabbi at May 3, 2006 6:51 PM

Further to my post above, it is the law that needs to be changed, not the tried and tested - albeit imperfect - systems of law enforcement.

Islam should be declared a political movement, not a religion. This makes it easier to pass laws limiting it (for example abolishing charitable status for mosques etc), and declaring certain aspects of it illegal/unconstitutional.

A jury can then do what it must do - give a true verdict according to the evidence.

Having served on a jury very recently, I understand fully the frustration felt when you "know" somebody is guilty but the evidence doesn't support this. But what is the alternative? What?

Were I ever falsely accused or framed, I wouldn't trust myself to "experts".

Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2006 6:59 PM

"Sharia courts have no juries. Their decisions are made by 'scholars'. Think about it."
-- from a posting above

Yes, and Nazi judges condemned innocents to die, and People's Courts with three-judge panels (sometimes laymen) in Communist China did the same. What conclusion can we draw from this? That judges are always and everywhere bad, and juries good? Surely a jury (and the 12-men must be a reflection of base-12 tolfraedic coinage -- lately decimalized). There can be 10-man juries, 6-man juries. Nothing magical about 12 men. And nothing magical about juries. Do you think a "jury" consisting of Nazis in Nazi Germany would be less beastly than a Nazi judge?

Do you agree on the need for judges in the cases of Patent, Tax, and Admiralty Law? Or Military Courts of Justice? Are terrorism cases, involving as they may a need to comprehend Islam, more like ordinary crimes committed for ordinary reasons, or more like the courts that require judges -- military, patent, tax, admiralty?

The record of American juries in their judgments in terrorism cases so far does not inspire confidence; the judges in those cases inspire some, or in the case of Judge Moody in the Al-Arian case, a great deal.

Posted by: Hugh at May 3, 2006 7:09 PM

What inboldens a jihadist to wage war on the West ( besides a fanatical, irrational view of their being this all powerfull " Allah ". ) is the perception that the West is just too foolish to combat a jihad. The West is too weak to use it's resources against the jihadist. This verdict , plus dozens of others , only confirms that perception and fuels jihadist to redouble their efforts against us infidels.

The professor in Florida, 18 months! tacked on to a three year sentence, wow! that will really show him! For a man who has devoted his life to jihad that is just a slap on the wrist.

This life sentence. Most jihadist have no life anyway. Incarceration , in air-conditioned cells with color t.v. , free meals and medical care is a move up for those guys!

We are detering nothing and only encouraging more mass murder and mayhem directed against innocent people.

Wake Up America! This is a War!

----Nossy

Posted by: Nostrodamus at May 3, 2006 7:16 PM

bevc makes a really excellent point about potential future scenarios of imprisoned jihadis being used as "bargaining chips".

Spencer notes the inevitability of dawa in our prisons by the likes of Moussaoui. It gets worse than that, if this report from the UK on "THE JAIL RUN BY AL-QAEDA" is any indication:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16643308&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive%E2%80%94the-jail-run-by-al-qaeda-name_page.html

I suppose to look on the bright side, should US prisons eventually go the way of UK prisons, there could come a day when Muslim and non-Muslim prisoners would need to be segregated, for the latter’s safety. And were such a day to come, any all-Muslim prisons, full of potential mujahideen, would basically amount to what Ronin calls “target-rich” environments, with giant "bulls-eyes" painted on their exterior prison walls, which could make quite tempting targets for a new breed of western “anti-jihadi” terrorists. Because, as it must have occurred to a few folks by now, two could obviously play this game.

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2006 7:17 PM

Perhaps there is a good chance a death sentence will be carried out in prison.

Posted by: bobalharb at May 3, 2006 7:17 PM

There is something magical about juries. It is a completely random selection of people. Ordinary people. Yes, they could be prejudiced and ignorant. But so can experts. Where do you choose experts? Universities?

If you scrap the jury system in these cases, how can you justify not scrapping it for other cases? Experts know best after all.

Keep juries but change the law. That's my two penn'orth. If a thing's not broke, don't fix it. Why should we abandon hard won liberties because of Islam. Islam is the problem, not juries.

Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2006 7:19 PM

This only gives him the freedom to spew his garbage to the press and recruit future jihadis from the lowest of our society. Martyrdom is an illusion. Dead martyrs do no harm. This type of martyr only rots in hell. I bet they are shocked when they get there. No virgins, nothing.

The Suburban Crusader

Posted by: Brian the Lionhearted at May 3, 2006 7:22 PM

I am glad he will rot in prison. This way he gets to wait for the party with his "72 virgins" for a long, miserable time.

The man should be kept apart from all other prisoners though and not given phone rights. He should lead a life in prison akin to the walking dead. THAT would be a just sentence.

If he does prove to be a trouble-making thorn in our sides while he's inside, then my attitude will change. Otherwise, he deserves to rot.

No martyrdom for you, "Mouse."

Posted by: Foehammer at May 3, 2006 7:23 PM

The Mouse will not rot in prison. An inmate will abuse him then violent end his life.

Posted by: The Texican at May 3, 2006 7:31 PM

Does this mean the defense was successful at proving that Islam is a mental illness?
http://the-gathering-storm.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=321227

Could his defense attorneys’ stance have kept him alive? And is an opportunity lost to reveal Islam for what it is? Let’s consider the man – and then his religion.

Confronted with Moussaoui’s freelance rantings and delusions, his defense attorneys had little choice but to take a ‘metal illness’ stand for his defense. Lawyers for Moussaoui are trying to show the jury in the penalty phase of his conspiracy trial that their client suffers from serious mental illness. They claim he is a paranoid schizophrenic.

Is Moussaoui mentally ill? Or perhaps the very beliefs of his religion makes him so?

Consider this. You’re a psychiatrist speaking with a Muslim. The Muslim claims:

1. He is compelled to repeat the same action every day
2. He overacts to criticism, no matter how minor
3. He thinks everyone hates him

If you were that psychiatrist you would immediately put him on drugs because he was showing signs of obsessive-compulsive behavior, paranoia, and a persecution complex.

Now, let’s look at these metal illnesses as they apply to the practitioners of Islam.

Obsessive-compulsive disorder is manifested in a variety of forms, but is most commonly characterized by a subject's obsessive compulsions (tasks or rituals) which attempt to neutralize the obsessions.

Muslims: Are compelled to pray 5 times a day, everyday, for the rest of their lives.

Paranoia is the belief that others are exploiting, or deceiving them, that others may not be loyal or trustworthy, believes there are threats or attacks on their character, bears persistent grudges, sees others as having malevolent intentions toward them, and has a constant habit of blaming others for their problems.

Muslims: The West is waging a Crusade against Islam and they are the cause of their self-made problems.

Persecution complex is when someone is convinced of the validity of their delusions and cannot tolerate criticism of their ideas. Questioning of their beliefs, no matter how trivial, is met with evasiveness, defensiveness, irritability, and hostility.

Muslims: From the triviality of the Mohammed cartoons to books by authors like Robert Spencer, just to list a few, a Muslim’s response is to claim persecution.

Looking at the metal illness of Islam, I’d say Moussaoui’s lawyers had it right. He was mentally ill. But you’d never hear them couch it terms of the belief in Islam.

Too bad. It would have given the world a good object lesson on Islam.

Posted by: WC at May 3, 2006 7:34 PM

Michael Savage is going beserk over this topic. He was for the death sentence.

Posted by: Foehammer at May 3, 2006 7:39 PM

Actually, I don't think that juries should decide on the sentence. That is something the judge should do. Here in the UK, where you Americans got most of what is good about your legal system from, that is the case.

Mind you, the bastard will get what's coming to him (as it were) in prison. And in the Muslim world, with its emphasis on honour, martyrdom etc, this will not play well.

Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2006 7:39 PM

Thank god he got life imprisonment. The average inmate on death row dies of old age anyways. Now he can be thrown into the general population where he will be butt raped.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at May 3, 2006 7:45 PM

bobalharb,

Do not be suprised if Moussaoui will end up getting killed in prision by a non-Muslim convict. So one way or another, he is dead.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 3, 2006 7:45 PM

WIDEAWAKE said

Let him fade into obscurity now. Bye Zacharias, we'll miss you and Jihad Johnny...

Obscurity? Only if "obscurity" includes front page stories on The Telegraph. These guys are rock stars to the disenfranchised mentally unstable among us.

Posted by: special_guest at May 3, 2006 7:47 PM

WC, Foehammer,

WC, after reading your comment, you said it better then I can, the more I am learning about Islam, the more I am coming to the conclusion that it is a mental disorder. Foehammer, heard Micheal Savage and I never heard a radio talk show host really going over the edge on the jurie decision. That is the most going berserk I have heard of Mr. Savage.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 3, 2006 7:51 PM

I think that he should be placed in the general prison population. With luck, he will be beaten up every day by the other inmates for the rest of his pathetic life.

When Moussaoui dies, may he be greeted by 72 old whores who all look like Yasser Arafat.

chsw

Posted by: chsw at May 3, 2006 7:53 PM

Yojimbo quoted

Bin Laden’s parasitical relationship with Western debate really came into its own from 2004 onward. During this period he has sounded almost indistinguishable from various left-wing blogs.

Ah, the old "liberals are in league with Bin Laden" gambit. Even if Bin Laden mentioned the name of liberals in his rants, it would only be a tactic to divide the infidels, half against the other. And you seem willing to play along. Not me. Like it or not, we are all in this together, liberals, conservatives, atheists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Europeans, (North and South) Americans, Asians. Deal with it.

Posted by: special_guest at May 3, 2006 7:55 PM

Living here in the Tampa area, it is understandable why the jury reached it's decision. First, Tampa/St.Pete is home to a large percentage of Syrians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Etc.

Second, our major news source, the St. Pete Times, employs a three columnist tag team of Muslim apologists who weekly fawn over the plight of the poor stateless Palestinians, and routinely provide links to Al-Manar, Al-Jazeera, and Al-et al.

Third, the University of South Florida (Sami's old stomping grounds) sporting the local moniker "Jihad U" has been a purveyor of pro-Palestian/Islamic causes long before Duke, De Paul, Columbia, UM, or Yale jumped into a berka.

Take the above, stir thoroughly, and add generous portions of Times propaganda, and you have the recipe for Sami's acquittal in the court of public opinion - which in turn fed the jury pool.

Posted by: Thumper at May 3, 2006 8:00 PM

Moussaoui is indeed a foreign enemy combatant.
He NEVER should have gotten an American jury trial at all.

That said, the decision on Moussaoui is the greatest proof possible that trying terrorists using the American court system is as close to a failure as you can possibly get.

Yes once in a while a terrorist will be convicted. Once in a while is hardly the way to conduct a WAR.

The biggest problem for the federal government is that these types of situations continue to invite questions as to whether the federal government is even capable of fighting terrorism at all.

If USA court system does not have the stomach to give the death penalty to Moussaoui, then what it is doing is encouraging both US law enforcement and US citizens to be unwilling to trust in the court system when dealing with terrorists.

That is the road to vigilantism.
And that is precisely what the federal government's missteps are encouraging and promoting.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:01 PM

WC - I think a valid conclusion one could draw from the points you make about Islam and mental illness is that Psychiatry as we know it, and as outlined in the DSM-IV - is a western construct. It was invented by westerners as a "science" and only makes sense within a western cultural context. Otherwise, as you point out, we would be forced to seriously question whether 1.2 billion human beings are actually "insane". And so I think the only way to address that question is to recognize that Psychiatry, as we westerners understand it, is essentially culturally relative - which raises serious implications for the assumption that one can simply mix together two such disparate cultures, given that the normative behavior of one culture would be regarded as "insane" by the medical criteria of the other.

Posted by: Caroline at May 3, 2006 8:02 PM

America has not executed a single jihadist that they have gotten their hands on. Not one.

Salient point, thinker.

The skewed ratio of 4000:1 solved in your arithmetic equation might not make sense to us, but it makes perfect sense to them.

Ever since about 622AD they've not only been getting away with murder, they've consistently been able to cow Infidel elites.

MO HIJABS MO SAND "CRABS" MO LEFT JABS MO BACK STABS BUT NO MO PUNJABS

Take India as our best example. They are the only culture that --- oh my goodness! for shame! --- dared to fight back over a long sustained period.

The Hindus, God(s) bless 'em, saved their culture but lost 80 million souls and took a nasty 20% infection.

But now, the Hindu elites are crawling around on all fours and barking like dogs to the cracking whips of their (and our) BDSM masters, the scowling Mohammedans.

Marhall McLuhan was prescient.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 3, 2006 8:02 PM

Keep juries but change the law. That's my two penn'orth. If a thing's not broke, don't fix it. Why should we abandon hard won liberties because of Islam. Islam is the problem, not juries. Posted by: Interested

De-recognizing Islam as a religion - a good and necessary step in itself - is totally irrelevant to this issue, which was about whether or not to apply the death sentence to the would-be 20th hijacker of 9/11. It's true that the case was botched when the prosecution apparently mishandled evidence in the investigation. However, the question of trial by judge or jury is tangential to this case.

Instead, this case represents the problem presented by those who treat terrorism as a law & order problem, as opposed to an act of war. If it is a law & order problem, then that amounts to recognizing that going after Moussaoui, Osama, Jose Padilla et al is the equivalent of going after Al Capone, rather than, say, a military operation against the Nazis.

If it is an act of war, it should have been dealt with by military tribunals, and the defendents (not just the ones at Gitmo) should have been enemy combatants, regardless of whether they were born in the US, arrested in the US, arrested overseas,... The defendents get to prove whether or not they are guilty (not a problem here, since Moussaoui never denied anything), and once that is established, the tribunals take it from there. Contrary to perception, these aren't kangaroo courts - the tribunals do have the onus of establishing guilt or innocence, but once that is established, other things that would be there in civilian courts such as mitigating factors (Mummy didn't love me,...) are not admissible when determining whether to execute the enemy.

Despite the presidents fighting words to the contrary, this war has been fought half heartedly, not by the brave soldiers on the battlefield, but by the civilian derelicts in the administration, on the cases of Johnny bin Walker Lindh, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid, Moussaoui, al Arian, as well as issues like whether to bomb Afghanistan during Ramadan, the reconstruction of Afghanistan or Iraq (projects that shouldn't have been undertaken while the war was still on: screw those who say,"You break it, you fix it"), the vaccilating on Iran, and any number of other scenarios. Given all that, it hasn't been the law that failed us; it was the government. The politicians in the senate haven't been helpful either.

On September 2001, the President warned regimes that harbor terrorists,"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists". It's time he repeated the message, but this time to the American people, particularly those who think of Terror as a Law & Order issue.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 3, 2006 8:03 PM

bigcatgirl13106: "At least now I will not be hearing his rantings any more. This is a victory for the victims of 9/11/01."

Are you KIDDING?
Do you really think you "will not be hearing his rantings any more"?
LOL

I will bet you my paycheck on this one.

You can be GUARANTEED that you will be hearing his rantings - in the press, on TV, in books - for the rest of his life.

He is now a "living martyr" of propaganda that will NEVER end.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:04 PM

bobalharb: "Perhaps there is a good chance a death sentence will be carried out in prison."

You unfortunately don't know much about prisons, which have become a breeding and recruiting ground for Islamist Extremists, and who will rally around Moussaoui like he is a rock star hero.

Sorry no such luck.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:07 PM

Interested: "If you scrap the jury system in these cases, how can you justify not scrapping it for other cases"

Because we are at WAR.
No terrorist should get a civilian trial.
A terrorist becomes an enemy combatant.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:09 PM

... our major news source, the St. Pete Times, employs a three columnist tag team of Muslim apologists...

Thump, care to share what costumes these 3 "journalists" wear in the ring?

If any of these 3 "journalists" invoke comparisons to Ray Mysterion, then I'm flying down to Tampa and doing an intervention.

There's way too much fashion victims out there right now. I can think of about 3,000 fashion victims who died on September 11, 2001.

Ideology fashion victims, I should say.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 3, 2006 8:11 PM

Hugh says, "As for the verdict -- disgusting."

Not really. Moussaoui is not insane and his goal was to achieve martyrdom.

A life sentence has denied him that "glory." He will hate and rot for the rest of his life. That is GOOD.

As far as da'wa is concerned, that is also highly unlikely. From this report:

http://www.krdotv.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=11177

A federal law enforcement source in Colorado speculates Moussaoui will be housed in the Federal Correctional Complex commonly known as SuperMax. The prison already houses a full list of notorious guests.The facility on State Highway 67 houses the most violent offenders requiring the tightest control including eight men convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the "Una-Bomber" Ted Kaczynski, would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid, and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph.

No matter how da'wa(ized) this small group of elites become, there is no doubt that they will ever see the light of day, and all will die in prison. They are locked up tighter than a drum, and in isolation.

"Revenge is a dish best served cold," and the verdict today was icy!

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at May 3, 2006 8:12 PM

Instead, this case represents the problem presented by those who treat terrorism as a law & order problem, as opposed to an act of war.

Actually, that is my point. Make Islam a political movement, rather than a religion. Deal with it as such. Any acts that are illegal/unconstitutional can then be dealt with as acts of war, or not - depending on the law.

Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2006 8:14 PM

Because we are at WAR.

Fine. Declare war then.

Posted by: Interested at May 3, 2006 8:15 PM

Well, [4000:1] may not be a sign of weakness, but it sure as hell ain't proof of any strength.

thinker baby, watch out!, you're cracking under the pressure.:^)

Of course 4000:1 clearly indicates a weakness. Don't apologize for your logic, don't let them cow you of all people into what Dr. APF, MD terms Incremental Dhimmitude Syndrome.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 3, 2006 8:19 PM

freewoman: "The jurors in this case have a fear of muslim retribution."

No doubt.
They don't care about their fellow Americans or the 9/11 victims and what they thought.

The answer would be for patriotic Americans to hold them as outcasts to society. We continue to be too understanding to those who turn their back on their country during war time. It is time that people care what people other than Islamists think.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:36 PM

Aiken: "No matter how da'wa(ized) this small group of elites become, there is no doubt that they will ever see the light of day".

I am sorry but that is so naive.
Do you really think that Moussaoui will ONLY reach prison inmates? He will interviews, TV shows, books, etc.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:38 PM

Interested: "Fine. Declare war then"

Osama Bin Laden and the Islamist Extremists have DONE that already, or have you forgotten?

-- 2006 - Al Qaeda promises new impending attacks on USA - "question of time"
-- 2001 - Al Qaeda makes acts of war on USA - 9/11/2001
-- 1998 - Al Qaeda declares war on USA for second time
-- 1996 - Al Qaeda declares war on USA

January 19, 2006
Bin Laden tape: 'It's only a question of time'
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/19/binladen.tape/index.html
Voice warns Americans of impending attacks
An audiotaped message purported to be from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden warns the American people that plans for terror attacks in the United States are under way.

Febuary 23, 1998
Osama Bin Laden's Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans
(declaring war and plans to attack the United States)
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

August 23, 1996
Osama Bin Laden Declaration of War Against the United States of America
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/opf980830a.htm

Posted by: jeffreyimm at May 3, 2006 8:40 PM

Jeffrey Imm,

There is nothing naive about what I just said. NONE, and I mean NONE of the prisoners in that jail will EVER be allowed to speak, or publish this and that. They are finished, and they know it.

Also, this is for the benefit for all of us.

There will be NO appeal for these scumbags who strive to indoctrinate the public with their endless appeals.

They will, thank God, be forgotten.

Isn't that what they hate? To be discarded and forgotten?

Posted by: Aiken Bryce at May 3, 2006 8:54 PM

Caroline, you have a warrior's mind. Hone it, study Sun Tzu and wait patiently for the right time.

The muslim mouth is silenced. He must leave the ummah, the hive he has always known, the nest of family and kin, his tribe, and the separation will drive him insane, truly, even-in-islam, insane.

The best would be if in his isolation he was deprived of his little green book but too many are too ignorant yet to know what this book means.

Posted by: the poetess at May 3, 2006 8:58 PM

jeffreyimm, Aiken Bryce,

"Are you KIDDING?
Do you really think you "will not be hearing his rantings any more"?
LOL

I will bet you my paycheck on this one.

You can be GUARANTEED that you will be hearing his rantings - in the press, on TV, in books - for the rest of his life.

He is now a "living martyr" of propaganda that will NEVER end. "

"http://www.krdotv.com/DisplayStory.asp?id=11177

A federal law enforcement source in Colorado speculates Moussaoui will be housed in the Federal Correctional Complex commonly known as SuperMax. The prison already houses a full list of notorious guests.The facility on State Highway 67 houses the most violent offenders requiring the tightest control including eight men convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the "Una-Bomber" Ted Kaczynski, would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid, and Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph.

No matter how da'wa(ized) this small group of elites become, there is no doubt that they will ever see the light of day, and all will die in prison. They are locked up tighter than a drum, and in isolation. "

jeffreyimm,

Where Moussaoui is going, his confinement is going to be so tight that no one will ever hear from him again. He is finished.

Aiken Bryce,

Heard on the " O'Reily Factor " tonight about the prision that Moussaoui is going to. It is very max that isolation is very tight that even for worship services it will be piped in.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 3, 2006 9:18 PM

>>>Because we are at WAR.
Fine. Declare war then.

Right, Interested, but as you well know, striclty speaking we are at jihad, and not at war in our historical conception of that term.

How can Infidel nation declare jihad?

Therein lies the rub, therein lies the reason why they're on a 194 game hitting streak.

Under the externally imposed regimen of jihad, only they get to declare jihad. We don't enjoy that privelege.

MO HIJABS MO SOMALI TAXI CABS MO JOVIAL YEMENI PIRATE CABS MO BACK STABS

Thus spaketh the "Holy Prophet" Mohammed.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at May 3, 2006 9:20 PM

More info on Moussaoui's presumed destination:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence

Posted by: Shinoliite at May 3, 2006 9:39 PM

He needs to be kept in solitary confinement for most of the time lest he become a hero to some.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 3, 2006 11:24 PM

Infidel Pride,

If you remember, right after 9/11, many people in the Bush administration, advisors and military figures discussed establishing military courts outside the US and other forms of getting around the inherent and severe problems of trials for terrorists or traitors in American courts, which were foreseen as being very problematic in terms of getting justice/convictions. Unfortunately, there was apparently no action taken on this front. The Bush "war" was vitiated. I would be interested in others' knowledge of what happened and why action was not taken.

Posted by: HaMalach at May 3, 2006 11:45 PM

Some mice get to roar as Charlie Manson does. However, when the Mouse goes to Florence, CO which is just east of Canon City, nobody will hear from him again. No phone. No internet. No socializing. He will be in his cell 23/7 and in an isolated exercise cage 1/7. For proof, remember how Ted, the Unabomber got caught. They ignored him and caused him to issue a rant in the papers that eventually lead to his brother recognizing the syntax and then he was taken back to Sacramento for trial. The point is that said rant was the last thing we heard from Teddy Boy since the trial. No rants and no bombs, either. Goodbye, Mouse.

Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at May 4, 2006 1:00 AM

Ah, the old "liberals are in league with Bin Laden" gambit.

Ah, the old slur on a fellow poster. I accused nobody of "being in league" with anybody.

And if you think wacky conspiracy theories have anything to do with "liberalism" then I suggest you need to read Locke and Kant.

Actually, what most amused me about the link is that it does give a certain amount of evidence that the Islamic world can't even manufacture it's own conspiracy theories but has to get them in from the West. It's why the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf sell well in Turkey, I suppose.

But I posted the link for it's intrinsic interest, not to make a point about your friends Robert Fisk and Michael Moore, who, by the way, definitely would not regard themselves as being "in this together" with those attempting to resist the jihad.

If you don't want to read the link, don't. It's there for the interest of those who might like to. As you might, inelegantly, put it, deal with that.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 4, 2006 2:21 AM

Brian the Lionhearted, the illustrations on your website are superb.
I never tire of graphics of medieval crusaders in full battle regalia ;)
What a great way to highlight the current resurgence of a very old war.

I have bookmarked your site.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 4, 2006 2:47 AM

Zach ainta gettin out, and he ainta gunna get killed in prison. He ainta gunna write no books, and he ainta gunna make no speeches and he ainta gunna recruit anyone.
Ever hear of Pelican Island State Prison in Northern California? Those guys ainta ever goin anywhere. Thats where they put the baddest of the bad, and they are controlled. They never see another prisoner, all they see is well protected and unsympathetic guards. Thats just an example, and is probably kindergarten compared to what the feds can dream up in a max prison. Zach may not be nuts when he gets there, but it wont take long. He wont be having much fun, but he will have lots of time to pray to Allah fifty times a day, as Mohammad first directed.

We cant do away with the jury system. It is a major check on gov held by the people. Thats why judges are there to control and run everything, so that you wont notice that jurors are actually the most powerful people in the room.
If they choose, jurors can vote with their conscience rather than presented evidence.
For instance,a juror may know that the offender is guilty of a crime and vote for aquital anyway, based on the idea that the juror does not like that law, or how it was applied in this case. It is a jurors right to vote their conscience, but there is no law that say a judge must inform them of that right. If nullified juries continually refuse to convict, based on the charges were 'bad law', then, unable to get convictions, the law would be changed or dropped.
You will never get that from a judge who has to go on evidence and law only. One of the last things that judges and lawyers want you to know
is that you, as a juror, are the most powerful person in the room...if they discover you know your rights, you will probably not be selected for jury duty...

Posted by: duh_swami at May 4, 2006 3:34 AM

"Psychiatry, as we westerners understand it, is essentially culturally relative - which raises serious implications for the assumption that one can simply mix together two such disparate cultures, given that the normative behavior of one culture would be regarded as "insane" by the medical criteria of the other."
Posted by: Caroline [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 3, 2006 08:02 PM

Caroline,

You raise an interesting quandary. Regarding the criteria for diagnosing mental illness, this is indeed a messy business. Nevertheless, the past 40-some-odd years of research in the biological bases of psychological disorders show that western psychiatry--at least today--has some basis in objective science and is not simply culturally-relative. (That is not to say it does not retain some elements of cultural relativity. But my point is that it is not completely so and is to a significant extent not so).

That said, I don't think psychiatry has (or should have) any relevance in this case. All the evidence indicated that Moussaoui knew what he was doing, had formed criminal intent, and had no delusions about the real consequences of his actions and, later, of his refusal to reveal critical information that would have saved the lives of 3000 people.

As I believe you have noted before, part of the problem is that Islam gets classified as a religion. Of course, Islam contains a core element of criminal ideology, permitting rape, pedophilia, extortion, torture, banditry, terrorism, segregation/apartheid, slavery, wife-beating, dhimmitude, violent imperialism, violent ethnic cleaning (see *Notes)

*Notes: Islam permits rape (4:24; also Mohammad's rape of Safiya and other captives), pedophilia (65:4; Mohammad's 'consummation' with Aisha when she was 9, had married her when she was 6 or 7), extortion (e.g., letter to Caesar saying "embrace Islam and you will be safe"--embrace Islam means either pay the zakat (as a Muslim) or else pay the jizya (as subject to Islamic rule); torture (e.g., of Safiya's husband to extract information about the location of treasure at Khaibar, etc.), banditry (Sura 8, Battle of Badr, a massacre in which banditry was the least of the crimes committed by Muslims), terrorism (3:151, 59:13, etc., also sahih hadith "I have been made victorious with terror"--the prophet Mohammad), segregation/apartheid (i.e., Muslims separate from non-Muslims, 8:73, 4:144, 28:86, etc), slavery (any number of verses, but take 16:71 which says it is Allah's will), wife-beating (4:34); dhimmitude (9:29), violent imperialism (9:32-33; 48:28, 61:9), violent ethnic cleansing (8:39, 2:193) etc.). Our society needs to begin to treat Islam as what it really is: An ideology that originated in and is centered upon organized crime (and which has fringe or peripheral elements of moderates; i.e., those who don't follow or else explain away the bad stuff).

Posted by: Archimedes at May 4, 2006 5:33 AM

"Take India as our best example. They are the only culture that --- oh my goodness! for shame! --- dared to fight back over a long sustained period.

The Hindus, God(s) bless 'em, saved their culture but lost 80 million souls and took a nasty 20% infection." (Alarmed Pig Farmer)

My understanding has always been that what saved India from the Muslims was the same as what saved most of sub-Saharan Africa: they couldn't get their cattle and horses ( the latter necessary for conquest) past the "fly" belt - mainly tsetse flies but their are a lot of unpleasnt tropical diseases down there: they kept Europeans out of most of tropical Africa until the mid-19thC. The acclimatised Hindus always had the south of the country as a base to re-group and if possible ounter-attack. This partly explains the peculiar confinement of Islam to its own latitutidinal zone.

Posted by: wallyUK at May 4, 2006 5:43 AM

I hope that the prison doesn't let this scumbag have his book of terror in his cell. They don't let sex offenders have porno, so why should they let terrorists have access to their book of inspiration? Rot in prison for 60 years then burn in hell for eternity Zach.

Posted by: Hillbilly at May 4, 2006 7:33 AM

Archimedes: "That said, I don't think psychiatry has (or should have) any relevance in this case. All the evidence indicated that Moussaoui knew what he was doing, had formed criminal intent, and had no delusions about the real consequences of his actions "

I am definitely in agreement that the critical issue here is Moussaoui's criminal intent, as well as premeditation and capacity to appreciate the consequences of his crimes, such that his devotion to Islam could not, in our courts, be viewed as a mitigating factor here (as has been tried by defense attorneys in several other cases overseas, for example).

"Of course, Islam contains a core element of criminal ideology, permitting rape, pedophilia, (extortion, torture, banditry, terrorism, segregation/apartheid, slavery, wife-beating, dhimmitude, violent imperialism, violent ethnic cleanin"

The problem is that the Muslim who is able to murder the infidel, steal from him, rape the infidel women and so on - is able to do these things without any CONSCIENCE - which is a cardinal feature of SOCIOPATHY. It appears in that sense that something which is considered abnormal in western psychiatric terms is normative from the Muslim perspective. On the other hand, I suppose that when westerners are at war, these norms no longer apply and soldiers are able to kill without the interference of conscience - because its war. Therein lies the problem I suppose, which is that Muslims ARE at war with the infidels and therefore have no conscience about these acts while infidels are NOT at war with Muslims, which is why they have invited them en masse to live as neighbors within their societies. Now they will have to struggle with trying to understand the Muslims actions (those within their societeies) in terms of deviance (sociopathy and lack of conscience)- as seen, for example, in Moussaoi's defense team bringing up his childhood etc. - because they have failed to appreciate that the Muslim is fighting a war and that these concepts all get jettisoned during war. I suppose viewing it that way one could preserve the universality of western psychiatric concepts. In other words, Mouussaoi and others like him (including Muslims in the west who have no conscience about stealing from the infidel and so on) aren't sociopaths. They're simply at war!

Posted by: Caroline at May 4, 2006 7:39 AM

WC et. al.

I think you are right on the mark with your conclusions about Islam being something mental.

Check out my blog entry from Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Is Moussaoui the crazy one?

The suburban Crusader

Posted by: Brian the Lionhearted at May 4, 2006 7:45 AM

caroline,

Agreed--they're at war, and we're not (at least, not whole-heartedly). Our approach to war is different than theirs. We don't jettison our concerns for unintended civilian casualties. Even if we had to do something like we did in bombing Dresden in WWII, we'd still feel bad about it. But they wouldn't feel bad at all about wiping every last one of us off the face of the planet if they had the fire-power to do it.

They know about our "weakness" of compassion. The jihadists are always talking about that. They know it and they exploit it. They know that if they hide amidst a civilian population (and nearly all of them do), our empathy for that population will inhibit us from using our full military power against them. At the same time, they know that it is extraordinarily expensive and time-consuming for us to defend our civilian population, so they exploit that by deliberately attacking our civilian population and incurring enormous human and economic costs.

We have not yet exploited their weakness, which was shown during the cartoon crisis: Their ideology is extremely weak and fragile. It cannot withstand even a small amount of criticism, therefore they must use force and threats and pleading (cries of victimhood), economic and political jihad, to protect their ideology. We need a massive education campaign on television, radio, and mainstream newspapers to expose the major problems in the Islamic ideology. We need to swamp it like a Tsunami. We could destroy the Islamic ideology easily if we could remove the negative kind of political correctness that holds many people back (that removal, as a certain poster I know will remind us, is a tall order). What we need to give up is our compassion for someone else's ideology. We can maintain compassion for the person, but be ruthless (i.e., unapologetically truthful) toward the ideas and beliefs. We are actually quite ruthless in criticizing our own traditions. We need to extend that ruthlessness in criticism of Islam. It is simply sheer stupidity, moral stupidity, intellectual stupidity, not to be able to criticize rape, terror, and all the other crap in Islam, due to some misplaced concern for people's feelings. If we were truly concerned, we would give this medicine to the Muslims as soon as possible, en masse, turn them all into disbelievers or reformists. Demolish the ideology in order to force (a) a massive wave of apostasy in most and (b) radical modern reform in others who wish to hold on to some elements of the ideology that might survive a full assault.

Back to the case of Moussaoui and the issue of insanity...

The psychological aspects are important to study. (I am interested in that area). Nevertheless, even if we assume that the inculcation of jihadist Islam (i.e., classic Islam) causes an empathy deficit that is specific to the jihadist's attitude toward non-Muslims (and that appears to be the case), this does not alter the fact that he is still held as criminally responsible. Ted Bundy was almost certainly a psychopath, and probably had some neurologically-based deficit in the circuits of the brain that deal with empathetic feeling and thought, but he still knew what he was doing when he committed his crimes, and was still criminally responsible. All we require as a society is that people understand and follow the rules.

The inculcation of the Koran has two effects: It instills hatred toward the non-Muslims, and it reduces the normal inhibitions that one might have (due to empathy) toward non-Muslims. In other words, in regards to actively opposing non-Muslims, Islam removes the brakes and puts on the accelerator.

Posted by: Archimedes at May 4, 2006 9:45 AM

...of course, jihadists such as Zarqawi et al need to be fought; but the ideological battle is one which we have not begun en masse (we have started on a small scale).

Posted by: Archimedes at May 4, 2006 9:54 AM

I haven't read the above thread so I don't know if anyone has mentioned that this guy will be in SuperMax - which is solitary confinement - for the rest of his life. No chance for da'wa.

Posted by: CGW at May 4, 2006 10:35 AM

Archimedes - yes. the Ted Bundy analogy is apt. He may be a sociopath but we still hold him responsible for his crimes (because of his capacity for premeditation and capacity to appreciate the consequences)just as we hold Moussaoui responsible. I guess what I was getting at is the fact, though, that we do view someone like Ted Bundy as "deviant", outside the norm. By labeling him a sociopath (or a psychopath) we are in fact expressing that there is something wrong with him from a psychiatric POV.

But now with Islam we are faced with literally millions of Ted Bundy's - who could kill or rape or steal from the infidel with no conscience whatsoever. Are we to consider them all deviant sociopaths/psychopaths? (irrespective of the fact that we would still, as you say, hold them criminally responsible for their acts). That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. It also leads to the spectre of psychiatrists being called on to testify on what went wrong with the individuals upbringing, as we saw in the case of Moussaoi – the operative assumption being here that Moussaoi is “deviant” and that this deviance is explicable in psychiatric terms. (I think there is a distinction between “insane” – in the sense of not appreciating the consequences of one’s actions and “sociopathic/psychopathic”. In the former case one could be judged “not guilty” of a crime. In the latter case, one is held guilty but there is still the assumption of deviance, the assumption that this isn’t “normal”, the assumption that there is something psychiatrically wrong with the person).

It was that problem that was leading me to speculate that western psychiatry must in some sense be culturally relative (to avoid having to conclude the west now has potentially millions of citizens who we would have to view as “deviant” from a psychiatric perspective, even if not criminally “insane” in the sense of “unaccountable” for their actions). Then, I was trying to get around that conclusion by noting that war demands a kind of sociopathy in its warriors – that war makes sociopathy normative in that isolated context. So we don’t wonder whether there is something “wrong” with our soldiers that they can kill people and feel no remorse. We only ask that question of those who live in our communities as one of us – like Ted Bundy. What we seem to have now is potentially millions of our own citizens who are view themselves as at war with us. So their attitudes and behaviors aren’t really “deviant” – it’s merely war. But since we refuse to recognize that fact and since we aren’t at war with them and since they now live as citizens within our communities, we have only the language of deviance to describe their behavior. From that perspective, we are obliged to regard Mouussaoi as a sociopath, like Ted Bundy. And we would likewise be obliged to view possibly millions of Muslims among us – in asmuch as they could kill us, steal from us, rape us etc. without conscience or remorse – as sociopaths. That’s the absurd situation we’ve gotten ourselves in by not understanding what Islam demands of its adherents. By not understanding that they are at war. And I’m doing a really lousy job of articulating this – that’s for sure!

Posted by: Caroline at May 4, 2006 11:03 AM

The very fact that Moussaoui may be going to a SuperMax facility is going to become a cause celebre for the Left. You should be aware that Amnesty International has consistently criticized "supermax" facilities as being "cruel and unusual punishment." They insist that solitary confinement should only be used as an extra punishment in prison, not be the routine means of handling of prisoners. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also criticized "supermax" facilities for similar reasons.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0509-01.htm

http://www.amnesty.ca/usa/supermax.php

Now the international Left has exactly the issue they want--a highly public figure (Moussaoui) whom they can use to call into question the entire need for and use of "supermax" facilities.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0610-10.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0112-02.htm

We won't start to win this war until we get leadership with enough backbone to tell this international peanut gallery of left-wing self-appointed umpires on human rights to go piss up a rope. Our Founding Fathers and every American leader since then never needed the "international community" to decide issues of civil liberties and rights in this country--and we don't need them now. We can run our democracy our own way.

Posted by: Steven L. at May 4, 2006 12:51 PM

Caroline,

I do get what you're saying, but I seem to feel the urge to ramble on some more...

Then, I was trying to get around that conclusion by noting that war demands a kind of sociopathy in its warriors – that war makes sociopathy normative in that isolated context. So we don’t wonder whether there is something “wrong” with our soldiers that they can kill people and feel no remorse.

Here's where I would say that many (most?) of our soldiers do feel some regrets about those they kill. To the extent that they don't, this is seen in the context of the "just war." This of course has been questioned in the case of Iraq. But there
are key differences that always need to be kept in mind: Islamists target civilians; we don't. In addition, Islamists hate us--and I mean all of us and even moderate Muslims--and do not extend empathy to us. They have been indoctrinated to hate us. This has definite effects on the actual neural systems that deal with empathy. Generally, our soldiers have not been indoctrinated to hate them.

Islamists attack us, and have always attacked us, primarily because of our beliefs and who we are. Islam has built-in features that tend to push a non-violent dispute to a violent one and, when it reaches the violent stage, they seek perpetuation and indeed escalation as opposed to de-escalation and curtailment of the violence. We have only attacked them in response to their killing of (a) our civilians, or (b) some other countries' civilians.

When we strike them, we wring our hands and grimace over the unintended civilian casualties. When they strike our civilians intentionally, Islamists and their supporters jump for joy, experience boundless glee and pleasure, dance in the streets, gloat, boast, blame the victims, threaten more to come, announce the immanent destruction of all non-Muslims, etc.

My point: There is little in the way of equivalence between how we regard war and how they regard war. Simply put, someone who is involved in the unjustified killing of human beings needs to be either captured or killed, and there is no moral problem in doing that.

A good way of contrasting the Islamists view of us and our view of them is this: Suppose the respective military strengths were reversed, and Islamists had the same amount of weaponry as the U.S., Britain, etc. Clearly, these Islamists would wipe us (civilians) off the face of the planet and then jump for joy and dance in the streets. There would be no negotiations, diplomatic wrangling, attempts to reduce civilian casualties, etc. They would immediately try to exterminate every last one of us and would take enormous pleasure in doing so.

We only ask that question of those who live in our communities as one of us – like Ted Bundy. What we seem to have now is potentially millions of our own citizens who are view themselves as at war with us. So their attitudes and behaviors aren’t really “deviant” – it’s merely war.

I think deviance per se is not the critical issue, but you may be correct that that comes into play.

But since we refuse to recognize that fact and since we aren’t at war with them and since they now live as citizens within our communities, we have only the language of deviance to describe their behavior. From that perspective, we are obliged to regard Mouussaoi as a sociopath, like Ted Bundy.

(Note: Sociopath and psychopath are the same thing; psychopath is the more recent term--last time I checked anyway).

I think the analogy which I introduced viz Bundy and Moussaoui was not precise (and I hesitated adding it earlier). My point with Bundy was only that he could still be held criminally responsible, despite being, probably, a psychopath.

The causes of Bundy's psychopathy are perhaps different than those of Moussaoui's (if Moussaoui can be called a psychopath). Nevertheless, both those men may have had genetic predispositions toward violence. (Note: People tend to see the citation of Moussaoui's violent father in terms of the usual lame excuses for criminality, but whenever you have an abusive father you have kids who've inherited 50% of his genes. This, of course, excuses nothing, but is something that would be taken into account by a scientists trying to put together all the causal variables in explaining the behaviour). In any population, there is a certain percentage of people who have psychopathic tendencies. It is not a single trait but a constellation of traits. (Though I suspect the central deficit pertains to a general lack of empathic capability). In western society, our laws and social standards tend to keep these people in check--at least, their most outrageous potential behaviours are kept in check to some extent. (Though many people who score high on psychopathy tests are in powerful positions in the society).

In the case of Islam, here we have an ideological system that gives a free outlet for those with psychopathic tendencies. The outlet is the set of rules pertaining to what can be done to non-Muslims. The Islamic society generally forbids attack and punishment upon pious Muslims, but permits attack and punishment on non-Muslims as well as Muslims who are not pious enough. The code of Islamic society when implemented results in a system of rewards and punishments designed to shape men to act like Mohammad and to shape women to act like Mohammad's wives (when they were obedient, of course). In other words, Islam contains a core element of criminal ideology (rape, murder, etc., are crimes in any culture--except Islam as regards to the treatment of non-Muslims).

So western civilization is better than Islam at keeping the psychopaths in check. Islam gives them carte blanche with respect to what they are allowed to do to non-Muslims (e.g., rape, kill, terrorize, etc.)

At the same time, Islam encourages the general population of Muslims to hate, demonize, and dehumanize the non-Muslims. By instilling these attitudes through education and propaganda, the strict Islamic society provides support to the core of hard-liners, in the form of "moderates" who are nonetheless quite hostile toward western society but do not direct that hostility toward islam itself. Then there are a small percentage of moderates who are socially progressive and want to see changes in Islamic traditions, who have only a small impact, but who nonetheless can engage in a certain amount of criticism toward status quo Islam. They of course are punished by the mainstream Muslims who are running the show. Islamic society, like Western society, is definitely a composite of different kinds of individual personalities and subgroups.

The key difference between Islam and the West is in the ideological underpinnings, and in their internal rewards/punishments systems, of the respective societies.

Posted by: Archimedes at May 5, 2006 4:05 AM

Archimedes - I appreciate you taking so much time to respond to my thoughts on this. I see what you're saying - namely that Islam as a system essentially "nurtures" what might otherwise be more latent traits ("nature"). The incidence of sociopathic/psychopathic (yes - my understanding also that these are the same thing only I though sociopath was the more recent term) "traits" (whatever it is that causes lack of empathy from a neurological POV) may be more or less constant across populations but environments (the societies) affect the extent to which such latent traits are more or less likely to find expression. That makes a lot of sense. Islam, and the hatred it inculcates, provides the "nurture" side of the equation . By the way, I am in total agreement with your 9:45 post where you said:

"We are actually quite ruthless in criticizing our own traditions. We need to extend that ruthlessness in criticism of Islam. It is simply sheer stupidity, moral stupidity, intellectual stupidity, not to be able to criticize rape, terror, and all the other crap in Islam, due to some misplaced concern for people's feelings. If we were truly concerned, we would give this medicine to the Muslims as soon as possible..."

When you can see the inevitability of the horror that is coming to the infidels as the Muslim population grows in their midst, what on earth do Muslims' "feelings" have to do with any of this? It is absolutely absurd to have to feign "respect" for an ideology that demands one's own death and suffering (made worse by the obvious glee - as you point out - with which Muslims celebrate it). I can feel nothing but utter and complete disgust for Islam. I also think that is an entirely normal response. We need to not only criticize the ideology as you point out but if somehow 4/5 of the world's population admitted feeling disgust and contempt towards Islam (the ideology not the people) and expressed it (I mean verbally) maybe the world's Muslims would simply be shamed into letting go of their self-centered delusions. Ali Sina seems to think that could work, knowing as he does so intimately, how the Muslim mind works.

Posted by: Caroline at May 5, 2006 8:21 AM