# Free Moussaoui!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [July 15, 2003, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578 "2003-07-15T04:40:47Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 13\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/41 "2003-07-17T06:13:03Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Debaser \*  
> Do you think he is innocent?

I have no basis upon which to form an informed opinion as to the 11 Sep charges. Possible on that. The rest he copped to.

> [@](#):
>
> I am not suggesting extra-judicial murder for people captured anywhere. I am suggesting that we don’t go out of our way to capture them in the first place.

Charming. I am unaware anyone is “going out of the way” at all, but one does expect some prisoners, barring a policy of executing them.

> [@](#):
>
> Are any of these treaties governing the rights of French citizens in the US being violated regarding Moussaoui?

Well, let us let a lawyer learned in the matter address the potential violations if he is unilaterly moved to a military tribunal. At the very least, it sends a very poor signal to the rest of the world regarding our own commitments to the rule of law.

> [@](#):
>
> The “war on terror” is a new kind of war. One that may have never been seen before. But, it’s still a war. IMO, we should use military tribunals to try terrorists because the scale of the crimes they are committing against us is outside the scope of the US criminal justice system.

New kind? It’s a very fairly old kind. Terrorism goes all the way back to the 19th century at least, in the modern sense, and for all our _historical illiteracy_, this is harldy the first time such issues have been faced by a Western democracy.

Of course, we can take the route of the expediant and the dictator, and simply repeat the empty declaration that it’s a new game. Or we can learn lessons from similar experiences.

> [@](#):
>
> I don’t see where I am factually incorrect. It’s been stated in this thread that the prisoner Moussaoui wants to meet with is _not_ being used as a witness against him. Is this fact in dispute?

His supposed association with the fellow is being used against him, obviously then he’s a material witness.

> [@](#):
>
> I agree that the threat to national security here seems minimal. However, there isn’t any reason why the meeting should be allowed.

There are fine and well established legal reasons why it should be allowed, in additoin to the say so of a Judge rather more learned in the law than yourself.  
So your position really boils down to we can just use the scare word terrorist and all the rights just melt away.

A lovely vote of confidence in our judicial system and reflects a fine commitment to the values of the same.

An article of interest in this very case, from The Financial Times

“National security vs due process” By Edward Alden 15 July 2003

After noting that the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers issued “a surprising recommendation” to the association’s membership, “11,000 US criminal lawyers” to not take part in the military tribunals, the author examines the issues involved.

First, in the developed world, among our very closest allies, there is deep concern:

> [@](#):
>
> The UK government is calling for changes to the trial rules to protect the rights of Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, two British citizens, who were among the six identified. Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, arrives in Washington on Thursday to meet Mr Bush and the issue is expected to top his agenda. In Australia, there is widespread public concern about the treatment at Guantanamo Bay of David Hicks, a 27-year-old from Adelaide, and the prospect that he could face the death penalty after what would be seen as an unjust trial. Mr Hicks, who has been detained for almost 18 months, will also be one of the first to face trial. …. ….

Not namby pamby France, Aussies and the Brits. Positioning and credibility for the long run are at stake.

In re the character:

> [@](#):
>
> The rules of the commissions differ from civilian courts in at least three vital respects. Advocates say these differences are crucial for prosecuting terrorist suspects while defending national security but critics say they will make a fair trial all but impossible.
> 
> First, while US criminal courts do have procedures to allow some secret evidence, criminal defendants are normally given full access to witnesses and to evidence against them.
> 
> ……
> 
> The government has warned that it faces the “choice of disclosing highly classified information to an avowed al-Qaeda terrorist or having charges dismissed”. It has said that allowing outside access to Mr bin al-Shibh could disrupt a sensitive interrogation that might expose future al-Qaeda plots.
> 
> …  
> Commission rules instead greatly restrict defendants’ ability to learn the evidence against them. The government will appoint military defence lawyers who will have access to the full range of witnesses and evidence; but they cannot share classified material with the accused. And while detainees can choose to have civilian defence lawyers - at their own expense - those lawyers may also be denied access to secret or sensitive information.

Now rather more important

> [@](#):
>
> ……  
> The second significant difference regards the use of evidence. In civilian courts, evidence can be admitted only if it is of a high standard of authenticity. The commissions will use a lower standard of “probative value to a reasonable person”. **That will allow a range of evidence to be introduced that a civilian court would probably reject as hearsay or rumour, and allows documents to be considered even when their origin cannot be fully verified.**
> 
> ……
> 
> Major Smith argues that the evidence gathered in the war on terrorism cannot reasonably be held to civilian rules. “There’s a difference between a battlefield environment and a standard criminal enforcement process,” he says. “If someone’s shooting at you from a cave, you’re not going to go to a judge to get a search warrant.”
> 
> Last, unlike in a civilian court, the detainees will have no right to trial by a jury of their peers. Instead, a panel of military officers will judge their guilt or innocence. A two-thirds decision by the panel will be sufficient to convict, not the unanimity required by a US criminal court (though unanimous decisions will be required for the death penalty). And no appeal is allowed to courts outside the military chain of command.

None of this sounds very encouraging, above all given the issue of legitimacy and respectability. The tribunals begin to smell like the sort of thing the US habitually condemns in others.

Note, with the exception of the actual Afghan prisoners, I find the “battlefield” assertion something of a red herring, e.g. in re Massaouie, Padilla etc.

> [@](#):
>
> Critics such as Mr Goldman argue that the rules established by the Pentagon make a fair trial virtually impossible. “The Department of Defence has set up barrier after barrier after barrier against effective representation,” he says. “I personally would not want to dignify what is not in my view a legitimate court.” He says that by forcing the detainees to stand trial before military officers, the US has all but ensured their conviction. “It’s not a very fair jury for someone who’s accused of a crime against the military. It’s not going to be a great career move if any of them votes ‘not guilty’.”
> 
> But the hostile panels may not be the worst of it. The rules allow the Pentagon to monitor all lawyer-client conversations in the search for intelligence. While the prosecution cannot use that information, it is likely to stifle the free discussion that is critical to mounting a successful defence. Nor will lawyers be allowed to complain about this to the press - the Pentagon must approve all contacts with the media.
> 
> Finally, Mr Goldman says, the government has made it impossible to seek a second opinion. When President Franklin Roosevelt set up a military tribunal in 1942 that sentenced six German would-be saboteurs to death, the suspects’ military lawyer appealed to the US Supreme Court, challenging the tribunal’s jurisdiction. (The court dismissed the appeal.) Lawyers for the Guantanamo detainees must agree not even to make such an effort.  
> …

However as the article notes and discusses, there is public support for the approach, on the other hand,

> [@](#):
>
> The more serious damage, critics say, will be in US efforts to export its brand of justice to the rest of the world. The Bush administration will launch later this year, for instance, an important initiative aimed at reforming judicial procedures in the Middle East.
> 
> “We undermine our own credibility with the rest of the world when we commit human rights abuses at home in the name of fighting a war against terrorism,” says Mr Hongju Koh, of Yale Law School. He points out that the US has regularly criticised even close allies such as Egypt over its use of military courts, even though the US process will have many of the same flaws.

Of course we seem to adopt do as I say, not as I do framework in the present Administration.

In short, while I am fully aware that the procedures etc. of these tribunals have been defended elsewhere here, in the final analysis, they look and quack very much like ducks we have objected to for a very long time.

It may be necessary in some circumstances, but find the rush to tribunals more marked by expediancy than careful consideration.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/42 "2003-07-17T12:05:38Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Magiver \*What do think is going to happen in when the **El Motassadeq -wannabes** figure that one out? You’re gonna be hip deep in your own civilized blood. You already have Saddam Hussein publicly giving money to the families of terrorists. Think of what a well-financed group would be willing to do in the name of God.

Free hint: People willing to die for their cause do not judge the comparative inconvenience of 15 years in jail or a bullet to the neck after a secret tribunal. They have a cause, see ?

And your gloomy predictions are out a bit late. Germany has tackled plenty of terrorists within its own borders - ever heard of the Rote Armee Fraktion ? - and yet for some reason, terrorists on killing sprees have yet to materialize. Germany even managed to clamp down on RAF quite effectively without abrogating its laws or its constitution for conveniences’s sake.

> [@](#):
>
> When the laws of Germany fail to protect its citizens (and I believe they will) you will see a repeat of Reichskristallnacht.

A Nazi reference when criticizing German affairs ? That’s original. Anyway, it makes no sense. Who do you expect to suffer a Kristallnacht (not “Reichskristallnacht”) ? The rampant terrorists? The Germans? Whom?

Since you saw it fit to bring up the crimes in Germany’s past, I will say this: Has it occurred to you that Germany is very careful to go by the book because she learned a really harsh lesson on what happens when you start applying constitutional protection selectively ?

> [@](#):
>
> Lightweight “civilized” laws are great in a world devoid of crazy people. When everyone in your neighborhood is dead, reality kicks in.

Terrorism wasn’t invented on September 11th. Modern Germany knows terrorism and has fought it before - above board, with public trials and by the book.

I would have thought it out of character for your country to do less.

An apology to our German dopers, who are quite capable of defending their own country, but I got a little annoyed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/43 "2003-07-17T15:59:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Gaudere \*  
> \*\*[Moderator Hat ON]
> 
> Complaints (including veiled ones) re official moderator actions and policy belong in the Pit. And ONLY in the Pit.
> 
> [Moderator Hat OFF] \*\*

My bad. I apologize.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/44 "2003-07-17T16:21:00Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*  
> Well, let us let a lawyer learned in the matter address the potential violations if he is unilaterly moved to a military tribunal. At the very least, it sends a very poor signal to the rest of the world regarding our own commitments to the rule of law.

_Unilateral_? Does this word just mean “anything we don’t like” these days? He is accused of committing crimes against America. He should be tried in and by America. Unilateral. Sheesh.

So, you complain that our relationship with France could be damaged because we have agreements governing the treatment of eachothers’ citizens. But, can’t cite me any of these agreements that we are actually breaking.

> [@](#):
>
> New kind? It’s a very fairly old kind. Terrorism goes all the way back to the 19th century at least, in the modern sense, and for all our _historical illiteracy_, this is harldy the first time such issues have been faced by a Western democracy.

It’s the first time they have been faced by the US like this.

> [@](#):
>
> Of course, we can take the route of the expediant and the dictator, and simply repeat the empty declaration that it’s a new game. Or we can learn lessons from similar experiences.

Changing our rules because we are facing a new and different situation makes us adaptive, not a dictatorship.

> [@](#):
>
> His supposed association with the fellow is being used against him, obviously then he’s a material witness.

Cite?

From what people are saying in this thread so far the fellow isn’t a part of the governments case at all. He is a witness that the defense wants pulled in because he can testify that they were planning other mass murders when this particular mass murder was being planned. Or something like that. But, the association isn’t being used against him or he certainly would have a right to face his accuser.

> [@](#):
>
> So your position really boils down to we can just use the scare word terrorist and all the rights just melt away.

Strawman. That’s not my position and you know it.

Unless you can prove that the use of military tribunals = all the rights just melting away.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Truth\_Seeker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5fc32e/32.png) [@Truth\_Seeker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truth_Seeker)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/45 "2003-07-17T17:37:05Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \*  
> \*\* New kind? It’s a very fairly old kind. Terrorism goes all the way back to the 19th century at least, in the modern sense, and for all our _historical illiteracy_, this is harldy the first time such issues have been faced by a Western democracy.

\*\*  
Maybe the 19th century B.C… Nero accused Christians (with some evidence) of starting the fire of Rome in 64 A.D. in an attempt to kickstart the second coming. The parallels with ObL’s efforts to bring on the collapse of the West and usher in a new age of righteousness are either eerie or depressing, probably both.

There really is nothing – or very little, anyway – new under the sun.

I want to highlight something you quoted.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Finally, Mr Goldman says, the government has made it impossible to seek a second opinion. When President Franklin Roosevelt set up a military tribunal in 1942 that sentenced six German would-be saboteurs to death, the suspects’ military lawyer appealed to the US Supreme Court . . . _Lawyers for the Guantanamo detainees must agree not even to make such an effort._

\*\*  
This, right here is, in my opinion, an absolute deal killer. _ **No** _ American lawyer can ethically undertake to represent any client, especially a criminal client, on these terms. It’s grounds for disbarment. An American lawyer has a duty of “zealous representation.” Making a deal in advance with the prosecution – or even the court – not to take certain steps even if you believe they would benefit the client is a non-starter. Regardless of who pays or who appoints the lawyer, the lawyer’s duty is to his or her client. Period. He or she simply cannot agree to fight with one hand tied behind his or her back as a condition of representation.

> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by Debaser_  
> \*\*From what people are saying in this thread so far the fellow isn’t a part of the governments case at all. \*\*

No. That’s not what I have said, anyway. He is a part of the state’s case, though that is only tangetially relevant.

> [@](#):
>
> \*\*Lormel [chief of the FBI’s financial crimes section] pointed to wire transfers from Bin al-Shibh to Moussaoui as evidence contributing to Moussaoui’s indictment.

\*\*  
[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/06/attack/main511244.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/06/attack/main511244.shtml)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/46 "2003-07-17T21:17:30Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _orignally by Truth Seeker_  
> No. That’s not what I have said, anyway. He is a part of the state’s case, though that is only tangetially relevant.

Well, I didn’t know this. However, if the state wanted to not include the testimony of this Gitmo resident against him just so that he wouldn’t be allowed access to him I wouldn’t see any problem with that. Both prosecution and defense attys use this sort of tactic all the time. An example would be not putting a defendant on the stand so that his prior convictions can’t be introduced.

However, I do agree that if this person is being used as a witness against him in any way then he would have to be given access to his accuser. Unless, they do as **Sam** suggests and keeps the whole thing behind closed doors. He can confront his accuser and national security is protected. We can all find out how it went down in 40 years or whenever the time limits run out.

I wouldn’t imagine that would make the critics of the governmentin this very happy either, though. It just makes the Feds look like they have something to hide.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/47 "2003-07-17T23:27:41Z")

</div>

[QUOTE]  
\*Originally posted by Spiny Norman \*  
\*\*Free hint: People willing to die for their cause do not judge the comparative inconvenience of 15 years in jail or a bullet to the neck after a secret tribunal. They have a cause, see ? \*\*

Free common sense: For every person willing to die for a cause, there is an exponential number of people willing to be incarcerated for 15 years in what amounts to a public library with 3 meals a day and a weight room to work out in. Unless you’re in Italy which apparently includes vacation time off.

\*\*  
And your gloomy predictions are out a bit late. Germany has tackled plenty of terrorists within its own borders - ever heard of the Rote Armee Fraktion ? - and yet for some reason, terrorists on killing sprees have yet to materialize. Germany even managed to clamp down on RAF quite effectively without abrogating its laws or its constitution for conveniences’s sake. \*\*

Didn’t seem to catch the people who plotted against the United States. Right now, Europe is a staging area. If America falls, who do you think is next? It is not a war of conquest, it is an economic war. The US doesn’t have to be occupied. Success is measured in a massive economic collapse. If that happens there will a worldwide economic collapse.

\*\* A Nazi reference when criticizing German affairs ? That’s original. Anyway, it makes no sense. Who do you expect to suffer a Kristallnacht (not “Reichskristallnacht”) ? The rampant terrorists? The Germans? Whom? \*\*

The reference would be to whatever ethnic group takes the blame for the terrorist acts. Pick one.

\*\*  
Since you saw it fit to bring up the crimes in Germany’s past, I will say this: Has it occurred to you that Germany is very careful to go by the book because she learned a really harsh lesson on what happens when you start applying constitutional protection selectively ?\*\*

It has occurred to me that German politicians have bent over backwards trying to correct a past that wasn’t their fault.

\*\* Terrorism wasn’t invented on September 11th. Modern Germany knows terrorism and has fought it before - above board, with public trials and by the book. \*\*

That was the whole point of my response. oliverH implied it was “civilized” to incarcerate someone involved in a mass murder for 15 years, and anyone disagreeing with him was ignorant of German law. His reply lacked any kind of response to what was said. 15 years for the crime is total BS (IMO). Your desire to speak on behalf of German law should include some kind of reasoned thought if you want to trade ideas. Otherwise, it is an exchange of lectures.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/48 "2003-07-18T06:47:43Z")

</div>

[QUOTE]  
\*Originally posted by Magiver \*

> [@](#):
>
> Free common sense: For every person willing to die for a cause, there is an exponential number of people willing to be incarcerated for 15 years in what amounts to a public library with 3 meals a day and a weight room to work out in.

I honestly have a hard time seeing that sort of cost/benefit analysis in the terrorist mindset. Guess it’s hard to know, really - I would think taht most terrorists fear failing their mission more than anything else, whatever the judicial consequences afterwards may be.

> [@](#):
>
> Didn’t seem to catch the people who plotted against the United States. Right now, Europe is a staging area.

As for staging areas and intelligence failures, I agree it was a complete embarassment the way the WTC terrorists received student visas and flight training in Europe. What ?

> [@](#):
>
> If America falls, who do you think is next? It is not a war of conquest, it is an economic war. The US doesn’t have to be occupied. Success is measured in a massive economic collapse. If that happens there will a worldwide economic collapse.

I certainly believe the US economy to be a little more robust than that. The terrorist threat should be taken seriously, but right now, people sem to be overreacting a mile a minute.

> [@](#):
>
> oliverH implied it was “civilized” to incarcerate someone involved in a mass murder for 15 years, and anyone disagreeing with him was ignorant of German law. His reply lacked any kind of response to what was said. 15 years for the crime is total BS (IMO).

Well, I may agree with you that it may seem disproportionately low for those used to see 800-year sentences, but those are the laws. IIRC, German law does not operate with the concept of “adding up” sentences (very few European courts do, as it happens).

To me, the civilized aspect comes into it when a terrorist is judged by the laws that are on the book at the time the crime is committed, by the usual courts and enjoying his full consttutional rights. In other words, no cutting corners in the name of expediency - that’s one lithmus test for civilization, one that Germany passed, in my opinion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [July 18, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/49 "2003-07-18T23:14:05Z")

</div>

quote:

Originally posted by Spiny Norman  
\*\*  
I honestly have a hard time seeing that sort of cost/benefit analysis in the terrorist mindset. Guess it’s hard to know, really - I would think taht most terrorists fear failing their mission more than anything else, whatever the judicial consequences afterwards may be.  
\*\*

If that were true then there would be more Al Qaeda bombers than soldiers. 10,000 suicide bombers could do the work of millions of soldiers. I think you underestimate the number of people who WANT to die for a cause. Even the most fanatical person can rationalize the finality of death. Given the current laws in Germany, it is very conceivable that someone will murder 100’s of people in Germany, and then run to a TV station to brag about it. His/her family gets an award and he/she spends 15+ years answering fan mail.

\*\*  
As for staging areas and intelligence failures, I agree it was a complete embarassment the way the WTC terrorists received student visas and flight training in Europe. What ?  
\*\*

I couldn’t agree more. Despite the legal disconnect between the FBI and CIA there were still people who understood what was happening and were ignored. That doesn’t eliminate the fact that many of the terrorists staged from Europe. Weak laws make it easy to hide in plain sight.

**I certainly believe the US economy to be a little more robust than that. The terrorist threat should be taken seriously, but right now, people sem to be overreacting a mile a minute.**

I don’t know how to answer that statement without insulting you. I refuse to get into any discussion of “what ifs” on the internet [on the subject] but you are WAAAAY off the mark on that statement. If 9/11 had been successful we would have been without a legislative branch. That alone would have triggered a massive, worldwide stock market panic. There are specific mechanisms to stop a crash like 1929. They simply wouldn’t work if there was a total loss of confidence in the US economy.

\*\*Well, I may agree with you that it may seem disproportionately low for those used to see 800-year sentences, but those are the laws. IIRC, German law does not operate with the concept of “adding up” sentences (very few European courts do, as it happens).

To me, the civilized aspect comes into it when a terrorist is judged by the laws that are on the book at the time the crime is committed, by the usual courts and enjoying his full consttutional rights. In other words, no cutting corners in the name of expediency - that’s one lithmus test for civilization, one that Germany passed, in my opinion.  
\*\*

You are arguing procedure, not law. If you use that logic than you would approve torturing someone to death as long as it follows the law and the constitutional rights of the convicted were upheld. In China you can be arrested, convicted, sentenced, and dead in less than 2 weeks. [http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2002/12/11\_1.html](http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2002/12/11_1.html)

Bad laws are just that, bad. It can be too punitive toward the guilty, and the results are obvious. A law can also be too lenient, which puts a monster back on the street.

If, after 15 years (or Italian vacation, whichever comes first), a terrorist is released, what do you expect will happen? The convicted killer from the cruise ship Achille Lauro is now free to kill again.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/50 "2003-07-21T18:22:21Z")

</div>

I have an idea, we should let Moussaoui go. We should then thank him very publicly, and loudly, for the volumes of information he has provided us with. “He finally came to his senses, and cooperated with us in every way imaginable. Thanks to him, a multitude of future terrorist plans have been thwarted. He really sang like a bird!”

If our legal system doesn’t get results, we’ll see how “their” system works. Just a thought.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/51 "2003-07-21T18:54:28Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by dnooman \*  
> \*\*If our legal system doesn’t get results, we’ll see how “their” system works. \*\*

Yes, Al Qaeda is known to be so dim-witted they can be easily manipulated by transparent lies. That Osama bin Laden has eluded capture and continues to lead a multi-national terrorist organization while suffering from this handicap says something about the capabilities of the US intelligence and military forces pursuing him, don’t you think?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dnooman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/839c29/32.png) [@dnooman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dnooman)\
**Post date:** [July 21, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/52 "2003-07-21T23:06:31Z")

</div>

Can’t take a joke huh? Guess I shouldn’t have said all that stuff about Osama being a dim-wit. ???

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\
**Post date:** [July 22, 2003, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578/53 "2003-07-22T23:43:10Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \*  
> \*\*Yes, Al Qaeda is known to be so dim-witted they can be easily manipulated by transparent lies. That Osama bin Laden has eluded capture and continues to lead a multi-national terrorist organization while suffering from this handicap says something about the capabilities of the US intelligence and military forces pursuing him, don’t you think? \*\*

Have ya talked to him lately?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/free-moussaoui/188578.md?page=2)