NYT and "choosing death"

Those wacky New York Times writers are at it again. Apparently, Zacarias Moussaoui has submitted a letter expressing his guilt and requesting the death penalty. For those who don't remember, he's been called the "20th hijacker" of the 9/11 attacks; he had been detained by law enforcement, so he was unable to physically partake in the hijackings (which also explains why there were five hijackers on three planes, but only four on the fourth). Those at the NYT are furious about this, and think that requesting the death penalty (or, in other cases, dropping your death penalty appeals) is, ipso facto, proof that they are mentally incompetent to stand trial. However, they were big supporters of the "choice to die"/"right to die" in the Schiavo case, and are supporters of euthanasia generally. I think Andy McCarthy sums it up best:

"So, follow the logic: Expression of the supposed choice to die, if purportedly made by an innocent but inconvenient person, based on “proof” of the most suspect nature, must at all costs be deferred to on the theory that it is a personal and thoughtful decision. To the contrary, expression of the choice to die by a guilty terrorist, proved indisputably in an unambiguous written assertion by the person himself, is actually evidence that the person is “mentally unfit” on the theory that, well, who in his right mind would make such a personal choice to die?"