The Moussaoui Trial - Case Study Example

The prosecution, and public opinion, pursued the charges on the basis of the emotional tidal wave in the wake of 9/11. By legal standards, the trial was questionable, though technically correct. By moral and ethical standards, Moussaoui did not have an opportunity for a fair trial under the intent of the law and was convicted as an example as the only living perpetrator loosely connected to Al Queda's 9/11 action. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had lost credibility with their under handling of the Moussaoui situation in late August 2001.

After extensive questioning of Moussaoui the FBI was convinced that he has some connection to a terrorist network. According to testimony by FBI agent Harry Samit, there were multiple signs of a possible terrorist link. Samit testified, I was aware that frequently terrorists to mask suspicious travel or frequent travel, that couldn't be explained by their job or by their nationality, would regularly destroy passports accidentally or report them stolen in order to mask that travel, so they weren't carrying incriminating entry and exit stamps ("Testimony", 888).

Clearly Moussaoui fit all these criteria for suspicion. However, the most the FBI could legally charge Moussaoui with was a Visa violation. He was arrested on August 17, but posted bond and was released on August 20, 2001 ("Testimony", 898). Moussaoui's arrest and quick release was the result of disinterested attitudes by FBI administrators as well as policies that were legally hampered by bureaucracy. In the retrospect of 9/11, the FBI had an image to protect.As a map to the road the trial was to take, we need to look no farther than the opening statement of U.S. attorney Robert Spencer.

Though there was never any evidence that Moussaoui had any detailed knowledge of 9/11 prior to the action, the prosecution painted a different picture. In his opening remarks, Spencer declares, "One of the people in that plan, one of the conspirators is among us still, right here in this courtroom today. That man is the defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui" ("Opening Statement", 22). The government's case rested to a large degree on the fact that Moussaoui had lied to Federal agents in August 2001.

But were the lies responsible for 9/11' Did Moussaoui have detailed or even cursory information of the imminent attack' Spencer contends that he did when he states in the opening statement, "And with that lie, his part, he caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people, the destruction of the Trade Towers in New York, part of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and four commercial aircraft" ("Opening Statement", 24). The FBI's assertion and Spencer's opening remarks are refuted by the written testimony given by Sheikh Kahlid Mohammed.

Sheikh Mohammed contends that, "[.] Missaoui did not know Atta and there was never any contact between the two of them" ("Substitution", 3). Missaoui may have had intentions of carrying out a future attack, but evidence does not show that he had any involvement in 9/11. Mohammed further explains Missaoui's role and claims that he was to participate in a second wave of attacks that had not yet been planned and had not even been formulated to the point of deciding the type of attack ("Substitution", 39).

Though Mohammmed