Moussaoui - It Was Me. I Mean, No it Wasn't. Wait, Yes It Was.
TUESDAY MARCH 28 2006 9:24 PM
Submitted by Dead_Ringer. Edited By Shalome.
Get out your score cards. It’s time to play “What the Fuck is Zacarias Moussaoui Talking About?!”
On Monday, Moussaoui, the famous “20th hijacker,” testified in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, that not only did he kinda sorta know the men allegedly involved in the 9/11 attacks, but low and behold, he was supposed to fly a plane into the White House! But with what criminal masterminds was Moussaoui supposed to pull off this stunt, you ask? The Lackawanna Six? Nope. None other than all-star “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid.
But when asked by his lawyer, Gerald T. Zerkin, about what role he had in planning the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, Mr. Moussaoui said, "It's difficult to say for sure what exactly my input was."
And Mr. Moussaoui disputed the suggestion by the chief federal prosecutor, Robert G. Spencer, that he was "a big shot in Al Qaeda," as Mr. Spencer put it in his cross-examination.
Well, I’m convinced. This despite the fact that intelligence officials have long struggled to actually draw a link to Moussaoui and the 19 box-cutter-wielding supermen who perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Although, they’re really, pretty totally, positively sure some link existed somewhere, somehow.
Yesterday’s shocker came but days after it was revealed that a lawyer for the Transportation and Safety Administration (TSA), was reprimanded for coaching Government witnesses, thereby precluding testimony from aviation experts, who were prepared to state that Moussaoui could have pulled of the White House job – with Richard Reid’s assistance, of course - and TSA employees, who would have acted to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
Moussaoui, whose testimony and behavior, throughout the Government’s investigation and subsequent trial, has been erratic and inconsistent, has been convicted of terrorism-related charges, and is now awaiting to find out if the Government can pull off a death sentence, based on the dubious “what might have been" premise.
Essentially, the Government is seeking to eliminate the principle that an act must be causally related to a resulting event, in order for an actual crime to have been committed. The Government argues that but for Mousaoui lying about his involvement with the 19 hijackers when he was picked up on immigration charges a few before the attacks, said attacks would have been prevented.
Yes, according to the Government, a non action can earn a man a state-sponsored death, despite the fact that (a) it is impossible to say with any credible certainty, that Moussaoui knew what the fuck he was talking about vis-à-vis the attacks; (b) the Government could have acted on the information that he woulda, coulda, shoulda provided; and (c) the FBI and former INS were supposedly casing the 19 hijackers for a year or more prior to the attacks.
















