If the punishment is to be a deterrent to the extent it would
prevent other islamic fanatics rushing to their virgins, raisins, or whatever,
then I suggest the law dictate that all those convicted of terror in the name
of islam be sewn into the skin of a pig and then hung.

 

No paradise, no virgins, no raisins, no more terrorists.

I expect we will not know every thing there is to know of this terrorist until a new administration is in place, and perhaps by then, much evidence will have been ...Sandy Burger-ized.

 

I am impressed how quickly this administration got the mass media into lock step attempting to deny this act of islamic terror. 

 

More impressive is how quickly the administration and mass media were exposed.

 

The next 12 months will pass agonizingly slowly, especially slowly as we watch the mass murderers of 9/11  go to trial in NY.

 

How is it that those democratic politicians who subjugate the US Constitution to international law insist on extending the protections of the US Constitution to non-citizens whose announced goal is to destroy our Constitution? 

 

Madness! 11/2010 cannot come soon enough!

I'm curious if a point about the death penalty can be cleared up for me as I am Australian.

 

The last reports I heard were that Major Nidal Malik Hasan was now a paraplegic and I have absolutely no problem with that.

 

Does his current physical condition exclude capital punishment on the grounds of cruel or unusual punishment or any other grounds?

 

I am curious either way as I think our treatment of Martin Bryant (the d!ckhead from Port Arthur, Tasmania, mid-90's) who was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole was the most appropriate sentence that could be handed down.

 

It was learned that Bryants motive for that mass murder was a desire for infamy. A jounalist whose name I can't recall, interviewed Bryant and learnt this. The journalist made the better part of his living by interviewing notorious criminals after their imprisonment and subsequently publishing their stories. In Bryant's case after interviewing him, he was so disgusted that he decided that the worst punishment he could inflict was to neither write or publish a word and leave the bastard to rot.

 

Noone since has attempted to interview Bryant or publicise his story and every now and then reports will surface that he has been transferred to hospital after another failed suicide attempt.

 

Life in prison is expensive for the tax payer but I understand that a death penalty appeals process is expensive as well.

 

So even if he does qualify for the death penalty, as a cost-benefit would it be worth it?

 

I am not being callous to the survivors of the dead or of the wounded in querying the validity of a death penalty and suggesting the alternative of life imprisonment without parole, I am however interested in the legal aspects of applying the death penalty to (for want of a better word) a cripple.

I usually loathe death penalty, and, in this case, the Jihadists aren't afraid to die. So, death sentence is rather a way to cut public cost, unless they can be legally put into labor camp. However, giving them any sort of tools is dangerous, even with wool balls and weavers. They will still be able to use them as weapons. If death penalty is a must, then I demand public impalement.

 

History lesson taught us that, once you impaled enough of your enemy's men, your enemy will start to run out of volunteers.

>>

<<

 

Any relatives of Vlad Drac the Impaler in our command structure?

The only things that would prevent him from receiving the death penalty under the US system of justice:

 

1) Proof that he was a minor at the time of the offense (that isn't going to happen).

2) Pre-existing proof that he is mentally retarded--hard to argue that for a doctor.

3) Prove that he was insane.  This seems to be where the case is heading. 

 

While the insanity defense has been used as a ruse to avoid a death sentence, it does have some serious pitfalls.  Firstly, one has to admit guilt for the crimes.  So if the insanity ploy fails, you pretty much guarantee a death penalty because you have removed all reasonable doubt.  Secondly, you have to offer proof of a pre-existing insanity (hard to do in this case because he was not under treatment, and if he were, the Army would have discharged him as unfit to serve).   There is such a thing as temporary insanity, but this would only apply in cases where there is no premeditation. There appears to be plenty of premeditation in this case (he bought two guns and multiple clips of ammo and went to the processing center, where he had no business, and started shooting).  Oh, and even if the jury agrees that you are nuts, they can still confine you (for treatment). So even if the ploy works, it doesn't mean freedom.

 

In this case, the best defense would be to argue that he was insane, but was not receiving the treatment he needed because his superiors were afraid of being accused of discriminating against Muslims and did not report it.