Talk:U.S. jury decision moves Moussaoui closer to execution

Reporting content

The statement, "deciding that his lies to FBI agents led directly to at least one death " needs some explanation/context. -Edbrown05 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What lies? -Edbrown05 07:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This story is flowing good. But what "lies" should maybe be answered in the 2nd paragraph, or almost immediately. -Edbrown05 07:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This story was lost without "intruction creep"

I don't know who removed what was a basic template to provide new contributors, who are unfamiliar with the software, a sound framework to begin a new story. Intruction creep, not. Helpful creep, yes. -Edbrown05 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a misspelling? I have no idea what you are talking about. In addition, if there is a template that provides a sound framework for new users, could you indicate how to locate it or how to invoke it? TIA MartinGugino 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

Something is good in that paragraph with Ramzi Binalshibh reference, but I don't know enough on that aspect of the story to write it. Hoping someone else will finish and publish this. -Edbrown05 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Title Change

This title accepts the US media/justice dept.'s Orwellian term "eligible for execution". These bizarre mixed message terms (eligible being usually a good thing and execution being usually a bad thing) are simply weird if nothing else; but more importantly remind me of stuff like the Taliban's "ministry of Truth and virtue". We may have to employ these Orwellian terms when they are official titles; as in "the patriot act" or "office of homeland security" or "ministry of truth and virtue" but I'd rather not use them when we don't have to. This is going to be the first killing of someone in the US for telling a lie. A lie that resulted in the deaths of far fewer innocent civilians than other lies ("We know he has weapons of mass destruction" ; "Saddam has been seeking sources of Uranium in Niger") for which there will be no punishment at all; and to incorporate words like "eligible" into reporting an upcoming state sponsored murder(imo), is truly nauseous (also imo). Neutralizer 12:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But that is what the jury decided. He is eligible. Maybe they (the jury) could have used something different, but that is what they ruled/decided. Jason Safoutin 12:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I like how you wait for someone to comment before making the change. Why bother to have commented at all? Jason Safoutin 12:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment; Jason, did not see your comment; I was on article page; please don't assume I ignored you. Neutralizer 17:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to you...why bother to have commented at all if you were going to make your changes anyways? I agree with Lyellin. See below. Jason Safoutin 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Jason - that is exactly what the court decided - that Moussaoui was eligible for the death penalty. There is no Orwellian term here - some cases are not death penalty cases and some are, and some a jury needs to decided if they are. This is one of those cases where the jury had to decide. I have NO clue where you are coming from Neut. Lyellin 13:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the jury verdict live on tv. They never used the word "eligible" and in fact in the specific verdicts they reached, execution was not even mentioned at all. The U.S. media is now using the term, but the jury never said execution nor eligible. The term "eligible" has no relation to the facts nor the verdict and is,imo, a silly use of the word. Are we all "eligible" to get cancer just because we could get cancer? It's a really stupid use of the word, imo, and only could be thought up by government air-heads who use terms like " suspected foreign fighter sympathizer"; but if the community wants to parrot that type of sanitizing terminology and does not agree with my opinion that it is a laughable, anglo/american centric and childish application of English, then I will not be able to stop the community from doing so; but I'll never agree that "eligible for execution" is anything other than manipulative bullshit.

• Suggestion; What about; "Jury verdict establishes a legal justification for Moussaoui's execution"? Neutralizer 17:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is mature. If you read what the jury was expressly asked to rule on, and did (can be found at Courttv.com, the exact document used), the jury ruled on whether he was 18, whether he had lied to investigators, and whether his actions may have resulted in at least one death. These were all conditions of the counts that he was being tried on. Under these conditions, since the Jury answered yes to all of them, he is eligible, able to be charged, whatever you want with the death penalty. This is not some "government thought up" - it's not POV at all, it's not a childish use of English. It's not BS either - it's a use of the word as it's intended to be used . Wiktionary defines eligible as "meeting the conditions", which is, in this case, exactly what happened. Execution wasn't mentioned - but the rulings made allow for execution, that's why they were being made. The 18 year old clause, the resulting in death clause are all things that are needed in order to ask for the death penalty in a case - in essence, seeing if the person has "Met the conditions" or is "eligible" to be charged with the death penalty. This has nothing to do with the fabled anglo/american bias... it has everything to do with the law. Lyellin 18:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, this could have been a lot more peaceful if you raise the objection, make suggestions, get community agreement, THEN change the title, as opposed to objecting and then immediately changing. Lyellin 18:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I will not comment further on this matter, as IMO it seems Neut thinks his decision rules over others. Jason Safoutin 21:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

the meaning of "is" again: plane is a weapon of mass destruction

Also vaguely Orwellian is the notion that a plane is dual use technology; ie, it could be WMD. I assume then that a missle *IS* a WMD, if a plane is a WMD when used as a missle. We do know that Saddam did have planes, so he did have WMD after all. smirk. I am (sort of) sorry. I know this comment does not belong on the discussion page, except that I sympathize with the first guy in a way, and I did correct all the spelling errors. MartinGugino 06:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

However; the judge in this case ruled that a plane used as a missile, is a weapon of mass destruction. But, it does not bother me one way or the other :) Jason Safoutin 10:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I don't understand how what you said is a reply to what I said. Not that you have to reply to what I said. What I mean is, yes I know that the judge said that a plane is in this case a weapon of mass destruction, but is it true just because the judge said that? If it is, then planes are "dual use" technology. This logic would allow us to invade almost anybody we feel like invading. (I thought I was making a clever new point. Maybe I wasn't.) MartinGugino 11:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

and... the title of "the meaning of *is*" is meant to refer to Bill Clinton and the clever definitions of words that government people use to mislead and at the same time tell themselves that they are not lying. This is so like DoubleSpeak, which is an Orwellian term. Things like torture *is* organ failure, so that needles under the finger nails *is* accupuncture, and water torture *is* moisturizing. (not that these specifically have been used or called that) MartinGugino 11:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add this article to Category:9/11. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Done --Jcart1534 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Protect

{{makeprotected}} Heavy Water (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 11:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)