Zacarias Moussaoui takes the stand

[Cylinder]

Is there a special term for the last act in the circus?

Moussaoui says he knew of WTC attack

Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified at his sentencing trial Monday that he knew about the terrorist group's plan to crash airplanes into the World Trade Center.

"I had knowledge that the two towers would be hit, but I did not have the details," Moussaoui told jurors after taking the stand in his own defense.

He said he was supposed to pilot a plane into the White House, with convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid as a member of his crew.

Moussaoui said he did not know in advance the precise date of Twin Towers attack, which unfolded the morning of September 11, 2001.

Moussaoui's attorney objected to his decision to testify in his sentencing trial, arguing that Moussaoui was incompetent to testify, that he has demonstrated his unwillingness to tell the truth to the court and that he has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the court and the proceedings. The judge overruled defense objections citing a criminal defendant's "absolute right to testify."

Moussaoui admitted to the jury that he had foreknowledge of the attacks and that he had lied to the FBI specifically to prevent the plot from being uncovered. He denied that he was part of the plot itself, asserting instead that he was being trained for a separate attack against the White House.

The bit of new information that came from Moussaoui's testimony involved this follow-on attack - claiming that one of the terrorists tapped for the White House operation was none other that Richard Reid. Reid was arrested after trying to detonate an improvised explosive device aboard an American Airlines flight over the Atlantic. Reid and Moussaoui attended the same mosque in Brixton (UK) and are suspected to have also attended the same training camp in Afghanistan.

 

[Manny]

Reid and Moussaoui attended the same mosque in Brixton (UK) and are suspected to have also attended the same training camp in Afghanistan.

True, but I wasn't aware that Reid had been in the United States prior to the 9-11 attacks. If he was, that's news. I think it's more likely that Moussaoui is just makin' stuff up.

 

[BPSCG]

Is there a special term for the last act in the circus?

This is excellent. Just when the government's case appeared hopeless because of the witness-coaching debacle, Moussaoui takes the stand against his lawyers' advice. Government lawyers are probably silently breaking the Constitutional wall between church and state ("Thank you, God, thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou...")

 

[Luke T.]

This is excellent. Just when the government's case appeared hopeless because of the witness-coaching debacle, Moussaoui takes the stand against his lawyers' advice. Government lawyers are probably silently breaking the Constitutional wall between church and state ("Thank you, God, thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou...")

Guess he wants those 72 virgins real badly.

 

[Cylinder]

True, but I wasn't aware that Reid had been in the United States prior to the 9-11 attacks. If he was, that's news. I think it's more likely that Moussaoui is just makin' stuff up.

I felt the same way at first glance and I still acknowledge that possibility as just as likely as the possibility that Moussaoui is telling the truth. The fact that they possibly trained together and attended the same mosque at least deflated what was my initial reaction, that he was pulling Reid's name from the headlines.

Either way, I think we can all agree that Moussaoui has just punched his ticket for federal death row.

 

[jj]

This is excellent. Just when the government's case appeared hopeless because of the witness-coaching debacle, Moussaoui takes the stand against his lawyers' advice. Government lawyers are probably silently breaking the Constitutional wall between church and state ("Thank you, God, thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou...")

He wants to be a martyr. He wants to take as many people down with him as he can. I wonder what happens when he dies, his soul flies free, heads straight down, and a big red guy looks at him and starts to cackle insanely.

Well, somebody should put the idea in his head, at least. I suspect he's more likely to digest it than most of us.

 

[Manny]

Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, goodbye.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

This is a perfect example of the inferiority of the confrontational to the inquisitorial trial: they want a scapegoat, he wants to be a martyr, and truth flies out of the window.
But that's fine if what you are after is revenge; I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[BPSCG]

This is a perfect example of the inferiority of the confrontational to the inquisitorial trial: they want a scapegoat, he wants to be a martyr, and truth flies out of the window.

What truths do you believe are in danger of being lost here?

 

[Checkmite]

Well, Moussaoui may be making things up; but his confession seems to be corroborated by a certain amount of circumstantial evidence, so it may as well be true. And in any event, since it seems as if there's no way his confession can be challenged on its facts, I wonder what those who feel that "truth" is in danger propose should be done?

 

[jj]

What truths do you believe are in danger of being lost here?

Me, none, really. I just wonder if he's trying to indict other people out of spite.

From him, the term "truth" really doesn't seem very reasonable.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

What truths do you believe are in danger of being lost here?

The truth about Moussaoui's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. He may be telling the truth. He may be lying. I don't know, and, unfortunately, this trial will probably not provide the answer.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Well, Moussaoui may be making things up; but his confession seems to be corroborated by a certain amount of circumstantial evidence, so it may as well be true. And in any event, since it seems as if there's no way his confession can be challenged on its facts, I wonder what those who feel that "truth" is in danger propose should be done?

I'm not suggesting anything. As I said, it is an inherent weakness of a confrontational trial. But on my list of people I worry about, the entry labelled 'Moussaoui' has rather low priority, so I don't care overmuch what happens to him.

 

[Cylinder]

Zack's fate is now in the hands of the jury. Closing arguments from the defense apparently consisted mainly of ad hominem attacks against their own client. I do not buy the defense theory that Moussaoui was a hanger-on that al Qaeda was trying to rid itself of since this motive would have been easy enough to accommodate while he was in Afghanistan or even while in the United States.

I predict that the jury will return a death penalty recommendation Monday. Someone on the jury will want the weekend to think about it.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't want to get into a discussion of what Moussaoui knew or didn't know, or that stuff, but there is a legal issue I have been wondering about.

From what I have heard, the charge against Moussaoui is that he did not relay information about the 9/11 attacks after he was arrested in August. The stories I hear always specify that it is after the arrest that they are talking about.

But that leads to my question. In Miranda rights, arrestees are informed that 1) they have the right to remain silent, and 2) remaining silent will not be held against them in court.

Now, he is being charged because he did not answer questions about what he knew after he was arrested? How can they do that without violating his Miranda right to remain silent?

Now, hold him responsible for not coming forward with the information BEFORE he was arrested, and I don't have any complaints, but I don't understand how someone can be punished for not answering questions after they have been arrested. If they have the right to remain silent, they can't be punished for remaining silent.

 

[BPSCG]

I don't want to get into a discussion of what Moussaoui knew or didn't know, or that stuff, but there is a legal issue I have been wondering about.

From what I have heard, the charge against Moussaoui is that he did not relay information about the 9/11 attacks after he was arrested in August. The stories I hear always specify that it is after the arrest that they are talking about.

But that leads to my question. In Miranda rights, arrestees are informed that 1) they have the right to remain silent, and 2) remaining silent will not be held against them in court.

Now, he is being charged because he did not answer questions about what he knew after he was arrested? How can they do that without violating his Miranda right to remain silent?

Now, hold him responsible for not coming forward with the information BEFORE he was arrested, and I don't have any complaints, but I don't understand how someone can be punished for not answering questions after they have been arrested. If they have the right to remain silent, they can't be punished for remaining silent.

My understanding is that it was the fact that he lied after being arrested that has him facing the lethal needle. You can keep silent and that doesn't get into trouble. Lying to investigators once you decide to talk to them, OTOH, can get you into worse trouble than telling the truth.

Just ask Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby.

My prediction: He dodges the death penalty. Jurors decide the investigations were so inept that he could have walked onto a plane with a dozen sticks of dynamite strapped to his head and a sandwich sign saying, "I'm going to blow up this plane," and they still wouldn't have figured it out.

And keep in mind, these jurors come from the Democratic People's Republic of Alexandria, Virginia (Kerry by 30%), where your typical resident is still trying to figure out how we can be nicer to the Islamists so they won't hate us so much.

 

[pgwenthold]

My understanding is that it was the fact that he lied after being arrested that has him facing the lethal needle. You can keep silent and that doesn't get into trouble. Lying to investigators once you decide to talk to them, OTOH, can get you into worse trouble than telling the truth.

None of the reports I have heard indicated he lied, but then again, that is the state of reporting in the US so I wouldn't know.

 

[BPSCG]

None of the reports I have heard indicated he lied, but then again, that is the state of reporting in the US so I wouldn't know.

Yet prosecutors had to walk a delicate line yesterday. Their entire case that Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty is based on how, they say, the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented had he told the truth. And when Moussaoui pleaded guilty last year to conspiring with al-Qaeda, he told a different story, saying that his White House assault was to be part of a second wave of attacks.

Link.

The big issue is that the prosecutors have to persuade the jury he was lying when he was arrested (before September 11), but is telling the truth now.

 

[Manny]

None of the reports I have heard indicated he lied, but then again, that is the state of reporting in the US so I wouldn't know.

Here's the superceding indictment, the one to which he pled guilty. The lie is "overt act" number 72, on page 16.

This is kind of new. It used to be that cooperation, non-cooperation or lying (let's call it anti-cooperation, to distinguish it from shutting up and waiting for a lawyer) were aggravating or mitigating factors at sentencing. SCOTUS ruled not long ago that judges, who set sentencing, couldn't sentence someone for crimes for which the defendant had not been covicted (those crazy judges!). So now gummit has to make that non-cooperation part of the indictment in order for it to be considered during sentencing.

 

[Cylinder]

The Moussaoui jury has returned a verdict which will be read at (or around) 4PM EDT.