Moussaoui Admits Lying So Sept. 11 Attacks Could Go Forward – FOX News
Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui helped himself get one huge step closer toward getting the death penalty Monday when he testified that not only did he know about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks ahead of time but that he and shoe-bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane and fly it into the White House.
The self-confessed Al Qaeda member also said he rejoiced and was delighted when nearly 3,000 people were killed and the World Trade Center was reduced to rubble after the attacks that day.
Moussaoui’s three-hour long testimony in his death-penalty trial revealed stunning new details in the case, many of which were in stark contrast to his previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release a radical Egyptian sheik imprisoned on earlier terrorist convictions.
“I was supposed to pilot a plane into the White House,” Moussaoui responded when defense lawyers asked him if he knew he was supposed to be a pilot in the Sept. 11 attacks when he was arrested on Aug. 16 of that year. “I only knew about the two planes of the World Trade Center in addition to my own,” he added.
Some of my thoughts. First, Moussaoui should immediately be charged as an accomplice in the 3,000 murders that took place on September 11th. Second, this seems to prove that the brave American heroes on United Flight 93 prevented their plane from being flown into the US Capitol, since Moussaoui’s plane was planned to hit the White House.
Finally, shouldn’t our intelligence community have tagged Richard Reid and prevented him from boarding an airplane, much less wearing a shoe-bomb, since his was apparently one of 5 other intended 9/11 hijackers?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
If Moussauoi and Reed were to be part of a 5th hijacked plane…..where are the other hijackers that were to go with them? Each plane had more than 2 terrorists.
Something about this story seems kinda strange. I’m not entirely certain it’s true, kids.
I think he is trying to get himself the death penalty
Un-coerced testimony in an open court by a terrorist who, up until now, was the darling of the anti-war, pro-ACLU, liberals screaming about prisoner rights, right to a trail, illegal detentions… this guy finally steps up in open court and apparently confesses to being a part of one of the worst terrorist incidents in our country’s history… and some here question if it’s a legit confession? We question that? He was a replacement for the 20th hijacker; he didn’t make it onto the murderous team because he was caught by the FBI a month earlier!
How about we finish the sentencing phase, send him to a federal institution, and execute him as is appropriate given his crime. Stop the second guessing. Stop the flyspecking of the prosecution. Bust his ass and be done with it. I’m not sure how charging him as a conspirator helps?
How about we hold all those liberal, ACLU-type pundits accountable for their lame defense of ZM over the last 4 years… they used him as a tool to criticize the Administration’s handling of terrorists, prosecutions in the WOT, and to advance their crazy notions that the Constitution protects even known international terrorists on US soil. Just like they’ve done in the Gitmo cases, the black ops detention centers in Europe, etc.
How about we make a point that these people are evil, they intend great bodily harm on US citizens and others, and they need to be brought to account. Just like the pundits and politicians who used ZM as a tool to vet their own mistaken perceptions and opinions about the WOT and other related matters.
You’re right Bruce. We ought to revisit the Richard Reid case but only to underscore that every single one of us is at risk these days –and to hammer the next liberal Democrat who tries to argue that the Administration is just using fear for political advantage… that there is no threat.
You’re missing the most important question.
U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 3: Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Doesn’t “levying War” create problems for the rather promiscuous use of “treason?”
Not necessarily a disagreement with earlier comments, just positing a possible problem.
Is it possible for a non-citizen to be a traitor to the U.S.?
Ooops. Sorry. #6 is a question which arose from reading #5.
Chagrin!
Gene, I think RWP is making the point that these terrorists ought to be tried in military courts rather than civilian, federal courts. And it appears that SCOTUS will soon provide cover for that prosecution and treatment.
Military courts are different from civilian courts in many ways…
Here’s the Left’s take: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_milj.html
and here’s a more balanced take: http://fact.trib.com/1st.lev.ctmartialvtribunal.html
and surprisingly, for the BBC, balanced here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1701789.stm
And here’s the Article:
What part of “or” don’t you understand?
Not as far as I know.
I think what follows “or” is vague. Mightn’t the vagueries of “adhering” be a bit problematic for…someone who is friends with a person who follows Wahabbism?
I first thought the phrase following the “or” carried the implication of an Enemy at war with the United States: something like–“or adhering to their Enemies with whom whey are at war.” You could be correct. The OED doesn’t show a definition of adhere significantly different from the one we use today.
We, as a Nation, are fumbling through the legalities of this “state of war” against a non-state. Follow the connotation as well as the denotation.
Agape.
It’s a clear as clear gets. Nothing vague about it.
Unlike US citizens who may protest some of the actions of of government because we love it and know it could do better by its people, this man truly hates the US and its citizens. I have but one question, why is he still alive. Should we have not executed his butt by now. Whatever he was going to give us he has given. Wasn’t Timothy McVeigh dead within a half dozen years of his misdeed. Call me crazy, but a suicide bomber by definition has no qualms with dying. I for one have no qualms executing his narrow behind. Heck, there are probably some Europeans who would feel okay with this course of action.
Back to normal programming….