If ever there was a case which more aptly demonstrated the barbarity of the death penalty than this Moussaoui case, then I haven't seen it.
Zacarias Moussaoui was a guy who (maybe) knew about 9/11 and thought it was really cool. That's it. But when he went on trial, the prosecutors bombarded the jury (and us) with images of 9/11, the event the defendant, again, had nothing to do with, he simply approved of it in hindsight. In the court of law, as opposed to the Bill O'Reilly show, evidence is supposed to be in the form of facts, not the impressions of the mayor or jury-tainting final phone calls from dead people. Nevertheless, Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison instead of death. I'm sure he's a monster, but if your standard for execution is anybody who thought 9/11 was pretty kick ass, we'd be executing people until the end of time (although this might explain Bush's foreign policy).
So, after the sentence came down, you have Giuliani and Pataki and Bush and the rest of the pro-state-sponsored-murder set going ballistic about how this madman needs to be executed. He didn't actually do anything! This isn't just revenge on an everyday murderer who took your son's life. This is revenge on a national scale on a guy who is in favor of 9/11. It's the equivalent of being a bully at school because your parents got divorced – a traumatic experience for the bully, but no excuse for taking it out on Nerdly McGeekington.
Does it feel right to you to call for the murder of someone because of his psychotic opinion on world events? What kind of country do we live in where this is considered a mainstream position?
Dammit, I hate it when these Republican douchebags make me defend a whackjob asshole!