I don't support irrevocable actions (such as death) based on anything less than absolute certainty, which is as fictitious as the Easter Bunny except when "defendants" admit their guilt, as Z.M. did. Based on the premise that people do not falsely claim guilt, I support executing admitted murderers, but not convicted ones who maintain a claim of innocence. Some of those people are found later to have been convicted incorrectly, and some of those people are executed first. If you don't support abolishing the death penalty because of that, I consider you a murderer.
I won't argue about the moral right to kill Moussaoui, as I believe admitting to a conspiracy to murder me is sufficient grounds for execution. You can agree or disagree about killing in self-defense, but my mind is made and the topic of this discussion is: I think in this case an even harsher punishment exists. Who agrees? Why? Who disagrees? Why?
This is why I believe life in prison is a better punishment for Zacarias Moussaoui than death:
He and those who believe as he does expect to enjoy eternal bliss if they die as martyrs. We the People, via the courts, can rob him of a martyr's death, possibly dissuading a few would-be martyrs, whilst simultaneously demonstrating to the intelligent people of the world, many of whom we hope will help us find the crack-pot martyrs in their midst, that we are above killing, except as a last resort and in true self-defense. Someone who is apprehended and goes peacefully through the court system according to its rules, as Moussaoi did, does not pose an "immediate & unavoidable danger", thus does not qualify to be justly killed with legal amnesty for self-defense, according to common law & precedent. Although the same legal tradition has allowed execution, there have been local disagreements about the justice of execution.
It so happens that the Koran says something similar about killing in self-defense. Not that the Koran is any part of my standard, but in this case the coincidence is convenient, and probably strategically important to the long-term conduct of the war on terror.
If we do not demonstrate, at every step, that life is our primary value, we will tend increasingly toward an unarguable, theologically tangled debate about when it is acceptable to kill. This nation of mostly Chritians cannot decide amongst ourselves, thus it is ludicrous to expect to be able to precisely and effectively convery "our beliefs" on such a subtle point. The premise that all life is sacred, and its logical consequence that the condition for the use of force is self-defense is simple, easily understandable, and nearly universally accepted by intelligent people, when we are calm enough to think at all.
Therefore, [b]the[/b] intelligent way to conduct war is to take prisoners whenever possible, and to kill none of those prisoners while they remain captive, ever, nor deny any Geneva Convention protections to any combatants of any war, regardless of their nation, or claimed allegiance to a non-government agency. If we don't play by what we call "The Rules", it is unlikely that any of our claims will be taken seriously, and quibbling over the fact that terrorists have not signed the Geneva Convention is disingenuous.
It is implicit in all acts of violence, whether between or among individuals, nations, or any other collectives, that there is an aggressor, whose aggression is immoral by definition, and a wronged party, for whom self-defense, but nothing more, is a right. It helps to understand principles. Somebody, please, explain this principle to everybody in the White House.
Edit: I put the word "defendant" in quotes above because Moussaoui's performance in court cannot accurately be called a "defense" according to the premises and traditions of the modern justice system. His goal is obviously not to contest his guilt, nor to preserve his life, thus he is not using the court system to defend the one thing that is every person's most valuable possession: life. His conduct is only comprehensible to me as an attempt to die as a martyr, which is much more dangerous than a live, well-treated prisoner.
