[OldFriend]

I am more appalled by the people supporting the verdict.

Justifying the verdict and suggesting it's fair because after all he himself didn't kill anyone.

[gondramB]

>>I am more appalled by the people supporting the verdict.

Justifying the verdict and suggesting it's fair because after all he himself didn't kill anyone.<<

I wasn't surprised at the verdict because I got the impression he was exaggerating his role - that was a wannabe terrorist with mental illness shunned by the real terrorist.

I would have had no problem with executing him or anybody assisting Al Quaida with an attack but the verdict didn't surprise me.

[Jim Noble]

Justifying the verdict and suggesting it's fair because after all he himself didn't kill anyone.

ZM should have been killed by a firing squad on 9/12/01.

That having been said, he's not guilty of any civil capital offense, and it would have been a travesty for a jury to lynch him.

I believe in jury nullification, but not the reverse. That is, a civil jury should not be able to kill you for offenses not charged.

ZM's offense was a crime against the laws and usages of war, not the US Code. Because he was out of uniform and behind our lines, he is not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. Per ex parte Quirin (1942), the President has plenary authority to either put him before a military tribunal (NOT a court martial), or order him killed without further proceedings.

When Americans are taken hostage to bargain for ZM's release, it will be the fault of whoever decided on this farce of a civil trial to begin with.

ZM should have been stood up against a wall at the corner of Rector Street and Lower Broadway at dawn on 9/12/01, and shot.

Everything since then has been a manifestation of contemptible weakness.