2006
The Ingratitude of a Would Be Suicide Bomber
0 Comments
Paolo Bassi
The long and expensive trial of the French-Moroccan, Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker"
of the 9-11 attacks in the United States , finally ended on May 4, 2006, when he received a life sentence instead of the death penalty sought by the prosecution. Unless it was false bravado, Moussaoui had taunted the court during his trial, seeming not to care about the possibility of death. Leaving a legacy of martyrdom may have been on his mind.
Given the incredible emotional pressure generated by the 9-11 attacks, the death penalty would not have been a surprise. Yet the American criminal justice system, with all its imperfections and biases, worked as it should. All of the constitutional safeguards for the protection of criminal defendants were applied to Moussaoui’s trial. Above all, Moussaoui received the most fundamental of rights – the right to be heard and treated like a human being whose freedom and life could not be taken unless convicted under the strictest standard in American law – something far more than Moussaoui was prepared to give to those he had planned to kill. The very system Moussaoui sought to destroy ensured him the dignity and security of a public trial and in the end, even spared his life.
The Moussaoui trial naturally raises a troubling contradiction with the treatment of prisoners being held in legal limbo by the United States at Guantanamo Bay . Some of these prisoners may well have been involved in terrorism. If so, they must be charged and brought to trial, or otherwise released, in keeping with American law. This is the only resolution the international community should accept.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
