Canadian Arab News
April 19, 2006
Zacarias Moussaoui have anything to do with the attack on the World
Trade Center, and should he face the death penalty in connection with
the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans?
questions go the very reason Moussaoui is on trial in a Virginia
courtroom, yet they are largely irrelevant to the trial itself. The
real defendant is not Moussaoui, but the “war on terrorism” and the
official fictions that support it. The trail serves to show that the official version of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, is accurate; to show that the government is waging and winning the “war on terrorism”; and to show the American public that justice is being done in their name.
show trial, thus, has everything to do with appearance and precious
little to do with facts or justice. Small wonder it appears downright
In one significant sense, the trial of
Moussaoui bears a resemblance to the 1938 show trial of Nikolai
Bukharin. In short, Bukharin was an old-guard Bolshevik who vigorously
opposed Stalin’s cruelly inefficient collectivization of agriculture
and favoured the continuation of limited capitalism.
stature in the Communist Party rivaled that of Stalin’s, whose paranoia
led to a mass purge of the party ranks beginning in 1936. Party apparatchiks
were arrested on trumped up charges of being terrorists and “right
deviationists,” and forced to denounce themselves and others in
infamous show trials.
Bukharin was repeatedly
denounced at these trials and went on a hunger strike. In February
1938, he was brought before a meeting of the Central Committee. As
historian Roy Medvedev recounted in his masterful book Let History Judge:
let his aides, especially Molotov, take the lead in the denunciation of
Bukharin. When Bukharin declared, ‘I…will not tell lies against
myself,’ Molotov replied: ‘If you don’t confess, that will prove you to
be a fascist hireling. Their press is saying our trials are
provocations. We’ll arrest you and you’ll confess!’ ‘What a trap!’
exclaimed Bukharin returning home.”
At the first
session of the trail of Bukharin and two others, the presiding judge
read the indictment. All three admitted their guilt. In fact,
throughout his “trial” Bukharin appeared relaxed and calm as he
admitted his “guilt.”
What could have broken
Bukharin’s will? Did Stalin promise to spare Bukharin’s family if he
confessed? This is a likely scenario.
The point to
this historical digression is two-fold: to illustrate that Bukharin’s
“trial” was a fraud to serve Stalin’s persecutions, and that Bukharin
was persuaded to deny his earlier protestations of innocence. In these
respects, Moussaoui’s “trial” is similar:
written guilty plea, Moussaoui denied having anything to do with the
events of Sept. 11, yet on the stand he claimed that Osama bin Laden
selected him to hijack a plane and fly it into the White House. Both of
these statements cannot be true, so why did Moussaoui change his story?
Was he given some inducement?
If he is guilty, why
did Carla J. Martin, lawyer for the Transportation Security
Administration, feel the need to tamper with the jury by feeding them
trial transcripts and coaching them on deflecting defence questions?
The obsessive need to convict and execute Moussaoui suggests that his
trial serves an ulterior motive.
As anyone who has studied the events of Sept. 11 knows, the following empirical facts are unambiguous and provable:
• the aircraft that hit the Twin Towers did not cause them to collapse;
• no passenger jet hit the Pentagon; and
• no passenger jet crashed into a field near Shanksville, Penn.
To argue otherwise would require suspension of the laws of physics.
Much has been written about the first two points, so let’s focus on the third because it bears directly on recent events.
Conveniently, the cockpit voice recorder has turned up, just in time for jurors to hear the emotional and panicked words of the passengers before they died. As Paul Koring wrote in the Globe and Mail on April 13:
“Jurors listened yesterday to the terrifying last minutes aboard hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 as desperate passengers fought al-Qaeda terrorists but seemed to fail in their quest to get into the cockpit before the Islamic extremist piloting the big Boeing 757 rolled it and crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania.”
Here, Koring directly links the Moussaoui trial with UA Flight 93.
Nothing about this juxtaposition seems to perturb Koring or his editor Stephen Northfield, both of whom told me that the idea of a mid-air explosion was preposterous and that a military shoot down could not be covered up. Yet neither of them could offer a plausible defence for the “official theory.”
Whereas Northfield was simply contemptuous and dismissive, Koring at least made a valiant effort. He said the presence of debris far from the “crash site” could be due to the plane breaking up along the flight path.
Possibly, but Indian Lake, where wreckage and human remains were found 2.5 miles away, is not on the flight path. Moreover, witnesses at Indian Lake told the local press that the falling wreckage was burning. Contrary to both Koring’s and Northfield’s assertions, the press did report eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence that pointed towards an explosion.
TOP: Final route of United Airlines Flight 93.
Note the southeast angle of the flightpath.
CENTRE: Debris from UA flight 93 fell from the sky onto the community of Indian Lake which
is northeast of Shanksville. Because Indian Lake is not on the flight path, the debris, which was also burning, couldn't have fallen from the aircraft before it crashed.
BOTTOM: Blurry detail from the Somerset, Penn, newspaper The Daily American, which records that a UA Flight 93 passenger heard an explosion and saw white smoke coming out of the plane. Given the dispersal area of the wreckage, the explosion, and the fact that witnesses saw burning wreckage fall from the sky, the theory that the plane crashed into
the ground is unsupportable.
The only theory that can reconcile all this data requires that the hijackers or the U.S. Air Force cause a mid-air explosion. If the former, there'd have been no reason to cover it up. Incompatibility of the official version with facts, however, does point to a cover-up.
Sources: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, www.city-data.com, whatreallyhappened.com
the reflexive, incurious reporting of “the official version,” the fact
that the CVR recording is being made public during the Moussaoui trial
is conspicuous in the extreme. It raises the question of what the FBI
was doing with it for 4.5 years.
We know the FBI
recovered the flight data recorder, “the black box,” at 4:50 p.m. on
Sept. 13, 2001, yet the data it contains still has not been made public.
don’t know what happened on board UA Flight 93, but I do know that it
has nothing to do with Moussaoui. Given his eccentric behaviour it's
hard to believe anything he said. Until he was forced to wear a stun
belt, which the Globe hasn’t mentioned, he was given to wild
outbursts. He frequently shouted insults at the court after the judge
and jury had left. He attacked his own lawyers for being racist and not
looking after his interests.
Moussaoui should not
face the death penalty, since: the state has no direct evidence linking
him to the Sept. 11 attack; Moussaoui’s own statements are
self-contradictory; and he doesn’t give the impression of being smart
enough to hijack an aircraft.
But then, the “trial” isn’t about him.