The News

Of course this story is probably the biggest news. The jury in the trial of Moussaoui came back with a verdict of no to the death penalty. I was surprised by how pleased I was by this. Some who know me may know that I used to believe in the death penalty. I have had a recent turn around on this thinking, due largely to a conversation I had several months ago with MB and City Mouse after my post about the implications of the film Munich.

As Moussaoui may very well be the only person who will ever be brought to trial in connection with the 9/11 attacks, his case brings up some very interesting moral questions. One, where is the line past which someone is beyond forgiveness? Is ten people dead too much? 100? 1,000? Six million? Do we really belive that some people are beyond redemption? And where does redemption end and justice begin? Don't we all believe there are consequences to our actions? Does consequence equal revenge? Let's face it, executing Moussaoui would have been nothing but vengance, but I don't know if in this case it also wouldn't have been just.

Moussaoui did not carry out any of the 9/11 attacks. He was in US custody at the time. But there is evidence he was training to be one of the hijackers, and probably would have participated if he had been free. Federal prosecuters argued that had he co-operated with them, the 9/11 attacks may have been prevented. So if Moussoui is guilty, and deserves the death penalty for having had the ability to stop 9/11 and failing to do so, how safe, morally, are any of us? There is a seemingly endless series of atrocities being carried out every day in the world, yet we fail to act, fail to do anything to stop the suffering and bloodshed. Despite the Bush rhetoric about creating a world "where the strong protect the weak", our refusal to involve ourselves in situations like Darfur because they have nothing we value, leaves a big red stain of guilt on all of our hands.

No answers here folks. Just questions.

Lots and lots of questions.