I am utterly disgusted by the fact that I live in a country that still sees fit to practice capital punishment. I firmly believe that the death penalty is just one of those things that, given the moral clarity of hindsight, when its abolition becomes a reality years from now, we will look back on this barbaric practice and say to ourselves, "What were we thinking?" The same has proven true for such travesties of American history as the denial of women's suffrage, slavery, and the Japanese internment during World War II.
That said, I am responding to Jonathan D. McPike's April 13 article, "Death Penalty for Moussaoui." In sum, the opinion advocated by our government's prosecutors and supported by loyalists like Mr. McPike could not be more misguided, and immoral. The article's first core argument centers around two verses taken from the Book of Genesis that first of all, as interpreted by Mr. McPike, is itself a contradiction in terms. Read Mr. McPike's interpretation carefully: "Every life has value, and if a man shows disrespect for life by taking the life of another man, then society must in turn take his life to reaffirm its own respect for life." Like all advocates of the miscarriage of justice that is capital punishment, the author twists his argument into a pretzel of (ill) logic by failing to realize that such a contention disproves itself. If every life has innate value and taking a life is inherently wrong, then society cannot possibly seek to justify the taking of another life without itself violating this universal principle. In no way, shape or form does the government's taking lives convey the message to society that an individual's taking a life is somehow more unjust. Both lives that are taken have inherent value! Unless, you are willing to say that once a man takes another life, his life loses value and is then ripe to be extinguished. If you are willing to say that, then you need to read a bit further in the Good
Book.
Furthermore, let me state an unequivocal truth about our legal system: it has never been, is not currently, and (hopefully) will never be based on Biblical code. We lose credibility by trashing the autocratic, fundamentalist Islamic regimes of the Middle East and North Africa for their intolerance and use of Shariah law only to turn around and offer the Bible and Judeo-Christian theology as the basis for our own laws. In cases like Mr. Moussaoui's and those of numerous other terrorists such rhetoric borders on bigotry. These men, some of whom are U.S. citizens and claim to practice Islam, cannot expect a fair trial if we are banging the gavel with our left hand and reading from Genesis with our right.
Mr. McPike's article goes on to offer a "secular" argument on behalf of the death penalty for Mr. Moussaoui. Here he draws an analogy between our society's supposed need for the death penalty and accounting transactions. I'd suspect that to any rational human being, and certainly to any true Christian, equating human lives with credit card bills and debit charges is a bit cold. In fact, it is downright improper.
Unfortunately, as is the case with such typical, vengeance-filled rhetoric, Mr. McPike's article conspicuously avoids the facts of the Moussaoui case that are at hand. The case itself has turned into what many modern legal proceedings of this scope are often called, a "circus." First, the government proclaimed that Mr. Moussaoui was to be the 20th hijacker in the 9/11 plot (though he was arrested in August of 2001 on immigration charges). Then they claimed that he was "intimately tied" to the plot. Finally, grasping for a scapegoat, the government now claims that Moussaoui is personally responsible for the near 3000 deaths of 9/11 because he failed to disclose the plot to the FBI. Yes ladies and gentleman, our esteemed government, under the guise of a justice (I use that word lightly here) system, is seeking to condemn a man to death through proving a "speculative double-negative: that if Moussaoui had advised the FBI of something, something else might not have occurred"). Moussaoui's defense attorneys have rightly claimed that the government itself knew far more about 9/11 than Moussaoui and still failed to stop it. It should also be mentioned that government prosecutors, in their zeal to reap "closure" and "justice" for the 9/11 victims, admitted to illegally coaching aviation security witnesses prior to their cross examinations. A circus indeed.
When condemning a man to death, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that man personally perpetrated the act that took lives. Mr. Moussaoui was in jail on the day of the attacks and even the 9/11 Commission itself concluded that he was, at best, a "potential substitute pilot," but certainly not a central player. Experts testifying before the commission contended that many of the 19 hijackers themselves may not have realized the full scope of the plot due to the decentralized manner in which al-Qaeda cells operate. Even some of the 9/11 victims have expressed doubt that Moussaoui should face the death penalty for living a life that paralleled, but potentially never intersected with, the lives of the actual hijackers. Perhaps Moussaoui's mother, Aicha el-Wafi, has it right when she admits that her son "is an extremist. He should be judged for that - but not for the things he did not do. He did not take part in the September 11 attacks"
From a Muslim, that's the most Christian point of view I've heard on this topic all week. Given all these very reasonable doubts about the solvency of the government's case to pin the 9/11 deaths on Zacarias Moussaoui, how can thoughtful, Christian folks like Mr. McPike and President Bush advocate for the taking of his life? Perhaps we should endeavor to prove first what we know to be true instead of what we merely wish to avenge.
Paul Perry is a junior in the School of Public Affairs, and is studying abroad in Madrid
