Today's Washington Post story, "For Victims' Families, Verdict Elicits Mix of Shock, Relief", featured comments from some 9/11 family members about the Moussaoui verdict. Here's a summary of the comments...
Rosemary Dillard - "We showed the world what we do to terrorists. We'll show them respect no matter how much disrespect they show us. It makes us a finer society."
Carrie Lemack - "I'm proud of the jury today and know my mother would be, too."
Blake Allison - "I didn't feel that capital punishment was the appropriate response. I don't think the government's case was terribly convincing."
The WaPo conveniently left out those family members angry with the verdict. Comments such as...
Col. Brian Birdwell - "Has justice been served? Yes. But not with the voracity that I think that Mr. Moussaoui deserves."
Alexander Santora - "A bullet in his brain would have been a just reward."
Patricia Reilly - "I guess in this country you can kill 3,000 people and not pay with your life. I believe he's going to go to jail and start converting other people to his distorted view of Islam."
Debra Burlingame - "I totally accept and respect the jury's verdict. But I think it is very dangerous to show compassion to the cruel because they will bring cruelty to the compassionate."
Rosemary Cain - "I don't think he is worthy to breath free American air."
Why did those comments not get covered in the Washington Post's story? According to the reporters, relatives spoke outside the federal courthouse and were available for telephone interviews. Even the description of the range of emotions left out anger. According to the WaPo, the verdict caused emotions such as "disappointment", "shock" and "relief".
At what point will the media decide that it is okay to be angry about appeasing and coddling terrorists? Mrs. Dillard was right when she said that the verdict showed the world what we do to terrorists. It showed the world that some of our citizens still cling to appeasement and excuses as effective tools against terrorists.