I take his comments very seriously and I wonder how clued in he was to AQ and their management. Based upon everything I have read and seen I don't think that he is voicing anything that is uncommon. They have a goal that they are working towards and they see us as an impediment.In response to another question, Moussaoui expressed a desire to wipe out American Jews, saying he views them differently than the rest of the U.S. population.
"For the American Jew, we will exterminate them," he said. "For Christians, we have a way to acclimate them if they don't fight us."
I think that history has demonstrated that one should always pay attention when someone says that they are going to try and exterminate you. Moussaoui may not be the head of Iran. He may not have the same tools at his disposal, but he is representative of those we are at war with. It is an ideological battle that we cannot afford to lose.
There are some people who are going to read this post and accuse me overreacting. I guarantee that some people will accuse me of engaging in hysterical hyperbole and claim that I shouldn't have any fear or concern about this. But I would much rather err on the side of caution.
People should read what men like Moussaoui have to say. I don't think that we are dealing with sociopaths.
"Testifying shortly after his defense team began presenting its case for sparing his life, Moussaoui also said he had no regrets about the attacks and the grief they caused the victims' families. When asked directly if he had any regrets, he replied: "None whatsoever."Look at this from CNN:
He is not the only one who thinks this. This is not a game. Take these comments seriously, it is very important.Offering a lengthy explanation of why he hates Americans, Moussaoui criticized the United States' support for Israel. He said Muslims have been at war with Christians and Jews for centuries. Israel, he said, is "just a missing star in the American flag."
Moussaoui told jurors that Islam requires Muslims to be the world's superpower as he flipped through a copy of the Koran searching for verses to support his assertions. One he cited requires non-Muslim nations to pay a tribute to Muslim countries.
"We have to be the superpower. You have to be subdued. We have to be above you," Moussaoui said."
8 comments:
How could anyone not take these thoughts seriously. The scary part is how many other's are there with these same thoughts all over the world.
I completely agree.
Randi,
So very true.
BW,
We are in agreement.
Zeruel,
It is much smarter to err on the side of caution when dealing with these people.
The reality is that there are members of AQ who are unquestionably sane who are interested in harming Americans, Jews and anyone else who opposes their goals.
That is enough for me.
"The reality is that there are members of AQ who are unquestionably sane who are interested in harming Americans, Jews and anyone else who opposes their goals."
Ideas and actions are very different things. The former is protected by the first amendment and therefore not punishable by law. If the latter has criminal intent it needs to be proven.
Moussaoui was only vaguely associated with the 9/11 hijackers, but not actively involved. I don't think you should imprison people for their ideas only.
Remains that he might have prior knowledge of the impending attack so that he could be convicted of dereliction of civil duty. But even evidence for that is flimsy at best and not enough to convict him for.
Ideas and actions are very different things. The former is protected by the first amendment and therefore not punishable by law.
Actually the First Amendment is not as broad as some want to portray it. You cannot say just anything. If you read Gitlow Versus New York you'll see one example of how this works.
For a more detailed response look at this
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138, is a 1925 decision by the Supreme Court that upheld the constitutionality of criminal anarchy statutes.
The defendant, Benjamin Gitlow, was a member of the Left Wing Section of the Socialist party, a splinter group of that party formed in opposition to its dominant policy of "moderate socialism." This section criticized the mainstream of the party for its acknowledgment of the necessity of the democratic parliamentary state and its insistence on introducing socialism through the legislative process. The Left Wing Section clearly advocated the necessity of effectuating a Communist revolution by a militant and revolutionary socialism based on the class struggle. It viewed mass industrial revolts as the mechanism by which the parliamentary state would be destroyed and replaced by a system of Communist socialism.
Gitlow was responsible for the publication of these views in writings titled "The Left Wing Manifesto." The "Manifesto" was then published in The Revolutionary Age, the official paper of the Left Wing. The opinions expressed in these publications formed the bases for the defendant's convictions under Sections 160 and 161 of the penal law of New York, which were the criminal anarchy statutes.
Section 160 defined criminal anarchy and prescribed that the verbal or written advocacy of the doctrine be treated as a felony. Section 161 delineated the conduct that constituted the crime of advocacy of criminal anarchy and stated that its punishment be imprisonment, a fine, or both. The proscribed conduct consisted of the verbal or written advertisement or teaching of the duty, necessity, or propriety of overthrowing organized government by violence, assassination, or other unlawful acts. A person was also prohibited from publishing, editing, knowingly circulating, or publicly displaying any writing embodying this doctrine.
There was a two-count indictment against Gitlow. The first charged that the defendant had advocated, advised, and taught the duty, necessity, and propriety of unlawfully overthrowing organized government through the writings titled "The Left Wing Manifesto." The second count charged that he had printed, published, knowingly circulated, and distributed The Revolutionary Age, containing the writings set forth in the first count advocating the doctrine of criminal anarchy.
There was no evidence of any effect ensuing from the publication and circulation of the "Manifesto."
In sustaining the defendant's conviction, the Court assumed that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevented the states from impairing the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. It thereby departed from its previous position that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Court held, however, that the statutes, as applied in this case, did not deprive the defendant of freedom of expression in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court noted that the statutes did not penalize the utterance or publication of abstract doctrine or academic theory having no propensity to incite concrete action. It found that what was proscribed was language advocating, advising, or teaching the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means, and that such language implied an urging to action. The Court held that the "Manifesto" was neither the expression of philosophical abstraction nor the mere prediction of future events; it was the language of direct incitement.
The Court reasoned that the means advocated for engendering the destruction of organized government—mass industrial uprisings, political mass strikes, and revolutionary mass action—necessarily implies the use of force and violence and are inherently unlawful in a democratic system of government. It ruled that freedom of expression does not grant an absolute right to speak or publish, without responsibility, whatever one wishes or an unqualified immunity from punishment for every possible utterance or publication. The state, in the exercise of its police power, can indisputably punish those who abuse the freedom of speech and press by utterances adverse to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals, incite to crime, or breach the public peace. In furtherance of its primary and essential right of self-preservation, a state can penalize expression imperiling the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means.
The Court also ruled that great deference must be accorded to the determination by the state that utterances advocating the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means are so opposed to the general welfare and involve such danger of substantive evil that they can be penalized in the exercise of its police power. Such police statutes can only be declared unconstitutional if they are arbitrary or unreasonable. In addition, the Court noted that the immediate danger is not diminished because the effect of a particular utterance cannot be precisely foreseen. It indicated that the state need not defer the enactment of protective measures until there is immediate danger of its destruction; it can quash the peril at its onset.
The Court also stated that when the state has ascertained that utterances of a certain type entail such danger of substantive evil that they can be punished, the issue of whether any particular utterance within the ambit of the prohibited class is likely, in and of itself, to bring about the substantive evil, is not subject to consideration. It is sufficient that the statute itself is constitutional and that the use of the language comes within its prohibition.
Additionally, the Court ruled that the general, broad "clear and present danger" test as used in other cases was inapplicable to cases such as Gitlow, where the legislature itself has previously determined the danger of substantive evil arising from specified utterances.
In subsequent cases (for example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]; Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 94 S. Ct. 326, 30 L. Ed. 2d 303 [1973]), the Court rejected the doctrine it formulated in Gitlow that incitement to action is implicit in mere advocacy of unlawful acts. The Court subsequently held that freedom of expression does not allow a state to prohibit advocacy of resort to force or unlawful acts except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite such action.
That is a balanced, inclusive explanation of the law. And i agree if you directly urge for hate or crime in such a manner that it is becoming an instruction for a felony, that law should be applied.
What Moussaoui did however, was nothing more than apologizing AQ and 9/11 and therefore does not fall under the concerning law.
Sorry Zeruel,
We disagree on this one.
Post a Comment