Sept 11 relatives demand long sentence for accused (in Germany)

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.

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.

LOL, the Brits are the same way. It's not just a German thing. There is no death penalty in the EU. Just ask Turkey.

I mean the Germans who clain that the American military detention center at Guantanamo is the moral equivalent to a Nazi era "concentration camp".

I have problems with Gitmo myself. In particular the thought that I, as an American citizen, could be sent there because the gov't deems me a terrorist. I think that eventually, the US will have to try these people. You can't just hold them forever without some sort of due process. We don't even know what they are in Gitmo for. We have only the explanation that they were picked up on the battlefield. I have no problem with their temporary detention, but eventually you have to resolve their situation.

Smile-n-Win:

"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."

We have another article in our constitution. It reads "All people are equal before the law" [Article 3(1)] (hm, at least I think it does, my translation may be a bit rough here).

" Osama is evil ; President Reagan is good."

Aren't you being a little bit simplistic here? We're talking about the Ronald Reagan who financed the Taliban, financed Saddam Hussein against the Iran (ironically, it was Donald Rumsfeld who shook hands with him - do you recognize the two ol' friends?)

Or this little tidbit about his foreign policy:
"Washington spent more than $4 billion on El Salvador in the ’80s, backing wildly brutal regimes and their death squads against a leftist insurgency. The 12-year civil war left 75,000 Salvadorans dead--overwhelmingly civilians killed by U.S.-supported forces."
http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html

75,000 people dead. How can someone who is responsible for so many dead people be "good"?

"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?"

You missed the point. It doesn't state that you loose your dignity if you violate that of someone other. It states that, regardless what happens, your dignity may not be violated.
Which probably is the most important thing our history has taught us.

Polybius:
"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."

"executed unter the Rules of War"? Which "Rules of War" would that be? Certainly you're not talking about the Geneva Convention...

U.N. human rights chief Mary Robinson has stated she believes the Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners are entitled to the protections afforded by the Geneva Convention. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) agrees, and has demanded access to the prisoners. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have said the prisoners' treatment fails to meet international norms.
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/schey_taliban_pow.htm

"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"."

Well, yes. Now, I think it was you who was making the Jump to Auschwitz; I never wrote anything about Guantanamo Bay being the same as Dachau or Ausschwitz and I never would. But as you said, there are some similarities.

So, let's come to specifics.
"Does it have civilian women and children in it as Auschwitz did? No."

No? There are children imprisoned in Camp Delta, between ages 13 and 15.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3172617.stm

"Has the U.S. rounded up innocent civilians[...]?"

Which has to be determined. They have no legal counsel, they're not being tried - well, it's easy to say that they're guilty if they aren't able to prove otherwise, isn't it?

"Has a single individual been executed in Guantamamo as compared to the one million executions at Auschwitz alone?"

Guantanamo Bay has the highest rate of suicides and suicid attempts in the world, while probably being one of the best guarded, so prisoners probably have very few possibilites to even try to commit suicide.

Oh, and a few days ago, the US has killed another 9 children in Afghanistan. Just by the way.

LOL, the Brits are the same way. It's not just a German thing. There is no death penalty in the EU.

Yes, the Germans aren't the only ones reacting to their past.

Although the British did not have anything that compared to Germany in the 20th Century or to the bloody French Revolution, the British did have their "Bloody Code" that listed approximately 200 offenses as punishable by death.

I have no problems with a reformed alcoholic sitting down to drink his lemonade while I drink my beer, wine or whiskey as long as it is understood that his behavior is a way to cope with his own past excesses.

I have no problem with pacifist Continental Europeans or Japanese as long as it is understood that their current behavior is a way to cope with his own past excesses.

However, once that alcoholic adopts a holier-than-thou attitude and claims moral superiority because of his alcoholic abstinance or once a pacifist or anti-death penalty Continental European or a Japanese adopts a holier-than-thou attitude and claims moral superiority over America because America must still engage in the messy business of war to protect Western Civilization while they sit on the sidelines reaping the benefits, that is where I draw the line.

"Although the British did not have anything that compared to Germany in the 20th Century or to the bloody French Revolution, the British did have their "Bloody Code" that listed approximately 200 offenses as punishable by death."

Yeah, the US doesn't have a bloody history. Do you remember a people called the "Indians" - those that were practically wiped out by emigrated Europeans?

You had your excesses in the past, too.

"America must still engage in the messy business of war to protect Western Civilization while they sit on the sidelines reaping the benefits, that is where I draw the line."

I for one believe that this way of "protecting" Western Civilization will lead nowhere near protection for anyone, western or not. It will lead to more terrorism, as you're not attacking the root of the problem, but mere symptoms. Symptoms are the terrorists. The root is poverty.

See, in your "war against terror", the US not only kills terrorists, but it's also killing innocents (and quite many of them it seems). So - every innocent you kill leaves a family, relatives, friends. How would you react if your father is killed, you're friends are killed?

Well, this is fair enough, I suppose.

But keep in mind, Germany has been a key player in the war on terrorism. They have opposed the war in Iraq but I would note that many conservatives- some right here on this forum- opposed it as well and continue to do so.

As far as the death penalty- I support it. But only with a rigorous determination of guilt. This determination should be made in the court room, of course. You would want nothing else if it were your life that hung in the balance in such a trial. Which sort of brings us back around to Gitmo. I want to know what these detainees did and why they should be held. This is a reasonable request. I want assurances that I will not be whisked away to such a place ala Padilla if I cross the gov't line.

Personally, I get my hackles raised at the idea that an ally should be a clone of the American perspective. America is America. Germany is Germany. France is France. Americans should not be shocked that other nations see things somewhat differently. To be German is hard to quantify- even for a German- but I don't think it is reasonable of an American to expect that France, Germany the UK etc should simply mirror every attitude of the US. For people to want this is for people to expect their allies to be simply "yes men".

People are different. Nations are different. Even nations that share a concept we commonly call freedom are different. To expect otherwise is to urinate upwind and call it policy.

My wife is a "typical German" and is nothing like what you describe.

Good for her. It takes a lot of moral strength to maintain your sense of right and wrong in a culture that is hell-bent on mixing up the two--so, if your wife is indeed completely unlike the Germans I know, I do congratulate you for having married such a great woman.

Might I suggest that the typical Germans you are aquainted with are not typical?

Might I make the same suggestion to you? ;-)

Could you even describe a typical American if pressed to do so? I never could.

There are certain ideas that have been circulating around as to what an ideal American patriot is like: free, brave, principled, individualistic, spunky ... I call an American "typical" if and only if he shares these ideals. Clearly, there are many Americans who don't live these ideals--but, as long as people in this nation sing the last line of the National Anthem with such pride and zeal, I suppose one can rightly say that a spirit of freedom and courage is an integral part of the American culture.

It's cultures and ideas I'm talking about here, not about all Germans or all Americans. You cannot choose the place of your birth, but you can choose the ideas you accept and the ones you reject. You cannot choose the culture you are born into, but you can choose whether you identify with it--or identify with another culture.

So please keep in mind that when I'm criticizing certain ideas that are apparently enshrined in the German constitution and continue to be espoused by a couple of German Freepers, I am criticizing those ideas, and those German Freepers. I am not criticizing your wife, or any of those German ladies and gentlement who think differently.

Now, to the specific ideas. Michael said: "The state ALWAYS has to balance between the rights of the individual...and the needs of the society." What do you think of that?

You personally attack me. It is not me getting personal here!

I try to understand your criticism. What´s wrong with balancing individual rights with the needs of the society? All free countries have to do so. If they don´t, they aren´t free, because they either put the needs of society higher than anything else (= tyranny, oppression of single persons, minorities) or they´d ignore the need of protection of individuals in conflicts of individuals (e.g. no police). We always balance rights vs. society.

The needs of society are the rights of the others combined. Noone can claim that his rights count more than the rights of all others. You just have to shut up in night on the publicn streets, you cannot shout out loud your opinion, although you´re generally free to express your opinion verbally. But the need of society in this case is to protect the rights of others (they have a right to sleep at night, at least to live in silence at night). However, another need of society is to safe the life of others and this would be rated higher than the right to have a silent night. So if the ambulance needs to switch on their loud "music player" to get the cars off their way, you have to stand this. I hope you now get that we all have to balance between the individual rights and the rights of others (needs of society) ALWAYS!

Sincerely,

Michael

You personally attack me. It is not me getting personal here!

Please point out where exactly I attacked you personally (post # and which sentence). I didn't mean to; IF it turns out I did, I will apologize. But first please show me what to apologize for.

What´s wrong with balancing individual rights with the needs of the society? All free countries have to do so. If they don´t, they aren´t free, because they either [...] or they´d ignore the need of protection of individuals in conflicts of individuals (e.g. no police). [...] The needs of society are the rights of the others combined

If needs of society = rights of individuals, then there cannot be any conflict between the needs of society and the rights of individuals (how can something conflict with itself?), therefore no need to balance anything. The government's job is to protect all the rights of all innocent individuals all the time. Of course, it isn't possible to do this job perfectly--sometimes the police will come too late etc.--but the government is there to do its best at it.

Noone can claim that his rights count more than the rights of all others.

The underlying assumption being that there are conflicts among the rights of individuals. Well, that is what happens when you invent rights like "the right to a silent night." A right can only be a right as long as it doesn't violate the equal rights of any other individual. Period. If any action encroaches on any of my rights, then no one can rightfully perform that action. To say otherwise would be a contradiction.

And that means that individuals have a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness--and that's it. No "right to social justice," no "right to a silent night," no "right to listen to music" etc. And no "needs of society."

# 71: I´d be tarnishing my dignity, arguing not rational. This is a personal attack.

In fact, by these words you were in no way arguing reasonable.

The needs of society are the rights/needs of all citizen. That naturally can get in conflict with the needs of the individual citizen. This conflict must be solved by balancing, the need/right which weights the most is winning. I posted examples.

So if there´s no right to a silent night, what will happen to people in Hungary when you´d go on the streets in Budapest and shout all the time? The police will come and make you being silent, that´s what will happen. The conflict between your right to speak and the rights of the others to have silence at night will be solved one-sided against you. The police can justify this by saying you that you can shout on a lonely field, or after sunrise.
The same balance takes place when we decide about the penalties for criminals. The society needs protection and the criminal generally has a right to be free. We solve it by shortest-possible imprisonment terms.

We have many more rights than the four mentioned, just look at the German constitution.

"Are you accusing President Reagan of MURDER???" "Washington spent more than $4 billion on El Salvador in the ’80s, backing wildly brutal regimes and their death squads against a leftist insurgency. The 12-year civil war left 75,000 Salvadorans dead--overwhelmingly civilians killed by U.S.-supported forces."
http://www.fair.org/extra/0109/iran-contra.html

75,000 people dead. How can someone who is responsible for so many dead people be "good"?

You're a bit too quick jumping to conclusions. Here is what I've written about this issue. I've never accused him of murder. If you doubt these Informations, go ahead and inform yourself about Ronald Reagan and the role his government played in Nicaragua, Iraq, El Salvador and Iran. You will not be pleased, though.

And now, I repeat my question: How can someone who did the actions which are refered above be plain "GOOD"?

# 71: I´d be tarnishing my dignity, arguing not rational. This is a personal attack. In fact, by these words you were in no way arguing reasonable.

I wrote that in response to your #70, in which you asked: "So why do you oppose the value of human dignity?" I had never said anywhere that I "opposed the value of human dignity," or anything like that. It pretty much appeared to me that you had purposely misinterpreted my post in order to ask a "When did you stop beating your wife" type question. Was I wrong about that? What made you think that I "opposed the value of human dignity" ?

Just to clarify things, I do certainly hold that dignity is a value, i.e. something positive; something that rational people try to gain and keep. Just like a good eyesight is a value, or like a delicious pizza is a value.

But values should not be confused with rights.

You do not have a right to a pizza--that is, you cannot just go to a restaurant and demand that they give you a pizza for free or else you'll call the police; the only way you can rightfully get someone to cook you a pizza is to make him do it voluntarily, for example by offering to pay him some money. You have no right to force him to cook for you; he is a free man, not your slave. What you do have a right to is property (which will let you keep the money your employer or customers gave you, or spend it as you wish to) and liberty (which will let you go freely to the restaurant, without being stopped by strangers and forced to cook for them or cure their eyes etc.).

For the exact same reasons, you do not have a right to a good eyesight. You cannot just point a gun at eye doctors and force them to cure your eyes when they want to go to a restaurant or do something else. No matter how much you value your eyesight, the only way you can rightfully get an eye doctor to cure your eyes is to make him do it out of his unforced free will.

Now, if you want to eat a pizza and somebody comes to you and says, "It is beneath human dignity to eat such food, so you mustn't do it," does that mean you cannot rightfully eat pizza? If that somebody happens to be a politician, does that make a difference? If the politician has been democratically elected by 50.000001% of the voters, does that make a difference? If the politician has been democratically elected by 99.999999% of the voters, does that make a difference?

Maybe you wouldn't like to be tossed around by people who are taller than you, not even for money. That's fine, you don't have to let them toss you around. But what if somebody has different tastes than you and thinks that making money by being tossed around is a lot more fun than sitting in an office doing boring work and attending boring meetings etc.--can anyone rightfully force him to do the work he likes less ? Isn't each man the best judge of what is good for himself ? Who, if not you, is the person best qualified to tell when your dignity is being wounded and when it is not?

When people let politicians make their decisions for them, they effectively sell themselves as slaves to the politicians. This is not freedom; this is the opposite of freedom. A free society is based on the principle of "Let each man live his own life, and allow everyone else to live theirs." It is this principle that the rights of individuals properly originate from; the government cannot take away any right from any man, nor invent new rights. The government is only there to protect the rights of individuals; it is not there to decide which individual has what rights.

Yes, sometimes there are conflicts among the values of different individuals. If I value sleep but someone else values driving around at night listening to rap "music" so loud that I can hear it in my bedroom, even behind closed windows, well then we have a conflict of values. But we do not have a conflict of rights: He has a right to listen to whatever he considers "music" in his car, but not in my bedroom. Therefore, he is in violation of my property rights and that's why the police may rightfully force him to cease and desist.

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.