The government’s goal was to get the death penalty for Moussaoui. There was more than one way to achieve this goal. Curious why the government chose a novel theory that terrorists have a duty to provide intelligence when captured rather than a tested legal theory in criminal cases that all participants of a terrorist plot would be presumed equally culpable.
One of the easiest theories of the case would have been to apply a felony murder rule used in criminal cases. The felony murder rule says:
“Felony Murder Rule – States that any death, which occurs during the commission or attempt to commit certain felonies, which include arson, rape or other sexual offenses, burglary, robbery or kidnapping, is first-degree murder and all participants in the felony can be held equally culpable, including those who did no harm, possessed no weapon, and did not intend to hurt anyone. Intent does not have to be proven for anything but the underlying felony. Even if, during the commission of the underlying felony, death occurs from fright, a heart attack for instance, it is still first-degree murder.”
In the context of a terrorism case, the government could have argued that when a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a terrorist act, such as the WTC, all participants of the terror plot are equally culpable, including those who did no actual harm, who did not possess any weapon, or who conspired with the attackers but were not at the attack site. Seems like it would be a fairly easy case to prove.
While not a criminal case, there is no rule against importing criminal law theories to terrorist prosecutions. Actually, in Bush’s world, there are no rules, and when there are rules or laws, Bush’s rule is to just violate with impunity.
Instead, the government pursued a different theory for the case. Moussaoui is responsible for at least 1 death at the WTC because had he provided information to the FBI when he was arrested, the US could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. This approach had to be recognized from the beginning as presenting risks, such as dredging up the past claims of negligence by the government and reminding the public of missed opportunities.
So, why would the government choose a theory that has certain inherent risks that are not politically attractive over a theory that was a sure fire hit for obtaining the death penalty without subjecting the Bush administration to past claims of negligence and incompetence? The answer may lie in the practical and political import of the government’s theory that but for Moussaoui remaining silent, the US could have prevented 9/11. The first advantage is that the US can now claim that Moussaoui has been found by a jury to be legally responsible for the 9/11 attacks not having been prevented by the government. It was not Bush’s fault that he did not listen to his staff and terrorism experts, or the fault of the intelligence community for not having connected the many dots. No, it was the fault of Moussaoui for not having spilled the beans. The second advantage is that the Bush team has established a new rule that when terrorists are captured, they have a duty to provide intelligence to the US about their plot or pending attack and also the evidence to convict them. No one would object to finding a way to obtain information from captured terrorists about imminent attacks in the US so that the government can take action to safe our lives. And, certainly the threat to future terrorists of this case is more acceptable than torture. However, there remains the concern of Bush applying this rule to domestic terrorists, which his administration has defined broadly to include political groups who disagree with his politics. That is my fear. That someday in the not to distant future that this rule will eliminate the need for some of the evidentiary safeguards that now exist for protesters arrested in the US.
Yes: If you don’t rat to the FBI, you can be held responsible for crimes of which you are not a part, lying in the distant future. Very useful.
Even more pathetic, to reach its conclusion, the jury had to accept evidence that it knew was corrupt.
But juries like blood. There is something about a capital case that vitually guarantees conviction.
A few months ago, they shot a man dead who was nowhere near Moussaoui’s level of utter madness, he was just a bipolar guy who ran off an airplane,
Moussaouis’s case is not really that unique in the context of US “judicial” practice.
It is not necessary for the defendant to be the exact person who committed that exact crime, the point is to send a message that society will not tolerate whatever the crime was. If the defendant “fits the profile,” (usually a black man without money to purchase the services of a private attorney), then people feel that justice has been served. While he might not be the actual perpetrator, he represents the perpetrator.
Moussaoui represents the “hijackers,” men who as part of their preparation to fly planes into buildings on purpose, went to a little flight school and announced that they just wanted to know how to fly planes, not land them.
And after five years or so of famous US “detention,” he is completely off his rocker, as most people would be, as he was no doubt intended to be if indeed he has or ever had any information that could be embarrassing to the US and its allies.
Well. let’s see now. This Moussaoui guy as far as I’m concerned did provide evidence. Problem was the FBI HQ was not interested to listening to it. The man was in jail. He was known to have attended flight schools with the intent of learning to fly an airliner but not to land it. His computer was there with all the data in it and an FBI agent was begging for a warrant to search it.
If you ask me, the FBI HQ already knew about what was going to happen and wanted Moussaoui to be their CYA guy as well as their obvious patsy.