Moussaoui Verdict

Personally, I can’t get too excited about the Moussaoui verdict; I don’t much care whether he’s executed or incarcerated forever (though I admit to some concern about the “forever” part, if some true-blue barking moonbat ever has any control over that). But Peggy Noonan — a commentator I greatly respect, though I often disagree with her — raises an interesting point on this subject:

From Peggy Noonan, on OpinionJournal:

How removed from our base passions we’ve become. Or hope to seem.

It is as if we’ve become sophisticated beyond our intelligence, savvy beyond wisdom. Some might say we are showing a great and careful generosity, as befits a great nation. But maybe we’re just, or also, rolling in our high-mindedness like a puppy in the grass. Maybe we are losing some crude old grit. Maybe it’s not good we lose it.

No one wants to say, “They should have killed him.” This is understandable, for no one wants to be called vengeful, angry or, far worse, unenlightened. But we should have put him to death, and for one big reason.

This is what Moussaoui did: He was in jail on a visa violation in August 2001. He knew of the upcoming attacks. In fact, he had taken flight lessons to take part in them. He told no one what was coming. He lied to the FBI so the attacks could go forward. He pled guilty last year to conspiring with al Qaeda; at his trial he bragged to the court that he had intended to be on the fifth aircraft, which was supposed to destroy the White House.

He knew the trigger was about to be pulled. He knew innocent people had been targeted, and were about to meet gruesome, unjust deaths.

He could have stopped it. He did nothing. And so 2,700 people died.

Certainly I agree with Ms. Noonan that Moussaoui’s greatest crime — if you’re judging him in the context of a criminal, as we were in this trial — was his failure to act to save those 2,700 Americans. She uses this to make a point about execution versus life in prison, but I’m going to take us down a different path.

Consider for a moment if we had been judging Moussaoui as a soldier on the opposing side in a war. In that case, nobody would have expected an enemy soldier to disclose his knowledge of an impending attack. Indeed, if an American soldier captured by an enemy were to voluntarily make such a disclosure, we would consider that to be traitorous behavior. So why would we expect Moussaoui — someone who clearly thinks of himself as a soldier for whom the United States is his enemy — to voluntarily (for we did not torture him) make such a disclosure? Just because we chose to try him in our criminal courts isn’t going to change any of his beliefs. But if we’re judging a citizen or resident of the United States as if they were a criminal, then we ascribe a duty to that person to behave in a way that doesn’t harm other citizens and residents. But no enemy soldier would ever be subject to such an expectation.

This observation leads to an uncomfortable thought: that here’s yet another reason why it was inappropriate to use the civilian criminal courts to prosecute Moussaoui. Uncomfortable, in this case, because my “base passions” tell me to punish Moussaoui in any way I can — and in a military context, this hateful element of Moussaoui’s behavior would likely not merit punishment. But I think the reality is that Moussaoui deserves to be treated as an irregular enemy combatant — like a spy or guerrilla warrior — and not as a common criminal. This does not mean that we were obligated to treat him as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions — those conventions very explictly cover only regular, uniformed soldiers. The past behavior of the United States has been sometimes to execute such irregular soldiers when they are caught, and sometimes to apply lesser penalties. For example, in World War II, when the German Nazis landed such irregulars in Florida (by submarine), they were caught, tried by military tribunal, and six of them executed (two were given lighter sentences because they cooperated in the prosecution). The real benefit of the military tribunal is that the defendants are treated as what they are — enemy operatives — in the context of the war they’re engaged in.

If Moussaoui had been tried by military tribunal, I don’t know what the outcome would have been. Perhaps it would have been the death penalty, perhaps not. I believe a military tribunal would have been more fair both to Moussaoui and to the citizens of the United States, and I wish that’s what we had done.

Now pardon me while I fantasize about personally stomping Moussaoui’s face into mush with my hobnailed boots, just before I bury him alive beneath the new World Trade Center…

Rotten Apples

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece of commentary today, and I’m shamelessly ripping off their (totally appropriate) title for it: “Rotten Apples”. The core of this piece is the price that Florida’s kids — and all the future employers who would like to hire them — are paying in order that the teacher’s union keep the status quo. The setting:

From the Wall Street Journal ($):

On Monday the unions in Tallahassee bullied all but one Democrat and four Republicans in the state senate to kill a school voucher bill that has already had a sterling record of success for thousands of children in districts with failing public schools. If that decision isn’t reversed by Friday, one of the most heralded school reform measures anywhere in the country will be dismantled, and 775 school kids, 90% of whom are minorities, will be returned to the warehouses that are failed inner-city schools. A related voucher program that serves 18,000 learning disabled kids is also in jeopardy.

The program at issue is Governor Jeb Bush’s seven-year-old “Florida A+ School Accountability and Choice Program.” For the first time, schools have been graded on the reading, writing and math progress made by the children they are supposed to be teaching. (Imagine that.) Any school that received an F in two of four years is deemed a failure, and the kids then get a voucher to attend another school, public or private.

The rest of the piece is a very worthwhile read if you’re a Wall Street Journal subscriber. For those who aren’t, here is a summary of the rest of the points it makes:

— Jeb Bush’s program has produced dramatic improvements in the worst of Florida’s schools, unlike any of the past union-backed plans (smaller classes, higher teacher pay, higher funding, etc.).

— Two schools in the state have received an F, and the kids in those schools got vouchers to go elsewhere. Those kids have made dramatic academic advances.

— The Florida State Supreme Court ruled that Jeb Bush’s program violates the “uniformity clause” of the state constitution, because the voucher kids are getting a better education than the public school kids. WTF!?! The court apparently wants all the kids to have an equally bad education.

— The teacher’s union has enormous political “pull", and that was on full display during this battle. The union’s pull derives entirely from the money (from union dues) it gives to the pols. In one particularly flagrant example, the state senate’s GOP leader (who received campaign contributions from the teacher’s union) bucked his party and voted against a referendum that would have overridden the court ruling. His fellow Republicans have removed him, but the damage is done; the union wins this round.

I can’t say it better than the WSJ did:

We’re not sure whom to hold in highest contempt here: the four Republicans who buckled to union pressure, the Democrats who voted en masse against the interests of their own constituents, or the unions that pretend their political actions are in the interests of “the children” — except when that conflicts with their own economic self interest.

Ouch!