The trial of Zacarious Moussaoui

It is very likely that jury deliberations will begin in the next week or so for the trial of Zacarious Moussaoui. Moussaoui, the so called “twentieth hijacker,” was arrested by the FBI in August 2001 for his suspicious behavior. When the attack against the Twin Towers took place in September 2001, Moussaoui was already sitting in a jail cell. Nonetheless, the government decided to try him for the attack.

Moussaoui was charged with conspiracy to hijack a plane and use is it as a weapon of mass destruction. In April of 2005, Moussaoui pleaded guilty to helping al-Qaida carry out 9/11. The trial taking place now is the sentencing portion: jurors must decide whether Moussaoui ought to be sentenced to life in prison or be executed by the United States government.

Just last month, the Moussaoui trial made headlines due to allegations of misconduct on behalf of the prosecution. A federal attorney named Carla Martin, who was working with the prosecution team, violated a court order and communicated with witnesses via e-mail. The court found that this amounted to coaching the witnesses, and ordered the witnesses barred from testifying. Judge Brinkema told the prosecutors, “In all the years I’ve been on the bench, I have never seen such an egregious violation of a rule on witnesses.” Despite the prosecutorial misconduct, Judge Brinkema did not order a mistrial and allowed the case to go foward.

In his papers and various appearances in court, Moussaoui has essentially declared that he wants the jury to kill him. His count appointed lawyer, Gerald Zerkin, has been trying to persuade the jury that Moussaoui is delusional. Moussaoui rejects this, and claims he is perfectly sane. Today, while taking the stand in his defense, Moussaoui was extraordinarly defiant. He told the jury that he had “no regret, no remorse” about 9/11. Asked by prosecutor Rob Spencer if he would like to see it happen again, Moussaoui responded: “Every day until we get you.”

Spencer asked him at another point, “Suicide bombing would be a high calling? You would do it again tomorrow?”

“Today,” Moussaoui responded unhesitatingly.

“You know who Timothy McVeigh is?” Mr. Spencer asked. Moussaoui said, “The greatest American.”

On direct examination, Moussaoui’s attorney asked him why he hated America. Moussaoui emitted a sigh and a lengthy pause, which prompted chuckles and laughter from the crowd. But the laughs died out as Moussaoui gave his response. He began with a citation from the Koran which he said meant Islam had to become a superpower in place of America, and then spoke of “the Jewish state of Palestine,” before finally ending with a threat to “exterminate” American Jews. He said he felt no regret when he saw 9/11 victims testifying in court, enunciating every syllable of his reply: “None what-so-ever. We did it for this. We want to inflict pain on your country. The children of Palestine and the children of Chechnya will be in pain tomorrow. I want you to share the pain.”

At one point, he mocked survivors of the attacks who had testified as to why Moussaoui deserved the death penalty. “I find it disgusting that some people would come here to share their grief in order to get the death of someone else,” he said. “We wanted you to have pain in your country. I just wish it would have happened September 12, September 13, September 14 … there’s no remorse for justice.”

He also made fun of a Navy officer who had wept on the stand as she described the death of two of her subordinates. “I think it was disgusting for a military person” to cry, Moussaoui said of the testimony of Navy Lt. Nancy McKeown. “She is military, she should expect people at war with her to want to kill her.” Asked if he was happy to hear her sobbing, he said, “Make my day.”

My own conclusion is that Moussaoui is a deeply, deeply misguided individual who has found some type of meaning in martyrdom. I think we should believe him when he says that life in prison would be “a greater punishment than being sentenced to death.” He is smart enough to realize that if he gets life, he will will be anonymous, lonely, and despised; on the other hand, he will have glory, recognition, and infamy by acting as the fall guy for Osama bin Laden.

I also believe that the United States government really wants to kill Moussaoui. This should not come as much of a surprise — they are, after all, seeking the death penalty — but the government seems unusually focused in ensuring this outcome. The fact that prosecutors were violating court orders in coaching witnesses is an indication that they were under (and probably remain under) intense pressure for a conviction, and Brinkema herself was no doubt strong-armed to keep the case going even in the face of their misconduct.

It is certainly interesting that the bulk of the prosecution’s argument for death has come from testimony from 9/11 victims and relatives, including former mayor Rudy Giuliani. What we are seeing here is a picking at the 9/11 scab, a reopening of the wound. The country’s attention is again redirected to that day in which jetliners crashed chariot-like into buildings and “changed everything.” Meanwhile, Moussaoui’s answers, intended to shock (and doing a great job), come to symbolize the evil which threatens America.

The outcome of the trial will tell us a lot about where we are as a country. Moussaoui’s fate will be decided by 12 average Americans selected at random from a jury pool, and not by a judge or politican. Their vote in this case, while not a scientific sample of the entire American population, will nonetheless reveal a good deal of the national sentiment over 9/11 and its ramifications. If the jurors decide to deny Moussaoui his wish of martyrdom and sentence him to a lifetime of banality in federal prison, they will have made the most of a bad situation.  Sentencing Moussaoui to death will not bring back to life victims of the attack or reconstruct the World Trade Center.  It will only add to the list the people who have been killed because of that tragic day.

On the other hand, if the jurors vote for death, we will know that they were clearly affected by the emotional testimony of survivors and relatives of victims, and that the pain of 9/11 is still a strong and lasting hurt. T hey will have decided that someone, no matter how tenuously connected to the attacks or willing to be labelled as a scapegoat, must pay a penalty.  A verdict of death will reveal that Americans are still haunted by images of that day, and that they can be manipulated into directing their ire against a specified target.

In sum, it will mean that the government, if it wants to, can justify the deaths of others so long as it keeps pointing to 9/11. It will make that day a permanent fixture in American society, a continuous battle cry for war and fear. If this is the case, then we are hardly out of the woods yet in terms of the damage that might be done by this administration; we may just be getting started.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 13th, 2006 at 5:22 pm and is filed under Fear and Tyranny, Government Accountability. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.