Moussaui Asks to Plead Guilty in 9/11 Trial
Breaking....[link via Raw Story ]...Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., has informed the Government that he will plead guilty, over the objections of his lawyers, if the Court finds him competent. He is willing to let a jury determine if he should get life or death.
In recent letters to the government and to Brinkema, Moussaoui said he is willing to accept the possibility of a death sentence, which sources said could resolve a key point of contention: Prosecutors are unlikely to drop their insistence on capital punishment. If Brinkema accepts a plea, she would then probably set a death penalty trial, at which jurors would decide if Moussaoui should be executed.
Previously, the Judge had banned the death penalty as a sanction for the Government not producing some of our hidden detainees for interviews by the defense - like Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - because they might provide favorable testimony for him. She also ruled the Government could not present any 9/11 evidence at all at trial for its refusal. Moussaoui had argued:
Terrorism defendant Zacarias Moussaoui needs access to three al-Qaida prisoners to prove he was not part of the Sept. 11 conspiracy and to spare his life, his lawyers said Friday. With the government seeking the death penalty, the three witnesses could demonstrate that Moussaoui was, at most, a bit player in the conspiracy, the defense team told an appellate court in a written filing.
But on appeal, the 4th Circuit split the baby and the trial was back on. Then the 4th Circuit ruled Moussaoui could be executed. Just last month, the Supreme Court dealt Mousaoui a setback upholding the 4th Circuit ruling depriving him of the ability to interview detainees.
Moussaoui tried to plead guilty in 2002, but it fell through. He wanted to plead to guilty to being a member of an al Qaeda conspiracy, but not to having a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Will he have any better luck this time? While the judge initially found him competent, that ruling has been called into question and his competency remains an issue. Why would a competent person plead to a death offense unless he wanted to die, and Moussaoui has fought the death penalty tooth and nail so far?
Not suprisingly, former prosecutors cited in the article thinks he's competent. One says he's not crazy. Crazy and competent are two different issues. Competency refers to the ability to understand the nature of the charges and the consequences of any plea disposition -- and the ability to assist in one's own defense. Crazy, or insane, refers to the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of one's actions - i.e, to tell right from wrong.
In 2002, Moussaoui fired his lawyers and tried to represent himself. That fell apart in short order.
My prediction: Even if found competent, Moussaoui will never get through a change of plea hearing. He will never admit to the essential elements of the offenses, or a sufficient factual basis.
This will be just a rerun of 2002. Maybe Sy Hersh was right, Moussaoui should have been a witness instead of a defendant. Early on, the French also doubted Moussaoui's connection to 9/11.
Here's a transcript of the 2002 hearing (html) where Moussaoui tried, but failed, to plead guilty. Here's some of Moussaoui's family history, according to his mother.
| < State Dept. Won't Release Terror Statistics | DeLay Sends Out Mass E-Mail > |
