Posted on 12/04/2003 11:55:41 AM PST by areafiftyone
HAMBURG, Germany, Dec 4 (Reuters) - Relatives of September 11 victims demanded on Thursday the maximum 15-year jail sentence for a Moroccan on trial in a German court for helping the suicide hijackers and for belonging to an al Qaeda cell.
Five relatives spoke on behalf of 25 co-plaintiffs in the trial of Abdelghani Mzoudi, charged with several thousand counts of aiding and abetting murder, and membership of a terrorist organisation, the Hamburg cell at the centre of the attack plot.
In several hours of moving testimony, the relatives told of their pain. Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot on the plane the attackers crashed into the Pentagon, called for the Hamburg court to hand the student a 15-year sentence.
"The men who murdered my brother didn't know him. For them he was just a means to an end. He always wanted to do the right thing and he was slaughtered like an animal," she told the court, her voice choked with tears.
"In the name of my brother, his crew and the passengers on board the plane, I humbly ask for justice."
Mzoudi, a 30-year-old electrical engineering student, sat motionless with his head bowed as he listened to the testimony.
Joan Molinaro, the mother of a fireman who died trying to save lives at the World Trade Center, described al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as "the great Satan".
She said her son became a hero for the world on September 11, adding: "He was always our hero."
Mzoudi is accused of handling money for a plotter, attending an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan in 2000 and covering up for other members of the Hamburg cell while they were in Afghanistan or taking flying lessons in the United States.
Mzoudi has not replied to the charges in court. His lawyers say he did little more than help fellow Muslims, and his paying of bills for a friend had nothing to do with the hijack plot.
The Hamburg court had wanted to wrap up the trial by Christmas but Judge Klaus Ruehle said last week he would have to wait for the German government to decide whether to hand over U.S. records of the interrogation of an al Qaeda leader.
The U.S. government has made available to Germany transcripts of the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of September 11, to help investigations against Islamic extremists but not to be used in ongoing trials.
Germany has said in the past it would not allow similar interrogation records to be used in court proceedings.
The trial will resume next Thursday.
Jesus Christ
There is irony. However, my point is that the German moral compass has been passed from one generation to the other in such a mangled state that the present day Germans have lost touch with reality.
Just like the son of the abusive alcoholic that is so traumatized by his father's past that they truly believe that anyone that allows a single drop of alcohol to pass through their lips is a moral degenerate and is terrified of ever tasting a drop of alcohol, the current generation of Germans has swung to the other extreme in terms of imposing state sanctions against an individual no matter how deserving the circumstances.
Neither the son of the alcoholic nor the present day German is thinking rationally. They are just reacting viscerally to a great fear that there is a demon force inside of them that they cannot control and must therefore avoid at all costs.
Irrationality often brings about quite ridiculous ironies. In this case, by over-valueing the crimminal's life, Germany is obscenely cheapening the lives of 3,000 murder victims.
That's exactly the case.
I think it's very important to remember the values the German Republic is founded on. The first article of our constitution reads "Human Dignity is untouchable". It is the base of all further laws (there are many laws which I think are in opposition to this, but that's not the topic here) and it is not changeable as long as this Republic exists.
So, death penalty and basically all law which is meant only for retaliaton is against the German constitution.
And all this crap about Nazi-Germany: Hey guys, you have a freaking concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. What about that?
Michael:
Hey, nice to see a Christian that really seems to be a Christian after all :). I agree with almost everything you said - your atitude towards the state is a tad over the top in things of positivsm though.
"I respond to those that our system follows the ideals of the New Testament, and that such a system based on Jesus principles cannot be immoral"
This I highly doubt. Don't forget that many states claim that for themselves (eg. the USA: Just remember Bush's "crusade"). It's easy to interpret religious documents in a way that suits your goals, whatever they may be.
Yes, "The Values".
From 1939 through 1945, Gemany was directly responsible for the deaths of 40 million Europeans that included 6 million Jewish untermenchen, 20 million Slavic untermenchen and 5 million Polish untermenchen.
Yet, by 1949, the German Republic has discovered ""Human Dignity" and was, oh, so much more morally superior to the United States of America.
As I noted in Post 42, Germany discovered it's own new definition of "Human Dignity" because it's prior definition had left them chocking on their own vomit composed of the blood of their victims.
And all this crap about Nazi-Germany: Hey guys, you have a freaking concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. What about that?
This, Smile-n-Win, is a pefect example of the irrationality I spoke of in Post 42.
The present-day Germans are so traumatized by what their Nazi fathers and grandfathers did that anything with a supercial resemblence to those actions is automatically condemned with a "holier-than-thou" attitude.
Now, lets, see. Has the U.S. rounded up 6 million Muslims and gassed them as their Nazi fathers and grandfathers did to 6 million Jews?
No.
Has the U.S. rounded up innocent civilians and gassed them as their Nazi fathers and grandfathers did to Anne Franke?
No.
Has a single individual been executed in Guantamamo as compared to the one million executions at Auschwitz alone?
No.
So what is the dictionary of a "Concentration Camp"?
According to Webster's Dictionary, a "concentration camp" is : "A camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners or refugees) are detained or confined".
By itself, "Concentration Camp" has no sinister connotation. The German Stalags and Luft Stalags had no such sinister connotation and neither did Allied prisoner of war camps.
Only the German death camps where millions died had the words "Concentration Camp" and "Evil" irreversibly associated with each other.
Yes, at Guantanamo, the U.S. has a military-style prison camp.
Does it have barbed wire as Auschwitz did? Yes.
Does it have military guards as Auschwitz did? Yes.
Does it have civilian women and children in it as Auschwitz did? No.
Is it used as high volume assembly plant of murder as Auschwitz was? No.
Guantanamo is a military prison camp that imprisons illegal combatants as that term is defined by the Rules of War. Although illegal combatants can be executed under the Rules of War, not a single Guatanamo inmate had died there.
Yet, because Guantanamo has barbed wire, military guards and holds prisoners, this German has made the moral leap to the conclusion that any camp that holds prisoners, has military guards and has barbed wire as Auschwitz or Dachau did is somehow the moral equivalent the camps run by their fathers or grandfathers that murdered millions upon millions of innocent men women and children from the late 1930's to 1945.
As I noted before, irrationality often brings about quite ridiculous ironies.
In this case, by melodramatically trying to equate the Guantanamo prison camp with German "concentration camps" in order to advance the "Human Dignity" of al Qaeda terrorists, this particular German has obscenely cheaped the lives of the millions who died in German death camps and has obscenely trivialed the obscene crimes of the Germany of his father or grandfathers.
It is the irrationality that I wrote of in Post 42 that prevents them from seeing that there is a vast moral differnce between this:
and this:
If one morning you went to work to a beautiful tall building that your fellow countrymen had built and suddenly you found that you had to jump to your death out of the window because the alternative would be to die in an unbearable heat, choking from terrible fumes--wouldn't you pretty much feel that your dignity had been "touched" ?
Well, in case you haven't been following the news, not long ago there were thousands of people who felt just that way, or very similarly, and tens of thousands of people who lost a loved one that way. The person your courts are trying knew full well that his actions would lead to such an outcome--he could fully grasp the extent to which he would "touch" human dignity--yet decided to go ahead with it.
Can you fathom the depravity of a soul that would make such a decision?
Now, I ask you, if you actually believe that human dignity should be untouchable--if you have really adopted that principle as a law above all laws--what, then, should happen to a person who so blatantly disregards it? Shouldn't the most important law be the law that is the most unforgivingly enforced? If a person utterly fails to respect all human dignity--including his own dignity--doesn't that make him a criminal of the greatest degree according to the first article of your constitution? Why in the world would should a respect for his "dignity" keep you from punishing him, once he himself has wilfully and forcefully thrown his dignity away?
You speak of values. Do you value something by letting those who don't care about it destroy it? You quote the Sermon on the Mount. Do you hallow your pearls by casting them before swine? You invoke your constitution. Just what, I ask you, is your constitution worth if it prevents its own enforcement?
Thanks for the ping, Polybius. And you're right: The word for his mindset is indeed irrationality.
If I put forward a reasoned argument warning you that you are making the same mistakes some other people made 70 years ago and all you have to say in response is, "it's tasteless and disgusting" and then argue right past it--well, I'm sorry, but that pretty much exhausts my definition of irrational.
Noone can ever "throw" his dignity away. The human being has a dignity noone, even not himself, can be taken away.
OK, so if it's impossible to act undignified, why make dignity a constitutional requirement? I suppose the untouchability of human dignity has been placed in the constitution because it is possible to "touch" (i.e. disrespect) human dignity--possible, but not right.
The only rational basis for having laws is to provide a basis for punishing actions that you can, but should not, perform.
The court ruled that this would violate Art. 1, the dwarfs were not allowed to continue.
And you think this is a good thing??
The state ALWAYS has to balance between the rights of the individual...and the needs of the society
I see. So I have a right to my life ... but the state has to "balance" it with other things. If I'm lucky enough, the state will say my right to my life is weighty enough to be kept. If the state thinks some need of society (A public TV station? A new villa for Herr Kanzler? A little more Lebensraum for the Aryan races?) outweighs my rights--well, it's tough luck, but not to worry, it's all for society, and besides, we all know that Arbeit Macht Frei...
He'll walk in 5 with new contacts and methods he learned in jail.Yep.
I told you, that noone can take a humans dignity away. That doesn´t mean that one cannot act "undignified", but that you keep your dignity even when someone tries to take it from you. You can´t lose it, whatever you or others do. Even Osama bin Laden still has his human dignity. This is a lesson of the Nazi era, and we´re proud that we rate the human race so high!
I think this is the best thing of our constitution!
I see.
No, you don´t.
So I have a right to my life ... but the state has to "balance" it with other things. If I'm lucky enough, the state will say my right to my life is weighty enough to be kept. If the state thinks some need of society (A public TV station? A new villa for Herr Kanzler? A little more Lebensraum for the Aryan races?) outweighs my rights--well, it's tough luck, but not to worry, it's all for society, and besides, we all know that Arbeit Macht Frei...
You haven´t understand anything I explained to you! The state respects, defends and enforces the constitution. Every citizen has the right to call the Constitutional Court in case he feels that his basic rights (including the human dignity) are violated.
There´s no room for violating the basic rights in this process of balancing, except: the needs of the society. And it´s surely not a need of the society that the Chancellor gets a new estate.
Do your own business, or read our constitution. I don´t have to explain you the German basic rights for free. This is too complicated to tell you in a minute.
Good luck on your way ignoring and insulting the others! That´s exactly the way to make new friends.
Prodigal Son, wanna have a good laugh? Read the comments about todays Germany being equally bad (or even worse) compared to the Nazi era, very cool stuff here!! :-D
Uh-huh, you rate it so high that you ascribe the same amount of dignity to a villain like Osama bin Laden as to a hero like, say, President Reagan. If this is the lesson you have learned from the Nazi era ... well, I better pack and leave Europe as soon as possible.
Osama is evil ; President Reagan is good. If you fail to distinguish the two--if you see the same amount of dignity in them--there is nothing to stop you from acting just like Osama. Or like those SS officers who treated people like animals and made animals out of themselves.
I didn't see where he said they had the same amount. Usually when talking about human dignity we are talking about baseline standards beneath which we will not go. For example, even our most heinous criminals still get treated with basic human dignities in prison.
Osama is evil ; President Reagan is good.
Do you honestly think the poster cannot distinguish between the two? Without even knowing him I would wager a large sum of money on his being able to distinguish between Reagan (whom democrats believe was evil btw) and bin Laden.
Could you specify which Germans? Or do you mean all of them? Does this also mean all Americans are Republicans? I'm having trouble following this logic.
Neither the son of the alcoholic nor the present day German is thinking rationally.
LOL, I had to look over my shoulder and tell my wife she is not rational or capable of rational thought. She lost her moral compass. She is glad to find these things out naturally. We can apply for gov't benefits now.
For example, even our most heinous criminals still get treated with basic human dignities in prison.
That's nice to know--but in this case, it's the prison guards who maintain their dignity when they act like humans while dealing with the convicts--not the criminals while they rape or maim or murder people.
Do you honestly think the poster cannot distinguish between the two?
Last time I was in Germany on a business trip, the subject of Bill Clinton came up. To my surprise, the German guy said he liked Bubba and that he found him a lot more "menschlich" than President Bush because Bubba had had love affairs and Bush was "trying to play the sheriff." I was on the verge of crying out loud, "Of COURSE he's playing the 'sheriff'--that is his damn JOB!!"
While this does not amount to equating Osama with Reagan, I think it pretty much shows that in today's Germany, some people seem to believe that
menschlich = immoral
Let's just say it's the typical German.
Not all of them, but enough of them to have a defining influence on German culture.
Not all of them, but enough of them to have a defining influence on German culture.
Sort of like that Hate Bush crowd out in Hollywood? Or the ones that voted for Clinton twice? But for a few thousand people out of a nation of almost 300 million, we would have a President Gore right now. Think about it...
Oooohhh. Bad German. No American likes Bubba.
that in today's Germany, some people seem to believe that
Some Germans? Not all? Give me a break. Plenty of Americans have attitudes that are diametrically opposed to my own- of that I am deadly certain. Plenty of Americans would like to live in a socialist state- and don't say they don't amount to that many people because that's just not true. You're describing a totally normal state of affairs for any given nation. Lots of people, lots of different opinions. Just like anywhere else, Germany has lots of conservatives lots of liberals and lots of apolitical people who would just like to get on with their lives.
Could you specify which Germans? Or do you mean all of them? Does this also mean all Americans are Republicans? I'm having trouble following this logic.
I mean the Germans who now claim to be morally superior to Americans because, as a knee jerk reaction to Nazi atrocities, they have now decided that any nation, such as the U.S., that has the death penalty must be the moral inferior of present day Germany.
I mean the Germans who clain that the American military detention center at Guantanamo is the moral equivalent to a Nazi era "concentration camp".
Two such Germans have posted on this very thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.