Why a 9/11 “Plotter” Deserves a Re-Trial
By Bruce Crumley
July 19, 2009
It isn’t easy to have sympathy for Frenchman Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person
convicted in connection with the September 11 terror attacks. During his trial,
Moussaoui pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and prayed that al-Qaeda
succeeds in its violent jihad against the U.S; he also mocked the families of
9/11 victims and dared the court to inflict the harshest punishment for the
crimes which, after veering erratically between denial and advocacy, he finally
took responsibility for. In May 2006, a jury decided against the death penalty
but sent Moussaoui, now 41, to life imprisonment and near total isolation in
ADX Supermax prison.
Now Moussaoui says he regrets pleading guilty. But, he has a problem: U.S. law does not allow those who have taken that route to appeal their cases. His only shot at winning a lighter sentence is the July 14 decision by a federal appeals court in Virginia to re-hear arguments that the government had failed to turn over key evidence to Moussaoui and his lawyer that might have helped in his defense. As politically untenable as it may seem, President Barack Obama should support Moussaoui’s efforts to win another trial. (Check out a story about “Bombers Row” in a Colorado’s Supermax Prison.)
Why? Because justice and sympathy are different issues. Moussaoui’s courtroom antics and declarations were outrageous but the prosecution of his trial was a farce nonetheless. Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema repeatedly criticized certain aspects of the prosecutors’ efforts to win a guilty verdict as both underhanded and illegal. At one point in the trial, Brinkema rebuked prosecutors for illegally coaching a witness from a federal agency. She called that tampering “an egregious” and a “significant error by the government affecting the… integrity of the criminal justice system of the United States.”
On one occasion Brinkema backed Moussaoui’s call to cite testimony from Guantánamo prisoners and 9/11 masterminds Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh for his defense. Prosecutors resisted that demand, claiming the information was classified. (Moussaoui would win the right to use parts of statements by the 9/11 puppet masters, who described the Frenchman as too erratic and unreliable to be let in on the plot.)
However, Moussaoui continued to make himself the ever-ready scapegoat in the pursuit of 9/11 justice that seemed to provide no other perpetrators to prosecute. He was, indeed, a dream come true for the prosecution. First, he fired his defense team, zigged and zagged between pleading innocent and guilty, and ranted in ways that had some observers questioning his sanity. And the circumstantial evidence against him didn’t make Moussaoui look any better: he was arrested in August, 2001 while attending a Minnesota flight school. When investigators took a closer look at him after 9/11, they discovered jihadist literature and plane flying information on his computer. Further inquiry led to the discovery that Binalshibh had wired him $14,000 from Germany; a check with French officials showed that he’d long been under watch as a suspected jihadist who’d made the de rigeur trip to al-Qaeda’s Afghan haven.