How the Moussaoui Case Crumbled.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
  • Additional Information
    • Subject Terms:
    • Subject Terms:
    • Abstract:
      The author presents an analysis of why the case brought by U.S. officials against terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui has virtually collapsed. Less than a month after he was locked up, 19 al-Qaeda operatives boarded four commercial jetliners and turned them into aerial bombs, killing more than 3,000 people in the worst terrorist attacks ever on U.S. soil. Within days, investigators began piecing together intriguing parallels between Moussaoui's actions and those of the hijackers. Three months to the day after the attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft proudly announced a show-stopping list of conspiracy charges against Moussaoui--who the government strongly hinted was the missing 20th hijacker--calling the indictment "a chronicle of evil." Nearly two years later, the government's case, which had been billed as a slam dunk, is a shambles. On Oct. 2, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said prosecutors could not seek the death penalty for Moussaoui and could not even allege that he had a link to the 9/11 conspiracy. She put those shackles on the government's case because it had denied the defendant, on national-security grounds, access to witnesses who were in a position to say whether he was part of the 9/11 gang--Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other key al-Qaeda figures the U.S. has captured. Unless Moussaoui's prosecutors yank the case into a tribunal, it would mean that they would have to pursue much reduced charges. The case now is pivotal for another reason: it has become a showdown between the basic right of criminal defendants to prove their innocence and national-security concerns that can affect the lives of many others. INSET: COURSE OF THE CASE.