Verdict in German 9-11 Trial: Guilty - 15 years for first 9/11 accused

Wednesday, February 19, 2003

[americanbychoice]

What is "Dignity" ? The way I interpret Dignity is through dignified actions. Just like what is morality? What is moral to one person isn't necessarily moral to another.Can you show me where Dignity is defined? I do understand that you have become a "liberal" society. You now have to cope with that. Does liberalism mean condone all and spread the wealth?

[Michael81Dus]

Osama bin Laden himself would be convicted to 15 years imprisonment, and probably after that term handed over to the mental hospital (depends on the psychiatrists).

He was charged with accessory to murder in 3,066 cases, membership in terrorist organization - but he committed these crimes "in Tateinheit", as one. So the penalty is as one, here: the maximum possible.

I don´t interfere in US local politics. Just if my charged fellow-citizen can´t use their rights (assistance by the consulate), I may claim to retrial them and acknowledge the rights.

Extradiction: you didn´t tried to get him. I´m not sure, would he face the death penalty for accessory??

[An.American.Expatriate]

Michael, on what planet have you been living? The europeans constantly criticize the US Justice system on everything from the Death Penalty (regardless of the Vienna Convention) to penalties for "jay walking" (okay an exageration). In my 14+ years in Europe, almost every conversation regarding criminal justice in America is chock full of such criticism. Your media is also extremely critical.

While I can respect that other countries have other systems and ways of dealing with thier problems, I DO have the right to criticize them.

[Michael81Dus]

Don´t mix social welfare systems with our jurisdiction.

The untouchable dignity is given to every human by birth.
The state cannot and must not take it from you. It´s our state´s principle! You may not be treated in a way you dignity is taken from you (e.g. as a prisoner you have a right to 3 meals a day, take a shower regulary, right to read the news or books, etc; as a citizen no employee of the state may insult you or treat you bad, and, the state may not take away all your hope to be free once by a life-long-imprisonment sentence).

[Michael81Dus]

And I think we should not interfere in the decisions of the other society as long as they don´t affect us. I don´t blame America for the death penalty. I´ve my own thoughts, ok, but I wouldn´t blame you for that.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Your post proves my point!

As I already stated, conspiracy to commit a crime carries the same penalty as the crime itself. This means that, for example, if I were to hire A to kill B, I would be just as guilty as A when he carries out the crime. So, yes, he would have faced a possible death sentence and, since a request for extradition would have been immediately refused on these grounds, it serves no purpose to make the request, unless you want to play silly diplomatic games.

[americanbychoice]

I believe you are talking about basic human rights (three meals a day,etc.) Dignity stems from actions that are either dignified or not. For instance, Murder is not a dignified act, however, basic human rights in his/her treatment after the fact is something no one argues with.

[americanbychoice]

you should also note that not everywhere in America the death penalty exists. We believe in state rights. Therefore, every state has it's own laws.

[Michael81Dus]

STOP! I considered OBL to be guilty only of accessory, not being the inciter. As the inciter, he´d face the life-long imprisonment (15-20 years with following life-long stay in mental hospital)! We make a difference between offender and inciter (both the same) and those who are guilty of aiding and abetting. The penalties of the last ones must be mitigated (from life-long to 15 years in this case) by law.

[Michael81Dus]

Yeah, ca. 40 states have the capital punishment, and only around 35 of these use it regulary?

[An.American.Expatriate]

Again, you prove my point - conspiracy to commit does not limit itself to "the inciter" and the perpetrator. It extends to all "enablers" as well. The only thing that must be proven is that the suspected enabler had forknowledge of the crime to be comitted. As in all cases, there are of course mitigating factors. This however, does not limit the initial consequence (having been involved in the conspiracy). This means that, in the case of 9/11, if the persons who taught the terrorists how to fly had known of theier intent and anyway continued to train them, the trainers would be guilty as an accomplice/accessory.

What type of logic can be used to justify that, simply because the accomplice didn't actually pull the trigger, he is somehow guilty of a lesser crime? Especially when the accomplice provided substatial material assistance to the furtherence of the act and had forknowledge that the crime would be commited!

[Michael81Dus]

"What type of logic can be used to justify that, simply because the accomplice didn't actually pull the trigger, he is somehow guilty of a lesser crime?"

I may explain you:
We believe that the offender by "pulling the trigger" goes a step further. It´s not only saying and preparing or supporting the crime - it´s committing the crime! To execute the actus reus, you need more cruelty.

[americanbychoice]

another question: If I contract you to kill my spouse, what would I be charged with?

[Michael81Dus]

You were inciter, if I killed your wife. And therefore, both of us would be punished with the life-long imprisonment.

[An.American.Expatriate]

So, according to your logic, if I were involved in a plot to kill as many people as my group could, but my only involvment was to say procure the necessary material (let's say poison gas), but did not actually release the gas, I would be less guilty in the deaths of those affected?

Sorry, this is moral relativism at it's best! All parties are equally guilty and should bear an equal burden.

BTW, this "logic" stems from Germany's past where the "I was only folowing orders" plea needed some type of way out. It is a cope out and "justice" is not served by it.

[Michael81Dus]

It depends how much you did. If you exactly knew the plan of the group and wanted that it happens you can be punished as an accomplice - the same penalty! But in this case (I just looked up in my law dictionary) the criminal was guilty of aiding and abetting. There´s a little difference and it depends on how much the individual has done. Here, the offender hasn´t made such a great contribution to the mass-murder, so he couldn´t be sentenced as a accomplice.

E.g. A wants to kill his evil boss C by car accident, and tells that his friend B. If C has no interest in the mansalughter/murder and doesn´t know when it exactly happens - but offers A his car, B is guilty of aiding and abetting (mitigation!). If B says "Ok, when will it start! here you get my car!" he´s guilty of accomplice and will be punished like A. See?

[tictoc]

Just wanted to say that you're doing a good job of explaining German law.

Folks, the legal system in Germany is one of the best things in the country. There is an independent judiciary and the law is applied fairly consistently (although sentences tend to be higher in the South - esp. Bavaria - than in the North - e.g., Hamburg).

It isn't easy to compare the legal systems of the U.S., which has its origins in English common law, and Germany, which relies much more heavily on statute law.

Asking Germany to bring back the death penalty is silly. And Michael has never criticized the U.S. for having capital punishment on the books, so I wish people would stop beating up on him.

[Michael81Dus]

;-) Thank you. I don´t wish to have stronger laws. Our laws are ok. But I´d like to have less comfortable prisons and that the judges take the full strength of the laws (that´s what they´re doing in the South).