"Totally sick, but completely sane."

In her latest op-ed Michelle Malkin lights into the current sentencing hearings for "the little hijacker who couldn't," precarious Zacarias Moussaoui. With a flick of the keyboard Malkin dismisses testimony submitted on his behalf by a social worker, a psychologist, and his kin -- testimony which even Moussaoui dismissed as "a lot of American B.S."  As she tells it:

Totally sick, but completely sane. . . . Playing the mental illness card allows the blind to continue deluding themselves about . . . Islamic imperialis. . . . Yet the bleeding hearts foolishly and suicidally persist with their Poor Little Jihadist propaganda and call for sympathy and understanding for the Root Causes that fueled the 9/11 hijackers.

.

Malkin doesn't need a psychologist to know which way the wind blows. Neither should we.

.

This man hates you, Gentle Reader.

He hates you and he is at war with you.
He does not feel your pain.  Do not feel his.

.

Update: Legal eagle Alan Dershowitz, in "The Abuse Excuse: Moussaoui's Lawyers Float the Impoverished French Muslim Syndrome", calls attention to what should be obvious:

Moussaoui's only expressed regret is that more innocents did not die on Sept. 11th. Moussaoui has called victims and their survivors "disgusting" and has said that he hopes they "will suffer more pain." In reponse to one of his own character witnesses, a Jewish man who befriended him, Moussaoui shouted "Death to the Jew!"

Comments

[Darwin Price]

I really understand the desire to see Zacarias Moussaoui incarcerated to protect the public. I share this. In terms of retribution, I think that families of the victims of 9/11 surely want some.

BUT: I think that people (like Malkin) are too quick to dismiss, subvert or otherwise diminish the legal rights that have been so hard won when it suits their purposes. In their attempt to shoot-from-the-hip with their reactionary spiel they throw the baby out with the bathwater. I refer the protection of those with diminished capacities due to mental illness or mental retardation.

Those “Incompetent to stand trial on felony charges” PC 1370 & PC 1026, those “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” should be protected even if they're a Moussaoui! The thinking here is that ethically we’d rather see a bastard like Moussaoui live (incarcerated) than run the risk of executing a truly disabled individual. It should be anticipated that Moussaoui’s attorneys would use these statutes (or similar ones) to stave off his execution.

Citing Moussaoui’s Islamofascism as a proof that he is NOT mentally ill is really ignorant. Hyper-religiosity is a common delusional theme. Certainly his Islamofascist rhetoric is repellent, but Moussaoui was truly delusional and it is really telling that his lawyers did NOT move that he was “Incompetent to stand trial on felony charges” under PC 1370 in the first phase of his trial as one of the criterion for that defense is that defendant is “unable to cooperate with their attorneys”. Rather, in the penalty phase they made the motion that his mental illness was a mitigating factor in the commission of his crime and that it should be weighed as such when determining his sentence. Moussaoui “believed that he would soon be pardoned by Mr. Bush and that his lawyers were plotting to kill him, another delusion was that the F.B.I. had planted a bug in an electric fan that Moussaoui found in Oklahoma City many months before the Sept. 11 attacks.” Moussaoui wrote by hand in 2002, "Where is 'my' FAN, it must be Forensically examined before they kill me".

There are hundreds of death row inmates who are mentally ill, mentally retarded and brain damaged despite the fact that there exists no State sanctions execution of the insane in American jurisprudence. The real battle remains, what procedures must accompany the inquiry into sanity. In Moussaoui’s case there were multiple psychologists and psychiatrists for the defense AND for the prosecution which Malkin fails to mention.

Perhaps Malkin should calm down and trust in the judicial system to deliver her the bloody retribution she craves. We’re not talking justice here, only retribution. It was only in 2002 that Developmentally Disabled people became exempt from the death penalty. The legal precedents speak for themselves. (http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer01/fellner.html.)

Well, Malkin can comfort herself in the knowledge that Moussaoui’s going to die. The gods of Retribution will be satisfied. But I think that its precisely bastards like Moussaoui (that we know are guilty) that should force us to questions of justice versus retribution.

Politically, I think that Moussaoui should have been tried by an International Tribunal like Slobadan Milosovich was. Eliciting international involvement would have allowed American to garner support from counties we have alienated by our go-it-alone foreign policy.

[JMK]

Thanks for the engaging reply. You've made me pause.

To be frank, I haven't weighed the considerations regarding much of what you've raised: legal definitions of insanity, the proper jurisdiction for the trial, etc. When I posted this I was shooting from the hip, which I'll insist is necessary while granting that it's insufficient....

Well, I disagre that people like Moussaoui, if legally and/or diagnosably insane, are entitled to the same legal protections as others. This stems strictly from the nature of his crimes (actual and intended, including the mass-murdering scale of the later). If that begs more elaboration, in your view, I take it as a fair criticism.

I don't deny that mental illness deserves serious consideration, and perhaps should be a mitigating factor in felonious, and capital, cases. But, in terms of jihadist organizations that have sworn jihad against our "infidel" societies, to me that's a state of war which trumps the individual's chemical or psychological condition: my gut says military tribunal.

I hope we have a chance to discuss this or other issues down the road. Thanks for commenting.

best,
JMK

[Darwin]

So basically your position is 'give him a fair trial then hang the bastard'

But by abridging this bastard's rights (for your retribution), you do damage to the civil liberities of us all, (the right to due process i.e. justice).

As inconvenient as you may find it, the law provides due process to both the guilty and the innocent.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. " - Clarence Darrow

I'd add: "even if that man is a bastard"

____________________________________________

You mention military tribunals...well we won't have to wait long before fully made public what kind of justice the military is capable of...torture, outsourcing torture, and imprisonment with no due process or charges ever being made. Sounds a lot like fascism to me.

The most obvious signifier of a fascist country is the singling out and persecution or denial of equality to a specific group of people based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

We are perilously close to fascism in this country.

[JMK]

Darwin,

I firmly believe that by unmistakably adhering to an organization that is waging war on the United States Zacarias Moussaoui forfeited his right a civilian trial, to a trial by jury (and of his "peers"). Ergo, he has no right to such a trial.

I also firmly believe that this does no damage whatsoever to the civil liberties of us all. Zero.

"The law" you describe which provides due process is a law which Moussaoui, like all enemies of the United States (for example, Soviet agents, Black Panther Party members), exploited and mocked for his own ulterior, belligerent purposes. Rushing to guarantee enemies like them due process is a grave mistake when you ignore their attitude to "the law."

Your definition of a most obvious signifier of fascism seems to me makeshift. But even by those standards you have to admit that Moussaoui and his co-conspirators enjoyed considerable equality and lack of being singled out during all their years of:

* flight training in American flying schools;

* moving freely from city to city within the United States (and other Western nation);

* arranging for wire transfers of large sums of money to facilitate all this

I do not share your opinion that we are perilously close to fascism. I am eminently more vigilant about a fascist threat that derives from Islam than from any mutation of liberal capitalism. And I strongly urge you and others who share your concerns to reconsider where you place your scrutiny.

Respectfully, but forcefully,
JMK

[Darwin]

Well, if you don't like my definition of Fascism try the Britannica version:

A "Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.

"Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose ... partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism ... by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. "

No, I'd say that better depicts the direction our nation is taking rather than Islam. In fact, If you do a cursory reading of Mussolini’s manifesto you'll see he was quite cozy with big business. He said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”. If you replace a few select words like fascism with neoconservative and it reads like a memo from Carl Rove!

You say that "Rushing to guarantee enemies like them due process is a grave mistake", but I wonder where you draw your line in the sand. It certainly must be an arbitrary line. We are talking enemies of the state here. So by what criterion do you use to measure who is an enemy of the state. Who decides? The military? You have no rule of law. Clearly you don't want one. You are all too comfortable with retribution. Justice or mercy have no place in your vocabulary.

To illustrate your point you use the Black Panthers. I live in Oakland. Purely by accident, my wife and I had coffee with Bobby Seals one night. He described unmistakably the "harsh suppression of dissent" in both his trial and treatment by the US government as an 'enemy of the state.'

Here's a thought on your civil rights that are so very intact,

First they came for the Terrorist,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Terrorist.
Then they came for the Black Panther,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Black Panther.
Then they came for the Illegal Immigrant,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was an American.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

_________________________

I'm not defending Islamic fundamentalists (I don't defend Christian fundamentalist either). I don't want their theocracy and I don't want yours. I think that it is the job of my government to keep me safe from such people and their silly notions of what they think G-d is telling them to do! Even so, I don't condone state sponsored execution. I work for the state. The state can’t plan a trip to the bathroom, but it can always find someone to hate. This being so, it unerringly manages to executes innocent people along with the guilty. I find all utilitarian arguments about this morally repugnant. You might be okay with breaking a few eggs to make your omelet. Whatever.

You closed with an exhortation strongly urging people to put their scrutiny elsewhere. I exhort people to read Kant, Hume, Schweitzer and other ethicists and learn to discern justice from retribution.

Darwin

[JMK]

Bro,

1. The U.S. is not fascist. It's "the last, best hope of earth," as Lincoln said, including our hope of repelling the 21st Century's greatest fascist threat - sharia rule under Islam.

2. A state proudly defending itself and its citizens, proud of its traditions yet vigilant about its vulnerabilities, is wholly different from a state "glorifying" itself. Most conservatives in Bush's base are anti-big-gov't. Got that? Fascism has more affinities with socialism than with capitalism (The Nazis were a party of "national socialism"; Mussolini was a socialist before he became a fascist.) No, Communism didn't preserve class systems - it created new and far more deadly class systems. Do you know what "nomenklatura" means? and "kulak", for example?

3. Questioning of the president abounds all over the U.S.: I saw it on the left when I protested the Iraq war in 2004, and I see it on the right as I support our efforts there today. For better and for worse, our legal standard for treason is very difficult to meet - so that many people who in less free societies would be subject to severe punishments for their "questioning" don't have to worry about that here.

4. An enemy of the state is someone who conspires and acts to destroy the American government, or who aids those who do. Al Qaeda is one. The Black Panther Party was another. Executing enemies of the state sounds like justice to me. (And lefties whine because Angela Davis had trouble keeping her teaching job at UCSD!)

5. fyi, I've lived in Oakland and 15 year ago was in a Marxist-Leninist political party. I was an enemy of the state at one time. (and have gone public about this elsewhere.) About 15 years ago, of my own free will I worked with former Black Panther Party members. But I've reconsidered a lot since those days. So Bobby Seale whining about the Chicago 8 trial can kiss my ass. If you want to give him sympathy about "repression" BPP members faced, then ask him about the times he was whipped like a slave by other BPP members; ask him how many intra-party killings, beatings, and other crimes he committed or ordered or was aware of within the BPP. I'm tellin' ya: Seale, like the David Hilliards and Ericka Browns, are the leftover dog-and-pony show from the Black Gangsta Party, which is all their "bad ass" attitude added up to -- that and an occasional book contract or speaking engagmeent.

6. I'm not for "theocracy": can you admit that that's an unfair and ignorant slander?

7. I see, you're against the death penalty. I'm not against it. OK. Although a moratorium on executions, like a Republican governor called for a few years ago, is probably a good thing, would improve how capital punishment is administered.

Darwin, It's been nothing if not real. I hope there's carrot cake available the next time you come to the coffee shop. I hope JMK continues to stimulate you, and that you keep coming back.

best,
J

[JMK]

Here's a really intelligent take on the jury's decision in the Moussaoui verdict, from Charles Krauthammer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/11/AR2006051101949.html

[Darwin]

1. You say that---The U.S. is not fascist. It's "the last, best hope of earth,"---.

...yeah and ANYONE can grow up to be the president!

I say we are on the brink of fascism. This administration more than any other has managed to merge corporate power with government, (which is a threat to your personal liberty c.f. Eisenhower). BTW: The sina qua non for a fascist state, according to Mussolini who introduced the term Fascism as a political concept is the merging of the corporate and the governmental at the expense of the individual.

Your stated ..."21st Century's greatest fascist threat - Sharia rule under Islam..." This makes little sense orther than being a knee-jerk reaction. First off, Islamofascism is a oxymoron (and it's just LAME). The terms Fascism and Islam are mutually exclusive! The only thing that Sharia governments shares with Fascist one's is that many have been blatantly anti-Semitic. We know where that ugly road leads! I wouldn’t want to live in either state.

2. You said that most conservatives in Bush’s base are anti-big government. Wait a sec…you aren't actually saying that this neoconservative administration is anti-big government? You've got to be kidding!?!?! I mean sure they give lip service to it...but seriously?

FYI: this is the biggest this government America has ever had. Since 2001 U.S. federal spending had increased by a massive 28.8 percent (19.7 percent in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7 percent (25.3 percent in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, currently at about 8.4 Trillion dollars! And he's giving out tax breaks to the top five percent wealthiest Americans but has NEVER veto a single spending bill (or any bill for that matter). If I were a millionaire I'd be stoked, but I got screwed on my taxes. Guess I'm not part of his base.

You asked if I knew what what "nomenklatura" means? They were the elite of the Communist Party who before relinquishing power devised a way to keep that country's most lucrative assets. George W. Bush and “Deadeye Dick” Cheney are perfect specimens of the emerging American nomenklatura. They both give lip services to free market capitalism; but Bush is running this country into the ground like every other business he's ever managed. Chaney's fortune comes from his political connections and his proclivity for finding ways to put the taxpayer on the hook for his corporate ventures (i.e. corporate welfare).

3. I agree with your statement that the legal standard for treason is very difficult to meet. Fortunately, it is pretty easy to hold someone without trial, no chargers and no representation when you do it under the auspices of prisoners of war. Especially when we have managed to circumvent the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

I'm talking about holding someone and in some cases torturing a person based upon nothing but an accusation with no judicial or congressional oversight of any kind. They seriously lowered the bar on what is considered physical torture, it "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." For a cruel or inhuman psychological technique to rise to the level of mental torture, the Justice Department says, that the psychological harm must last "months or even years."

Sounds more like a Gulag than the "the last, best hope of earth"

But the slack-jawed Bushevik faithful seem to equate conservitivism with unlimited power to the government. (Again with my pesky definition of a fascist government superceding the individuals’ needs, rights or freedoms.) The real issue here is whether or not America will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men.

4. An enemy of the state is someone who conspires and acts to destroy the American government, or who aids those who do. But in practice any dissent has become unpatriotic. I mean if there is no judicial oversight then anyone merely accused of being an enemy of the state is in deep trouble with little or no recourse. How's that different from fascism or any other totalitarian regime?

5. You mention your extensive experience in the Marxist-Leninist political party and hanging out with the panthers. Sounds like you had a bad experience. I’ve never been a communist, but I do believe that some people in America are oppressed and should dissent. I think that dissent is a patriotic responsibility. Blacks in America have been jerked around along with about every other minority. The Chicago Eight trial set major precedents for free speech and adequate representation. Your reaction sounded like some of the comments by the jurors; “After the trial, one female juror commented that the defendants "should be convicted for their appearance, their language and their lifestyle.” Another juror expressed the view that the demonstrators "should have been shot down by the police." Later, a higher court reversed all convictions because the judge impeded the defense from screening the jurors. There is actually a rule of law here.

6. I’m sorry if I characterized you as a theocrat, I should not have assumed. Glad to know we agree on some things.

7. I'm against the death penalty. As I've mentioned, I work for the state and trust me when I say I wouldn't let them walk my dog let alone be responsible for justly taking someone's life.

8, ‘til next time “save me some carrot cake”

Darwin

[JMK]

on ANYBODY becoming president:
Equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

on dissent: Americans who disagree with their goverment are not entitled to refer to voicing that by the term "dissent". People in the USSR, the Islamic Republic of Iran, People's Republic of China, Cuba, etc. - those people exercise dissent: against a one-party rule and at great personal risk (and often loss).

on big-gov't Bush: yep, small gov't conservatives are pissed, and it may cost the GOP this fall. Me, I'm of 2 minds about it: I absolutely prefer the GOP to the Dems on nat'l security (which to me is the #1 issue), and I follow some of the small govt criticism. But I plan on voting GOP no matter what this fall. But how can the Democratic Party would reduce govt size and spending?

on working for the government: it would be interesting to hear more perspectives on that. My father just retired after nearly 30 years as a federal civil servant.

[Darwin]

Anyone with enough money can purchase more equality. I was recently a Union chair representing 4000 state employees to decertify a Union and create a independent Union. We spent $250,000 they spent $2,000, 000. They won largely by out spending us. You say "Equality of opportunity, not equality of results." Sure you can say that we had equal Right to run, but it is the one with the resources (money) who actually win. There IS a socioeconomic disparity in this country. The notion that anyone can become president, a notion I grew up with, is utter bullshit. Just like having blind faith in America. I believe in America but not blindly. Our nation is guilty of horrible atrocities and wonderful acts of altruism.

You imply that our government is not oppressive enough to call it dissent. Not everyone has your privilege; so who are you to say they are not "entitled" to refer to it as "dissent?" The Founding Fathers made certain that when they wrote the Constitution they guaranteed the right to dissent. Thinking differently is not a crime. Your comments beg the question: What is patriotism? Who is, or for that matter, is not a patriot?

Am I mistaken or do we agree regarding this administrations inept handling of the budget? If you’re a fiscal conservative you’re pretty disenchanted with the neoconservatives? As far as nat'l security, the Republicans have done a piss poor job. Because of their utter lack of diplomacy and predilection for unilateral decisions making we are in more danger than ever. They’ve done nothing to secure the harbors in America and are ill prepared to do anything but fight for control of the petrol-dollars. If you believe what you hear on Fox new's fair and balanced reporting, then you know everything is going just as planed .

Sure, Clinton lied about getting blowjobs, but he balanced the budget. Zero deficits from the democrats. Maybe Bush just needs a good intern; that Gannon/Guckert guy used to visit a lot, perhaps he was providing a little inspiration to balance the budget by:)

I work with disabled people assisting them in going back to work. We can talk about my job the next time I'm over for coffee. I have a great opportunity to help people, but the decisions made from a few levels above me are seriously ignorant when you see them played out in the real world. Most of it is just jockeying for position and justifying their existence if you ask me. I'm a bit jaded on the whole civil service thing.

Talk to you later.

Darwin