CE Week #15: “Sept. 11 suspects offer to plead guilty”
Trial judge postpones pleas
|
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – Confessed al-Qaida kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four accused co-plotters offered Monday to plead guilty to orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a move that could leave President-elect Barack Obama to decide whether to execute them.
The surprise turnabout came in what was meant to be a routine pretrial hearing.
The Pentagon seeks the death penalty for all five men. And the trial judge postponed any pleas until lawyers sort out two key issues at the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II: whether two of the five men are mentally competent to join the others in admitting to their roles in the worst terrorist attacks on U.S. soil; and whether the 2006 act of Congress that created the war court allows accused terrorists charged in a capital case to submit guilty pleas, without a jury of at least 12 U.S. military officers present to hear them and the evidence.
Victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, among five the Pentagon sponsored to observe the hearings, offered opposing views on the prospect of executions.
“If there ever was a case that warranted the death penalty, this is the one,” declared Hamilton Peterson, who lost his parents aboard United Airlines Flight 93.
“They do not deserve the glory of execution,” said Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham died on the same flight, struggling with the hijackers to crash the airliner in a Pennsylvania field.
“We should ensure that these dreadful people live out their lives in an American prison, totally under the control of the people they profess to hate,” she added.
The defendants made no explicit mention of the death penalty, or “martyrdom” as Mohammed calls it, in an appearance before the tribunal judge, Army Col. Stephen Henley.
Instead, the judge asked each man whether he wanted to waive his right to challenge the charges, and whether he believed prosecutors could prove his guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“I understand,” Mohammed replied, going first. “I hope that you will assign a proceeding in the near future, as fast as possible, to get over with this play.”
Mohammed earlier had declared his distrust of the system and said he would not distinguish among any of the Americans staging the trial – from judge and defense attorney to President George W. Bush and “the CIA, who tortured me.”
The spy agency has confirmed it waterboarded Mohammed into confessing to plotting a worldwide string of terror, before his transfer to the prison camps here two years ago.
Added Yemeni Ramzi Binalshibh, accused of helping the Hamburg, Germany, suicide squad: “We the brothers, all of us, we would like to submit our confession.”
Nothing will happen soon. The judge instructed prosecutors to research and write a brief on whether the legislation that created the war court envisioned letting an accused plead guilty in a death penalty case.
Moreover, the judge said he would not accept guilty pleas from co-defendants Binalshibh and Saudi Mustafa Hawsawi until the court resolves questions on their mental capacity to stand trial.
The prison camp has Binalshibh on psychotropic drugs. He allegedly helped a Hamburg al-Qaida cell, whose members became some of the hijackers. The health issue of Hawsawi, the plot’s alleged financier, is contained in a still-classified memorandum his Army defense attorney filed with the court.
Mohammed appeared as his own attorney on Monday, his fourth hearing meant to set conditions for the joint conspiracy trial alleging the five conspired to have suicide squads hijack airplanes and then strike the Pentagon and World Trade Center.
Ultimately, the commander in chief has the last say on execution, and the case involving Mohammed and his four accused co-plotters is not likely to be settled before Bush leaves office Jan. 20.
Judge Henley disclosed the five men made their offer, signed by each alleged Sept. 11 conspirator on Nov. 4 – Election Day – after prison camp guards arranged for a rare joint meeting of the group.
Wow…this is one of those articles where you are afraid to take a position because it screams whether you are for or against capital punishment. This is a really sensitive issue and I have mixed feelings about the proper way to punish individuals who committed such horrendous crimes. My gut tells me they don’t deserve to live. They conspired and succeeded in killing so many people and it just isn’t fair that they should get to live the rest of their life while so many others had their lives cut short. I agree with the statement “If there ever was a case that warranted the death penalty, this is the one”. I mean how much worse can it get? Plus keeping these men in prison means the taxpayers basically get to pay for them. On the other hand I can see the point of “They do not deserve the glory of execution”. These men are probably wishing they would die and why should we grant that wish. This statement is supported by the fact that the five men (or 3 is 2 aren’t mentally with it) are willing to plead guilty, knowing what the consequence is. It is really interesting how Barack Obama will probably get the final say in deciding if the men should be executed, not a jury. I guess it is safe to say any jury would be byest (I can’t spell it) and maybe the president is the most equipped to make that kind of a decision.
Connection: This article can be linked to the 7th Amendment. The 7th Amendment states that under common law the accused has the right to a trial by jury. While normally the jury would be of the accused peers, this jury would be made up of 12 military officials (which seems appropriate) if there will even be one. If there is one it will probably only be in prosecuting, not sentencing.
Clear and simple, this man deserves to die. I’m not afraid to say it. The other four, while a couple of them may be mentally ill, also deserve to die. Before you say how I’m such a horrible person, think about what they’ve done. We’ve lost thousands of innocent Americans because of these demons. Their only desire in life is to destroy America. How can you honestly say that we should save these people and let them live? And when they are executed, they are not going to get their 77 virgins they’ve been so eager to get. They’re going to be condemned to hell. That’s my opinion anyway. But my point is what is America anymore if we don’t believe in what we supposedly stand for? Our country is not a bunch of quitters and pushovers. We stand strong and united, and letting these men live is sending the wrong message to the world and the terrorists. Everyone may have differing beliefs on the death penalty, but I think we all agree on one thing – we need to pull America together. Letting these monsters live would be a very, very sad day. That would be the day America has proven it no longer believes in strict justice. No pressure, Mr. Obama.
Connection: While I can’t think of one vocabulary word that describes this situation, this definitely relates to differing beliefs in our country and what we need to do about them. Obviously people will disagree with my beliefs, but we still need to focus on the bigger picture about terrorism and our stance on it. Kudos to President Bush for never negotiating with them. We negotiated with the Germans before WWII. Look where that led us. The terrorists don’t want negotiations; they want to see our country destroyed.
Haley brings up an excellent point in her connection that through the 7th amendment; everyone has the right to trial by jury. With this point, I disagree with the author of this article that Obama will have the final decision on the execution. Yes, the president has gained more power, and he could easily get involved with his input, but he couldn’t be the sole decision maker. The judicial branch was created to make these types of decisions and is very distinctly separated from the executive branch on these grounds. By law, the 5 men are fully entitled to a prosecution by jury with a decision that will be made solely by judge Hensley. Thus, if the author is arguing that a hearing would be futile because “Ultimately, the commander in chief has the last say on execution”, then they would be wrong. In many cases presidents distinctly avoid these trials because of the controversial stances and do not want to further divide the public through their example. While I personally would not object to their executions, many people would. And Obama, with a clean slate and a good reputation to build on, would not want to jeopardize his approval by dividing the nation over a highly controversial execution case.
Connection: Bill of Attainder- (an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.)
The five men that admitted to being guilty and that may want to avoid a trial could be issued a bill of attainder. This can be issued by the legislative branch only, further supporting that Obama’s decision or opinion is not the final say. The decision for now is to hold a prosecution without a final decision, but when the final decision is made Obama can’t reverse the decision or be the single influence of that decision unless the ruling conflicted with the constitution (which would eventually have to go back to the courts and be revised). If the 7th amendment is not used for these men to a trial, a bill of attainder could be issued instead.
It definitely seems that there are continually these issues cropping up that President Obama has to prepare for in his first days in office. This is one of them, and is likely to ignite tensions where this is concerned. The emotions that will arise when dealing with those who have confessed to terror attacks, and the controversial methods for which this confession was extracted make it a very tricky choice. Either side would likely be angered by the opposing factions goal. If Mohammed is jailed, those who feel he deserves death will be enraged that he ‘got off light’ and vice versa for people who think he shouldn’t be martyred. I think it is within the presidents best interest to try and ensure the trail is as fair as possible, should they get one. Once the jury makes the decision, he could simply go along with the decision to deflect criticisms aimed at him. For my personal reaction, I feel that as it stands, they don’t deserve martyrdom, killing others should never be vindicated like that. I feel they should live out their days in prison for what they did, not giving them what they probably desire in an execution. If they go to prison, they’ll moulder there, unnoticed by the press of anyone else. Their cause won’t be vindicated or glorified or recognized barely at all, which I feel is appropriate.
Connection: Public Opinion is the Distribution of the population’s beliefs about politics and policy issues. Public Opinion, as I mentioned in my response, is heavily divided amongst two chief schools of thoughts, Execution, or imprisonment seem to be the popular options. Neither side is likely to concede that the other option has merits, and I feel that any population risks dividing the population when capital punishment is involved.
Don’t kill them. America is not concerned with the lives of these men, we are concerned with the terror aspect of their lives, and how that aspect has impacted the United States. Killing them is unnecessary. The terror aspect will be stripped, or of no concern, once they begin their everlasting prison sentence; after that, those men will not pose any threat towards the United States. The lives of these men, if sentenced to perpetual prison and not death, will become an unmanageable task: enduring endless suffering. Such an intense amount of suffering is probably the only anticathode adequate enough to cure hate, particularly the amount of hate that these men possess. Implementing suffering is a vengeful and productive response to such a crime. Suffering will force those guilty to feel the pain of isolation, just like their victims (those who lost loved ones during the attacks) did.
Connection: Single Issue Groups. The death penalty is an issue that crosses ethics with politics: the formula that creates single issue groups. Arguments are inadequate because those arguing only see a right and wrong, black and white, no compromise. So much controversy involved and so little advance.
Okay, how do you handle this information? Shouldn’t this be a huge deal in the press! These men confessed to being part of the biggest blow to the heart that America has ever suffered from a terrorist group. Clearly these men have no right to live, but do they deserve the death penalty. The death penalty is almost too easy a punishment for men who have committed such a crime. I have to agree with Alice Hoagland when she says “We should ensure that these dreadful people live out their lives in an American prison, totally under the control of the people they profess to hate.” It only seems fair that when somebody puts a country through hell trying to abolish the ‘Greatest evil,’ that they should live in hell with that evil they so fiercely hate. On the other hand, why would we ever want to keep these men alive? Honestly I doubt that they will be sentenced with a jury of 12 military officials, it’s almost a definite thing that these men will be prosecuted. I also think this will be a big deal after President-Elect Barack Obama is inaugurated and has to make the decision on whether to allow these men to live or die.
Connection:
This article relates a lot to the discussion we have had a few times called the President’s ‘Honeymoon period.’ With the confession of these men Obama is going to have to make an ethical decision that some people will love him for and some will hate him for; Whether or not to kill these five. I’m sure the question on the meaning of this war we’re fighting will also be brought up. People will be wondering why we are fighting a war when we have had people confess to the crime we are supposedly fighting against in Iraq and so forth.
I don’t know really how to respond to this article. I’m pretty sure that these five men are only confessing so that they can get their lives over with. What’s the point of sitting in prison for the rest of your life when you can just get a shot and end your life now instead?
Personally, I don’t think that just killing them is enough. Anybody that evil should be brutally punished beforehand. I agree with the families of the people who died on Sept. 11. They don’t deserve to just die. They should have to suffer for the duration of the rest of their lives. Why should they get the easy way out after they have hurt so many people? I like the idea of making them live the rest of their lives in an American prison. Not only do they hate everyone there, all the people there would hate them, too. It wouldn’t be long before they started to get what was coming to them. They should have to feel the same pain as all of the people whose lives were lost felt. I guess I’ve just always felt that it should be an eye for an eye. If you treat someone really bad, especially to the point of killing them for no reason (which these people did to numerous amounts), they should also be treated just as bad until they die.
When it finally does come time for them to die, I don’t believe that just putting them to sleep is enough. I agree with capital punishment, especially when it is for crimes as bad as this. Some of the capital punishment things don’t even seem bad enough, though. These horrible people should get shot in the leg and slowly bleed to death for all I care. I’m pretty sure that is about the only pain that can amount to what all of the people who were affected by this felt.
Connection: I’m pretty sure we haven’t talked about capital punishment in class, but I think we have had blogs about it before. I think it would be an interesting thing to talk about one of these days, since it is one of those things that you are either for or against, kind of like gay marriage and abortion. I may be wrong, but in this context, I don’t think there would be any other way to kill these people.
Man. I hate torture. Even if it is only psychological torture (like waterboarding) it is still torture. After reading the book by McCain, Faith of my Fathers, I feel very upset that we have to use torture to get answers out of others. I completely understand that sometimes it is necessary to do this, but I just hate to think about what it would be like to be in the terrorists’ shoes. I mean, that could be our US soldiers over in Iran right now, it just depends on what side you are on. I personally believe they ought to be executed because we shouldn’t waste our time and money, and their time as well, holding them in a prison cell. And we obviously can’t send them back to their country, or let them loose in America, because they are a threat. If we saw one of them on the battlefield after they confessed they were terrorists, we would have surely killed them. So just because they confessed in a prison cell doesn’t mean any different.
Connection: We talked in class about how the Bush Administration is making a very smooth transition to the Obama Administration. I hope they are making a good enough transition to allow Barack to make a very educated response to this. Surely there will be more of the likes in the future. I believe that war is inevitable in the very near future, because when there’s a depression, there’s a war. If the Bush team makes a good enough transition for Obama and fills him in with all the details, hopefully we will see a great leader ahead of us, who is not only strong with the economy, but can handle war as well as Bush is.
These dudes deserve to die. But I agree with both sides of the argument. These guys are obviously guilty because they confessed it, but I’m not sure if putting them to death is the right thing to do. Yes I think that they deserve to die for what they did, but I also agree with the lady who said that they should rot and be ruled by those that they say they hate. I think that this will be the defining moment of Obama’s foreign policy because what he does here will influence the terrorists that are still out there in the Middle East and such places. This could be the point in which Obama decides that he needs to make an example of these punks and show the world what America does to the people who mass murder our citizens. It will be like the opposite of the West Wing, when they told the President that it was too risky to bomb the heck out of the people who shot down the plane. Any ways, so yeah unless Bush decides to actually do something during the lame duck period and not be a panzy and just wait till it’s someone else’s problem. It could be his legacy; it was during his term that the event happened and in his term that the 5 were killed.
Connection: Lame duck- Bush can’t/ won’t really do anything because it’s not really his place to do another thing to screw over President-Elect Obama. Because of this the terrorists will have to wait about another month before their fate is decided.
I am going to be “that guy” and say that these men should not die by American hands. Yes I am against capital punishment and naturally I hate freedom because I don’t believe we have the right to execute the men responsible for thousands of American deaths. I am not saying what they did was not horribly wrong, or that they are not terrible men. I just don’t believe it is the right of any man to end the life of another. This may sound outrageous to you, but how does that make us any better than them. We are killing them for the crime of killing. These men are being held illegally in Guantanamo Bay where we are free to torture them in any way we please, is that not terrorism? Life is the single most precious thing on the planet, and who has the right to say when this precious gift deserves to be taken away? Not me, not Barrack Obama, not anyone. These men will be executed, of that I have no doubt. I think they may deserve it, but I don’t think they should be. I am glad I’m not the man who controls these men’s fates. Connection: Discussion on morals. Is the execution of these men morally right? I think not.
Really, people. It only makes sense that those men, if you can even call them that, receive what is coming to them. Though, now that I think about it, I don’t really know what Obama is going to do about it. On one hand, he could kill them. The other, hold them indefinitely in a cell somewhere. Either decision would be looked down upon by a decent amount of people.
But if I were in his position, I’d do things my way.
First: To ensure that the other terrorists wouldn’t get any ideas of Martyrdom or anything corny like that, I’d break all five men. They would all be professing to everyone who’ll listen via the television that what they did was wrong and that they were wrong to have done it. I understand that would be difficult and long, but well worth it.
Second: As another measure to ensure the peace, I’d have them brutally executed in there own country. That would serve as a reminder that the States won’t take any of their crap anymore. If it worked in 1984, it’ll work now.
However, that’s just my opinion.
I really think that no matter what’s done, no one will be truly content with the results. Nor should they, for that matter. Even if they decide to kill them or imprison them, it won’t be drastic enough to prevent the other terrorists from acting up. The only way to do that is to strike fear in their indignant hearts. Or whatever it is they have pumping blood around their bodies. I know that there are a lot of people in the world opposed to what they call unnecessary cruelty, but some people need to step up and dirty their hands and names.
Even though the rest of the world may object for humane reasons or whatever, they will all be secretly rooting such behavior on. They know that deep inside they dwell closer to their darker halves. Also, the logical sides of their brains will know the necessity of such measures. Really, the terrorists haven’t given us much of an option. It’s time for America to turn the little brats over its knee.
Connection: I do recall a certain class lecture just recently that involved a strangely elusive word: Ethics. Now, some believe that it is only proper to always do the right thing, but what really is the right thing? If doing, say, what I suggested angers a few philanthropists, then boo hoo. Perhaps the more “right” thing to do is derived from the chances that more lives will be saved.
Post script: We’ve also been talking a lot about all the things Obama is going to have to encounter during his presidency that will either bolster or destroy the peoples’ faith in him and our government. This incident is just another possible way for his career to be obliterated before it’s had a chance to evolve. Let’s hope he makes the right choice.
I think that all five of these men should have their guilty plea accepted and should be given the punishment they deserve, the death penalty. They threatened the safety of the entire country and should be punished justly. In my opinion their mental status has no bearing on the fact that they committed the crime and should be punished for it, nor do I think their nationality should have any bearing on it. I think if it were a Caucasian, American with some form of psychosis or in perfect mental health they should be punished equally to these individuals. I also think that they should be tried as individuals for the crimes they committed as individuals, not as a crime group. They may have planned the attacks together but played different roles in the actual attack and should be charged for what they did. While I do think they should all be charged individually I feel that they all deserve the same punishment because of the severity of the crimes they have committed. I also think that the trials should not be held up any longer than they already have, they have plead guilty so let’s go forward with the trial and not pay for them to be held in jail any longer.
Connection: Gridlock: government is holding up the proceedings by trying to decide whether or not the two men deemed mentally instable should be tried or not and whether their guilty plea should be accepted. I think that the trial should just go forward, accept their guilty plea and commence with the execution.
There is so much that is not known about these men, especially to make any kind of judgment on whether or not they deserve the death penalty. That these five men were tortured makes this even more so because people can be tortured to the point of confessing anything so that the pain will end. I do not want to let any person who might have had a hand in the attack on September 11 go with anything less than what they deserve, but at the same time we have to look at each case carefully. These could easily be people who know that they are already going to have life in prison and they want an easy way out of it, a quick and easy death. On the other hand, that they all confessed at the same time unexpectedly could also mean that they have some kind of information that they don’t want to give up and one of them is close to breaking, who knows? But their fate will be decided in part by Obama, since the case will most likely not be finished during Bushes term, and will show the people how the new president will take action.
Connection: This article is connected to the seventh amendment and the right to a jury. These men should be put before the jury of 12 military officers to find out if they really did have a hand in the attack or if they are lying for some other reason. This way the men persecuted for the crimes they have committed.
You would have to be an idiot to think that we should liberate, I mean kill, these men. I am not afraid to say it. Being killed for their cause is exactly what these men want, in their minds; they will be liberated from this world, and will be essential gods, “servants in Heaven, kings in Hell” (Jedi Mind Tricks). From our perspective, killing these men would be just, but still not enough since they are partially responsible for thousands of people being killed.
Also, this brings up the validity of the death penalty. Most Americans would say that the death penalty would apply here because of the carnage that these men have caused. But is that really the most appropriate punishment? There is no doubt that killing these men would “fit the crime”, but would keeping them in prison be a better punishment for the crime? Personally, I think that we should let these terrorists live their lives out in prison; maybe they have a conscience that will captivate them. But liberating them by putting them to death, on their terms I might add, would be exactly what they would want, exactly what would make them gods in their religion.
Connection: Death penalty. In order to have any indication on how these terrorists should be treated, we will have to determine if the death penalty is okay or not. Most people would say that killing massive amounts of people constitutes the application of the death penalty, but also, people would say that killing the terrorists would not bring the people they killed back, and it would fulfill the terrorists’ agenda in their religion, dying for their holy cause.
And Cole, I think it is 72 virgins.
Okay, well the first thing that stood out to me was the picture of Mohammed. If he doesn’t look like the spitting image of a terrorist I don’t know what else would qualify. Talk about hairy…But that just proves to show that direct images can most definitely bias a person’s judgements. But that is beside the point. What I am really questioning is are we really saying no to men who want to plead guilty? What else are we going to do with them? Let them rot for eternity in their cells while we are deciding whether this is allowed…or while we are waiting long enough so that we can throw it onto Obama’s plate and wash our hands of it? And then we question the sanity of two of the convicts… Honestly, anyone who plots the hijacking of American planes and then when caught has to be submitted to our cruel and unusual punishment of waiting them to death has got to be just a little insane. I state, “Let the punishment fit the crime.” They are pleading guilty to causing the deaths of thousands so let’s kill them. That was rather blunt but it is a lot more humane than being subjected to various methods of torture, when all they want is to be put out of their misery so they can turn into rats in the next world.
Connection: There were several connections that could be drawn from this article. Firstly, poor Obama is gonna have one hell of a wake up after his honeymoon. Starting at 12:01 am after his inauguration, his fresh face will no longer be so fresh after he has to actually become a president who we expect to deal with all of our and of the world’s problems. Secondly, this has a hint of a free rider problem. We just wait around until someone will actually make any rigid decisions, simply expecting everyone else to do our jobs. Hence, policy gridlock.
It seems quite simple to me, these men deserve the death penalty, the things that they have done have killed many American civilians, there attacks were in fact directly targeted at such innocent peoples. There is an obvious line that separates us from them, we clearly do not do deliberate acts of mass murder; the question is: where do we create our line of justice and morality that leaders (America), to be both unyielding and benevolent, need to create to maintain an order that satisfies both justice and morality? We do not condemn such men to the same torture that they have created in the life of others but at the same time they need the punishment that will suffice the justice that they have brought upon their heads – the death penalty.
It is true that Obama may have some responsibility in this issue but I do not believe that it is one that will harm him in any way. Many, even liberal, will want some justice for the pains still in their memories, and not following through with the death penalty will just reaffirm conservative’s views of him, but whether he goes with it or not does not seem a very monumental decision that would specifically change people’s views of him.
Connection: People will often blame the times on the president. Gas prices go up the president is to blame. This is a great example of how the times affect the president’s approval ratings. Obama has been elected into a time of crisis and war and how it turns out may be laid at his feet, he has inherited this problem and has to deal with it and suffer the consequences of the outcome of his decision.
In response to Sam Fitterer.
Whoa! Holding them to torture them ANY WAY WE PLEASE!? That is bogus! We use only waterboarding as our form of “advanced interrogation.” And only highly trained CIA agents are allowed to do this. Sure we humiliate them, but we and our friendly European nations are the only countries in the world that follow the Geneva Convention. These men are protected under Article Three, states at the bottom of my response. And what we are doing to them is DEFINITELY not terrorism. It is protecting our nation from future assaults, and clearing up the prison for those who we capture in the future. And as you said that we shouldn’t kill them, you are completely wrong there. War is war. We kill because we were killed. We didn’t attack first, they did. And they admitted to it. These men deserve to die because of everything they have done to our country. Hey go look up on YouTube “terrorist torturing techniques” and you will find that our country doesn’t do anything even CLOSE to that. Waterboarding has been classified as an advanced interrogation technique because torture is defined, more or less, as pain that is unbearable to withstand over a duration of time. Waterboarding is painless, and thus can be used strictly as an advanced interrogation technique.
“Article 3 has been called a “Convention in miniature.” It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[2]
It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3’s protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.” Information taken from Wikipedia.com
In Response to Malaika:
This will be a huge factor defining Obama’s term so I think that he will handle it very cautiously and it will take longer for his team to come to a final decision as to the fate of these men. I still think that all five of them should be given the death penalty; to me it shouldn’t matter whether it is what their ultimate goal is. Even if dying is what they really want and they will be kings after death I do not think that dying at the hands of “infidels” will not give them that pleasure since Americans are essentially the anti-Christ. I don’t think they’ll be getting their 72 virgins since they didn’t complete their task, they didn’t die by their own hands, they died will have died by some form of American device or chemical or something and it will strip them of their “king”-lyness once they reach heaven, which they won’t. I don’t believe in heaven/hell and I can tell you that they won’t make it to their heaven if they die via American or any such infidel. I do think that it is vital that they are either executed or removed from Guantanamo Bay and taken to a prison where they are not being held illegally and they can actually be imprisoned and held until their execution. Maybe the government should reopen Alcatraz as a “special hell” for these men. Maybe child molesters should go there too.
In response to Cyle,
Well that is an interesting way to put it. That we would be freeing them of this world and that killing them is what they want us to do. Somewhere in their twisted little minds they want us to kill them. I agree that people will believe that their killings “fit the crime”. But I think that we should kill them that way it may give some closure to the families who lost loved ones in the destruction of the Twin Towers. The killing of these sick, twisted terrorists would show the people of America and of other countries that we mean business and are going to hunt down and kill those that are just taking their places. We already have killed many other Al Qaeda leaders that probably were involved with the deaths, so what is so different about killing these ones? These dudes need to die for what they did to the United States of America, and we need to start to be aggressive with the terrorists in the Middle East by giving them an example of what is coming for them in due time. It is for the betterment of the country if we kill these men.
I have a question: What is terrorism? Is it not the killing of people to send a message? What these men did was terrorism, and wouldn’t the execution of them be the same? I guess it is different if America does it…
Actually I believe it is intentionally causing terror; hence the term terrorism, not messageism.