Talk:Zacarias Moussaoui/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thanks

thanks for doing such a nice job on adding meat to this article :)

Kingturtle 04:36, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Factual error

The article says:

He is accused of being the "20th hijacker" and conspiring with Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network to kill thousands of people.

He is no longer accused of this. [News24.com]

They also fail to mention in 1995 he was spotted in Israel at a convention with Mossad. I believe this will clarify things for all of us. Washington Times September 10, 2001 Section: A Edition: 2 Page: A1 Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

And, Moussaoui can speak perfect English with no accent. Mossad agents can speak perfect English with no accent. I believe we were attacked by Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.55.212 (talk • contribs)

Spectacular :) Even by the standards of the internet, that's a wonderfully loopy line of argument. "Bin Laden speaks English with an accent. Ergo, men with accents are out to kill us all." :) :) Tpth 05:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article says:

"This request was first cut down by her boss Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman and later on rejected based upon FISA regulations..."

This sentence makes it seem that FISA struck down a request. But Rowley herself has recently stated that this is untrue. "The Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which handles FISA matters, was never contacted." Later she adds: "As it turned out, faulty interpretations and widely-varying perceptions of FISA procedures, especially what the "FISA wall" entailed, played a big role in the FBI's determination not to contact DOJ, and not to move forward until after the 9/11 attacks occurred." [[1]]

I hesitate to make the change myself, perhaps the original author knows better than I.

questions, we have questions

I wish someone could shed light on the apparent reluctance of the government to investigate this guy in late summer of 2001. It almost seems that someone didn't *want* to know what he was up to. Kristen Breitwiler (9/11 widow and firebrand) stated on tv recently that there were re[eated attempts to get a FISA warrant, to no avail. Some analysis? Evelyn

What is the purpose of the trial?

According to the article : "Zacarias Moussaoui (born May 30, 1968) is a French terrorist of Moroccan descent involved in the conspiracy that resulted in the September 11, 2001 attacks." It is stated as a matter of fact that he is both a "terrorist" and that he was was involved in 9/11. Why do we need a trial then?

He has called himself a terrorist, and he says that he supported the 9/11 attacks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

He also sounds like a crackpot who would claim that he is Osama Bin Laden or Mohammed himself. What does that prove? Where does he say he was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy - in fact later in the article this is contradicted : "Moussaoui has admitted his involvement with al-Qaida, but claims he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Rather, he has claimed that he was preparing for a separate attack."

Isn't terrorist a criminal charge? If so he has yet to be found guilty. Perhaps the article should state that he's a "French citizen of Moroccan descent accused of terrorism." Just a thought. Wjbean 19:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update, in the meantime he is in sentencing fase of trial so he is no longer accused, he has been found guilty of terrorism...

More unsubstantiated allegations presented as facts

"Ramzi Binalshibh, an al-Qaida leader now in U.S. custody and an alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, has told investigators that Moussaoui met with him prior to September 11, but Binalshibh chose not to use him. Binalshibh felt that Moussaoui had previously drawn too much attention to himself through a series of flight lessons and inquiries about crop dusting."

Verifiable references to back this up will be welcomed. The main article about Binalshibh on Wikipedia doesn't support this allegation either.

That's from the 9/11 Commission Report. However, Binalshibh may be lying - it's hard to tell. The 9/11 Commission was not allowed to see or interview Binalshibh directly. They had to submit their questions to the Pentagon, and the Pentagon "asked" Binalshibh the questions, and reported back the answers. Anyway, it's all it the report. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call second hand questioning filtered through the Pentagon from the censored 9/11 report verifiable evidence. The Moussausi trail may shed more light on the purported link with Binalshibh but then again it may not - since: "Moussaoui has made requests for access to confidential documents and the right to call captive al-Qaida members as witnesses, notably Binalshibh, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. Both requests are claimed by prosecutors to be potential threats to national security."

If this is indeed from a third-hand source (and through the Pentagon, i.e. one of the victims of 9/11, no less!), then it would be better to make this fact more obvious. After all, if the credibility of the Pentagon in this case is comparable to that of the FBI, then all bets are off ... Aragorn2 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Court Proceedings and Death Penalty

These areas have duplicated information. They should somehow be merged or reorganized to avoid redundant information.198.207.168.65 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Americas Justice System??

I want to know that if I say that I was involved in 9/11 without giving any proof. Then according to US justice system I am guilty? They will not verify my claim? How could they give Moussaoui death penalty without verifying his confession? Is that a justice? I am sorry if that is not the right place for my question and will be happy to have a reply. Faisal

Well try it out. Do as Moussaoui did - Declare yourself as a member of Al-Qaeda (btw, that in and of itself is a crime in the U.S.), declare your loyalty to Bin Laden, declare the U.S. as your enemy, declare your intent to kill Americans. Then we'll see what happens to you...Just don't do so anywhere near me... Jeravicious 01:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Simply decalring it is a crime? What crime is that?

NO, you get a fair trial, and a jury has to unanimously find you guilty.

It's not that outrageous to me. If you are accused of a crime, and then state under oath that yes, you commited the crime, then what's the problem? It happens every day in plea bargains. Granted, this is an odd case, but I'd hardly say it called into question centuries of common law tradition.

Your analogy is flawed. When a murder victim is found and a suspect confesses under oath, and you have some circumstantial evidence (e.g. a motive and a shop owner testifying that the suspect looked suspicious while buying that axe), then you may have sufficient evidence. But the fact is that the 19 men directly guilty of this mass-murder died on Sept. 11 2001. Now Moussaoui says yes, he wanted to be the 20th man, if he hadn't been arrested beforehand. There is no other evidence that indicates that there would have been a 20th man. So in the example case, you know that there is a murderer who hasn't been held responsible, and if your prime suspect confesses, it's probably him. In Moussaoui's case, however, you know that Moussaoui's not a murderer, and you only have his own self-condemning testimony to indicate that he would have murdered given the chance, plus some circumstantial evidence like the testimony of the flight school instructor.

Psychologically, there are many reasons for giving a false confession. In Moussaoui's case that could be a desire for martyrdom and a nice place somewhere in the sky where 72 virgins feed him delicious white raisins. The most common reason is that the accused is afraid of being convicted despite his/her innocence, and tries to reduce the sentence in this way. Another reason would be mental illness. The possibility of convicting an innocent (at least to the crime at hand) person is one danger of a justice system that is too eager to convict because of a confession. That the real culprit may go unharmed if an innocent person is convicted of the crime is another. So in any case, a confession and a few pieces of circumstantial evidence do not provide a lot of justification for a guilty sentence. Aragorn2 22:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries...it's much simpler than that...Is Moussaoui part of Al-Qaeda? YES, he admits it and others have admitted it also. That is and of itself is a crime. He may get the death penalty for this offense, but even if not, he ain't getting out of U.S. custody...ever. In fact, don't give him the death penalty...sentence him to life in prison...send him to a maximum security prison with other American "infidels" and let them handle him. Jeravicious 00:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cool answers. I think best one was from Aragorn2, even I wish that I change my user page by copying his user page. In case there are no copyrights? :). I got the answer that if I want to do the suicide then I can do that using the way Moussaoui is doing and using justice system. I have my second question now. ***Question:- If Moussaoui changes his confession again, again and again (under oath each time). Then why they still kept hearing him always? Why not all of his confessions are denied based on contradictions with each other? Next time he could come back and say I was making fun ha-ha. I never intended to do anything wrong. Will they believe that one too like they believed many time in the past or they will deny this not guilty statement. Or may be next time he will says, I intend to fly in WTC with Atta, will they continue to believe him Faisal 01:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A trial cannot go on forever. Moussaoui made his statements. A judge (or jury) will take all the evidence into account and then decide his fate. If at a later date, he changes his mind, he can try to appeal. It will be turned down. He is Al-Qaeda. He will either be given the death sentence...and Americans will have their justice, or he will be held until he dies in prison...and Americans will have their justice. In either case, Americans will go on living their productive lives with no regard for this man or his extremist beliefs. Jeravicious 03:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think for the sake of your own credibility you should moderate the tone of your posts. "He is Al-Qaeda"? - Al-Qaeda is a group consisting of more than one man. "Americans will have their justice"? Is it the aim of this trial to seek justice on behalf of every American? If so, why? not every American was a victim of what he did. Your replies sound a little too close to sensationalist (dare I say it.. extremist?) diatribe to me. Rob cowie 11:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I was quoting Moussaoui when he himself said, "I am Al-Qaeda". Second, it's a similar phrasing as if I said, "I am American"...get it?? Good...I knew you would. And yes, the aim of a trial brought by the U.S. government IS to seek justice on behalf of the American people. Being a part of Al-Qaeda is a crime in the U.S...apparently you seem to have a problem with that...Jeravicious 13:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

>Moussaoui when he himself said, "I am Al-Qaeda".

Then what? Many people say "I'm Bonaparte Napoleon" (or Emperor Nero or Casanova). They are usually locked up in lunatic asylums and medicated. Whatever ZM says should be compared against reality. He has been in solitary confinement for 5 years now and must be climbing walls. He is not competetent to make any statements. USA and Bushites better try getting Osama if they are to punish Al-Kaida. ZM's case is like trying to execute Yorick instead of Hamlet.

You can confess to a crime in the United Stated but be released cause no evidence supports the confession. This really was a travesty of the American judicial system as fear convicted this man not evidence. This is supported by the comments jurors themselves made after the trial. The worst part is he confessed to die, so he can commit suicide as a martyr in history, instead they fought to give him life instead of death to stop him from gaining what he wanted. Simply being a member of a terrorist organization, which the proof is just you saying so, is well ... silly. The worst part is the government even admitted he was lying and his story as being the 20th hijacker didnt pan out nor did his later story of planning a second attack with the "shoe-bomber." --Zer0faults 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your problem is with the means and not the ends, I trust? You dont believe the outcome for Moussaoui was unjust do you? You dont want hime to go free or receive a fixed sentence and go free later?Mrdthree 23:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Link

Could someone add prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/280306_b_belt.htm this] and prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/290306Stunning.htm this]? --Striver 23:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't do it? Something wrong with your mouse and keyboard?? Jeravicious 03:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Zacarias Moussaoui

Zacarias Moussaoui Should be sent to the death penalty. Who ever wishes horm on others should be put in jail. there shouldnt be any talk about it put him in the death penalty.

No. Don't give him the death penalty. That's the easy way out. One small injection and it's over. Let him suffer the many beatings and attacks from America, prisoners for the rest of his life. Death penalty will in his mind send him to heavan as he believes he's dying as a martyer. Let him suffer the indignation and humiliation and suffering of life in prison. That's much worse than the death penalty.

CNN already knows the lethal outcome of this trial: "The process won't begin until the Moussaoui jury returns its death penalty verdict" - says the last paragraph of the news article found here: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/07/moussaoui/index.html

If this is not a prearranged trial, that what it is? Even news agencies know the result in advance! Bsuh's USA = Stalin's USSR 195.70.32.136 17:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to execute Prince Laden in effige? Zacharias doesn't even resemble him!

It seems very stange that a non-homicidor can be sentenced to death. As far as I know there are only two US states that allow execution for child rapists, every other state only allows death penalty for homicidors or capital arsonists if the fire kills someone. Z. M. did not kill anybody. The right to not tell authorities anything is protected in the fifth amendment, so there is no problem of him not telling the FBI about 9/11 beforehand, since that would mean incriminating himself. Why is the hangman then?

USA is making a fool of itself trying to execute a mentally disturbed daydreamer while Sheik Osama bin Laden and Doctor Kayman Zawahiri are carefully plotting the next big bang Al-Kaida thing completely unhindered in their cozy caves with five camels and a dozen faithful jihadist bodyguards. The crusade against the poor crackpot Z. M. only shows USA's five-year frustration over its own impotence at nabbing Al-Kaida top brass. 195.70.32.136 09:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My take is that they will NOT give him death. However, the News about case will make us feel that he will get death for sure. Hence when we will hear life-in-prison verdict then the justice system will be praise and this unjust case will be legitimize. It is the case with no solid evidence except multiple contradicting confessions of Z.M., one after another. ---- Faisal 09:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what's so unjust. Do you recommend that we let him walk?

The actual injustice is to the general public who are led like sheep to believe 9/11 has now been avenged, we caught the bad guys, etc. Moussaoui should be sitting in jail, yes, but like Iyman Faris, he should be sitting in jail for his own actions, not blamed for 9/11 Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 16:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We must be seeing very different media reports. I've not seen anything that fits what you describe, of this being hailed as vengence for 9/11. <shrug> I've not got cable TV at the moment, that may explain it.

Then just look at this totally biased CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/06/moussaoui.victims/index.html

Crying ex-mothers and widows tell of 9/11 horrors but there is zero mention of the fact that ZM was in prison for several months by the time 9/11 happened. It is like a deep south lynching combined with a soviet-style prearranged trial. Al-Kaida's village idiot will be slain in effige of the Sheik and the Doctor and even that is doubtful if Z. M. was actually Al-Kaida's village idiot or just a generic arab village idiot. I think the FBI failed to tell ZM that those seven virgins and 40 camel gifts in the afterlife do not really exist and so becoming an islamic martyr is moot. The poor crackpot still thinks he will be rewarded in Paradise for things he did not do, so he happily cooperates with the yankee who want to execute him. 195.70.32.136 08:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Different people here think that Z.M. might be making confessions because he wanted to enter in the heaven. I do not think because he is just doing a suicide. Hence he will end up in hell. I think his mother is saying something more interesting and valid. His mother thinks that he is saying those things because he had spend many years in prison alone, without having contact with humans. He might not have anyone to talk and share with. Hence he might be fed up with prison life. It is also possible that he is mentally ill or becoming ill. Also he do not believe anyone in USA. I hope you can imagine his condition.... I want to ask that why the court keeps accepting his multiple contradicting confessions? How can they have a case "even life in prison" on the bases of his confessions ONLY which he had changed multiple times? I think USA Govt. is not that stupid to give him death because many fair minded people in USA will think against their Govt. I believe USA still has lots and lots of fair people. Hence my theory is that, this political case will have life-in-prison verdict but after the case people will start believing 9/11 official story and will be more happy with their Govt. actions. The official story is like a fairytale to me. In the official story 19 super-duper-humans and world-best-pilots hit the targets with super-accuracy for example read Hani_Hanjour and tell me how he can hit very low target with 100% accuracy - the pentagon. I after knowing the biography of those 19 people and analyzing their flying skills cannot believe official 9/11 story. Osama might be a terrorist and very bad person but it is difficult to believe that he is planning everything while sitting in a cave. ---- Faisal 11:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not punish him instead of killing him?

Okay, we've decided he's guilty. We've decided to punish him. Right? Then why are we going to do exactly what he wants us to do and kill him? He'll become a martyr. It's like what Aragorn2 said above. Some have said that he may just be making stuff up, like his plan to fly a plane into the White House. Why would he make stuff up? Because he wants to die. Why would he even plead guilty in the first place? Because he wants to die. Why would he say that he hates all Americans? Because he wants to die. If he dies, he'll become a martyr. Radical Islamic militants and terrorists will know of him and fight in his name for years. He will be the one who was willing to die rather than denounce his cause and his faith (which is a skewed, anti-Christian, anti-American version of Islam). It will give them strength, motivation, a desire for revenge. Like how American troops fight for freedom. So why are we giving him exactly what he wants? That is not punishment. A life sentence is punishment. Twilight Realm 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that he will be given death. For me the case is nothing more than a show, to make US citizens happy and ... ---- Faisal 05:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very sure he will be given the death penalty. All the innocent people that were killed in 9-11 and his statements in court will see to that. It's sad when a religion no matter what it is hides behind it when they kill innocent people. How were all the people killed in 9-11 directly connected to the US Governemt? It was act of terrorism and murder. Islamic countries clam American soldiers are killing innocent people already so how does there claim supercede ours? --Scott Grayban 11:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that 9/11 is done by Al-Qaida or Muslims. Do you have some proof to share with me? Or if you believes whatever Bush/CNN/Fox will tell you? ---- Faisal 11:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof he didn't? After all he did admit in court that he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them. The courts can only go by the facts presented. He openly admitted to them. And second I never said that Muslims did it. I was refering to those people like Z.M. that turn a good religion into a perverted one with the actions they carry out on innocent people regardless who they are. --Scott Grayban 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See friend, I strongly believe in the idea that. Every man is innocent until proved otherwise. For example, I will think about you as a very nice and cool person unless it is proved otherwise. How can they say Z.M. is guilty only on the bases of his statements without verifying those statements? Remember, those statements of Z.M. had been changed many times in the past. Do you want me to quote all of his different confessions? I had been reading about the case closely and never found any other evidence. If you want to deny me then it is your right. I cannot give you 2+2=4 logic, however if you will think from a neutral mind then you will find that there is no proof given in the media except his contradicting statements. I for example, can say -- I am 21st hijacker and was not able to catch the flight due to traffic-jam --. Do you think after my above claim you will give me a death or you will like to verify my claim and collect evidence? In death plenty case one has to be 101% sure, are you 101% sure about him? Ideally it should be like what is shown in a movie named 12 Angry Men :). --- Faisal 13:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I can see you are brainwashed as well. Instead of seeing the facts you along with the others deem that killing innocent people is just dandy according to the radical terrorists that Z.M. is affiliated with. Just this morning Muslisms killed other Muslisms in a Mosque/church. That is just insane. How can any religion justify that? I have come to the conclusion that what ever the Muslim faith believes in has turned its back on its own faith and people. Why is it that only the Muslisms kill each other without thinking twice about it? Why is it that other religions for example Baptist not follow the same thing if its perfectly OK according to the rules of the Koran? I will not accept the facts that these type of people claim that Muslisms are the supreme ruler of what God says. I will not accept the fact that God orders these Muslisms to commit murder based on a persons faith/belief/religion. God gave man *free will* and to follow what he said that did not give anyone or any one religion the right to claim revenge or what they want to call it. Just because someone doesn't like there next door neighbour doesn't give them the right to kill them. That type of thought is warped. --Scott Grayban 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I never tried to justify the killing. You are failed to understand what I said. If Z.M. has killed anyone then he deserve to be killed. There is not argument about that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Please... Faisal 19:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You are defending him. You said that Z.M. is claiming he knew about the 9-11 for attention -- if that is the case he is a moron to temp death in such a fashion. Its not even honour at that point. Regardless of what everyone wants to say the fact remains there is enough eviedence to convict him of murder without the 9-11 confession. The 9-11 confessions in court only helped the US Gov. case against him. Alot of people are saying he doing this for attention. There are alot of other harmless ways to get that attention... such as mooning Bush as his motorcade drives by or flashing a some Congress Women. To get attention the way Z.M. you claim is a sign of a true idiot then. If he is that stupid to do that then there is no telling what he did and didn't do. Right? --Scott Grayban 08:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh so you thinks that that there is sufficient evidence to convict him other then his own contraditing statements. Can you share those facts with me with references? I am not able to find them on CNN/FOX/NY-times/wikipedia/FBI-sites/Google-search... Where I should look for those evidences? --- Faisal 19:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if I pointed out and pasted references, which are all over the internet, you would still claim something different then what is a fact. I expect that. No group of people want to be labled as murders exspecially ones that claim a religious book justifies it. All I can say is Karma returns what is given out. --Scott Grayban 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If the religious book could justify the killings then in 1000 years when Muslims were the superpower there would had been lots of killing and mass murders. It was not the case, even Jews were treated very well. USA is superpower from only last 60 years ... I will be the first person to change my opoinion about Z.M. if I read any good evidence. I will try not to reply to you anymore as you always continue directing you hate towards muslims and my religion without knowing histroy, and giving any evidence. --- Faisal 11:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I am Muslim. I do not hate Muslims as a whole. What I hate are the idiots that take our faith and turn into a perverted act of murder and hide behind our Koran to justify there actions. That pisses me off as a Muslim. --Scott Grayban 11:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

He should not be put to death. That would make him a martyr. That's what he wants. But,... Life in prison as Bubba's cell bitch, now that would be punishment and poetic justice. Insaneman 00:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a very constructive comment there Insaneman. No reason to put in vulgar to make your point is there? --Scott Grayban 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Scott, I think not all Muslims are hated by Americans. I think Muslims are actually cool even if I do not believe in any religion. So, I think you should change that idea.

I think that Zacarias Moussaoui should go to jail for life. First, he is in an insane small part of Muslim (this is the same for Christianity, I think) and he wants to get killed to become a martyr. Secondly, if he gets killed, in his mind, he thinks that he is a person who helped god, overall that is what he thinks. Thirdly, he should suffer the prison because he is still in his late 30's. He might be in prison for at least 30 yrs. Fourthly, I feel very bad to his mother. His mom loves his son even if he did all these actions. This is the same for all mothers. This says in the edition of TIME May 1, 2006. Fifthly, he killed more than 3000 people.--User:Englishfun

Permanent ban

Let’s get a permanent ban in place for IP 141.154.138.2. GJK 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC) IP 141.154.138.2 is a school district. You want to ban schools from reading a wiki article?

I do. Real contributors can still sign in.Dlohcierekim 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty for lying?

Is America serious?

Lock this dangerous freak up to keep society safe, but he's committed no crime! Certainly no crime that justfies KILLING him! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.36.164 (talk • contribs)

Depends on who you ask. Ask me and I say fry him. Why ? Because my uncle worked there as a poor man washing toilets and bathrooms. What did he do to him? Nothing. He cleaned crap up off the floor and pee on the toilet seats. How much of a threat was he? At 67 he was a threat to no one yet Z.M. in his defiance to all said he would kill again and more American's. Second, I was there and watched both planes hit the towers. I even saw the second plane actually AIM for the tower. Z.M. claims he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them. That makes him just a worthless as the hijackers. Have you smelled death? Have you smelled burning flesh? Have you watched people jump to there death from 50 stories high because that was better then being burned alive? Probably not but I have, up close and personal. --Scott Grayban 11:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm unclear what ZM did to your uncle, other than soil his memory. He's obviously scum, but we don't execute those who picket soldier's funerals with signs reading "GOD HATES FAGS" or "I CHEER WHEN AMERICAN SOLDIERS ARE DEAD". We hold them in disdain, we prosecute them for laws they did break, but I think an unfortunate part of society is that we have to deal with the scum, or else we enter a slippery slope Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I beleive the argument for it is guilty through affiliation, and seeing as he is supposidly guilty through affilation for the death of 3000+ people, the death penalty doesn't seem too far out for many people. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's what is going on. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Scott that 9/11 is so horrible that even if Z.M is not involved he should be killed. Also court should select his confession (from the set of 100 different confessions) that suit best to kill him. Like court should ignore him saying multiple times he do not know any thing about 9/11. Even Next time if he will say that he was supposed to fly on 9/11 then court should accept that confession as it would suit even better to kill him. YES! Faisal 12:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My statement is not in revenge either, its called justice. And its not called murder when its done. Although I'm sure our way to put people like Z.M. to death is much nicer then the beheadings that American's got in Iraq so he should be happy. I'm sure the victim families would have other idea's for it. What get's me is how can such a man that believes in God say such terrible things? American's should bow before Muslism's? We should pay to live on earth? That's a pretty bold statement from a non-deity human. In life there is always a if. What if everyone's religion is wrong? What if the only true religion is not even the ones on earth? Maybe we missed it some place. All I know is I'll never tempt a God with saying such awefull things in plain fear because of the if. I treat everyone no matter who they are with the same respect I would want. Colour and religion mean nothing without respect for others. --Scott Grayban 13:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to play Advocatus Diaboli for a moment, we view ZM the exact same way those in Fallujah viewed US Contractors...as somebody who, even though he wasn't literally the one who killed those close to us, supported it and may have helped make it possible. It is a blood debt. This isn't to suggest I hold you in disdain, or am yelling at you, instead I wonder how I could politely suggest alternative viewpoints for you to consider - just as I think I'm able to understand yours. I agree with your statement that Americans/anybody should not have to "Bow to Muslims", though I'm assuming you meant that figuratively, since no Muslim would ever demand to be bowed to in that fashion, as it would constitute shirk - similar to the First Commandment Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Secondly, I think your indignation at the concept of "paying to live on Earth" is justified, but only given your lack of knowledge - so I'd ask that you read through Jizya which is the description of that "tax". One of the five pillars of Islam is Zakat, which is the exact same as the Christian concept of Tithing (Though it should be noted that tithing's "magic number" is 10%, while Zakat is 2.5%). However, this meant that those living in countries where "Zakat" was common saw financial benefits to joining another religion, if 'Abdullah' became a Zoroastrian, he'd have more money for himself every year. So to counter that, all Dhimmi (non-Muslims, basically) have to pay the same tax that Muslims do. It should also be noticed then, that it exempted the Dhimmi from having to serve in a Muslim army - if they didn't believe in Mohammed, they didn't have to worship him, fight for him, they could do their own thing...they just still had to pay the same sort of "charity tax" as their Muslim counterparts. It's not a perfect explanation, but hopefully "it'll do" :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why you think that he is a religious person and whatever he said is true according to Islam? How can you tell about any religion based on some people acts or him? If like you I also start judging Christianity after seeing christens like Bush then I can never love Jesses-Christ. However, I still love him. So never judge religion from some people acts, you have to see the script and then find people who follow the script properly. If you do not know Quran and judge Islam from some misguide people then please do not blame Islam. Lastly, if someone justify killing of Z.M. on the bases that he abuse American or America then it is a big SHAME. Where is the hard evidence of him even knowing 9/11, except his conflicting confessionS? Why you reject his confession where he said I do not know any thing about 9/11 and except the other one??? What is the critaria? Faisal 16:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you want personal feelings to answer this? If you really want the average person to answer this don't get mad because the shoe fits this foot just like it fits yours. --Scott Grayban 16:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And read above "I am Muslim. I do not hate Muslims as a whole. What I hate are the idiots that take our faith and turn into a perverted act of murder and hide behind our Koran to justify there actions. That pisses me off as a Muslim. --Scott Grayban 11:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)" So don't claim I hate Muslims because that would be a lie. --Scott Grayban 16:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. this talk page is about improvements to the article, it is not supposed to be a forum or a blog. Opinions about Islam, discussions of death penalty or personal grief are quite irrelevant here. Rama 21:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jihad

Why is the word "jihad" mentioned a whopping single time in this article? Is this another article that is trying to deceive people to believe that Islam had nothing to do with what this mujahideen planned to do?

POV warning - What "this muja" planned to do was laughable, he makes [[Rudolf Hess|Hess]'s flight to Scotland look like the act of a sane man acting in concert with cohorts. ZM is one pyschiatrist short of believing he is the next incarnation of Napoleon.

Jihad created in 1388 after the Crusades. 620th anniversary is in 2008. We started invading the Middle east in 1988 on their 600th anniversary.

Really, to me it seems this man is very intelligent and a devout muslim. He is so smart that he is actively trying to pursue a death penalty instead of caving in to get his martyrdom.

The death penalty is his martyrdom, he wants to be killed "for his beliefs/actions" - people confess to crimes they didn't commit all the time, because they want history to remember them. Zacarias is no different, except we're not sure whether he's after "being remembered" or "getting some virgins" to be blunt Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 15:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The jokes on him...God/Heaven don't even exist. He's soon to be worm-food. Jeravicious 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things on your very dull comments. (1) No one knows for sure when he will die (may be you or me die tomorrow - earlier than him) (2) No one can prove existence of God using Maths or vice versa. (Hence may be joke happens with you).

I have to say, I think he shouldve been burned alive like all the people in the World Trade Center, The Pentagon and United 93. So why dont all of you disgustingly liberal Europeans worry about punishing your own terrorists and America will worry about punishing ours. Mac Domhnaill 21:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Except...the guy is French. So one could argue he is one of "ours". GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)kllllllllllllllllll

America's legal system isn't very eye for an eye though so that is not likely to happen (expecailly since he has already been sentence). Even though I may feel just that way as well, I don't support it because I feel a decent legal system and a good understanding of what is write and wrong is what makes us civilized. I feel that Hammurabi's Code is somewhat outdated.--Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Evil?

I read in the article saying moussai is evil but Wiki is not the place for that

71.85.6.211 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)rbb

Wikifast

How awesome is it that we can get news from wikipedia faster than from online news sources?? Taco325i 20:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, wiki means quick. :) --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Error

Zac hasn't been SENTENCED to life yet - sentencing is done by the JUDGE, and will follow at a later hearing from the one where the jury gave its verdict.208.27.111.121 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Parole?

Eligible for parole in 2026? How credible is the source? - 71.126.167.86 01:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

how did he not get death?

Why did the jury reject death penalty, when he caused the death of so many others? They gave him life, great, now goverments and prisons get to pay for him to live when he shouldn't even.

He did not do anything, since he was imprisoned at the time of 9/11 and to remain silent on any criminal info you know about but which may also put you in jeopardy is a protected right per the 5th amendment on self-incrimination. So there wasn't much case against him in the first place. Also he is a french citizen and execution would definitely hurt the relations with Paris. 195.70.32.136 07:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Giving him life in prison is probably the better choice becuase a person sentenced to death is granted an appeal which leads to more appeals and can cost a large sum of money while taking up a few years. Then, when he's finally sentenced to death, it can take many years to actually execute him. I believe Texas has the fastest rate of sentencing to execution and it's around 7 years, but I'm not exactly sure. So, throw in maybe a decade in prison time and all the court preceedings and the death sentence can be more expensive.

Note that he wanted death, wanted fast, easy martyrdom. Let him rot. It's worse. Sir Elderberry 02:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've heard people say that, but personally I don't beleive in martyrdom. He may think he's getting the better end of the deal, but in my oppion, I'm getting the last laugh. In this situation I can see both sides, but still side with one, it's interesting to think about though. --Lewk_of_Serthic _contrib ^talk 20:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your not believing in martyrdom is irrelevant though, Sir Lewk, if he believes in it and those who look to him for inspiration believe in it. Yankoz

• Back on topic: I've understood that the jury couldn't agree unanimously on whether or not to apply the death penalty, and that the maximal option therefore became life without parole. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 11:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

introduction and Overview

The Overview section is unnecessary. It should be merged into the introduction, which, per style convention, could be up to three paragraphs. As it is, it repeats much of the information from the introduction and is jarring for readers going straight through the article.--ragesoss 01:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We should have killed the Frog. Impailed him on a pike like Vlad the Impailer would have done.

Thoughts

I think that Moussaoui was wrong to say that he won and that America lost because the pain of the families who lost loved ones was put into his chest by taking him away from his family. (456.789.123)

ALERT! Someone deleted the article.

Why would they? --Shultz IV 03:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a huge cover up operation involving the World Government, Aliens and Al Gore. Thedonkey 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a semi-lock on this article? It's being vandalized pretty heavily at the moment --KDLarsen 04:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It got hit by the same vandal that hit the FA. It was necessary to clear the page history. Pepsidrinka took care of it for us. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I found out that someone deleted it temporarily in order to remove an edit with an edit summary containing personal info. --Shultz IV 08:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Statements Made in Court

Moussaoui made a pretty dramatic statement in open court on the reading of the jury's decision regarding life in prison. I'd think that someone should include it.

I think its a good idea. Can you do it that yourself please?

THe statements msade in court regrading the "United States of Sodom" nd UNited States of Satan" do not get corrected they are the actual filings providxed by Moussaoui, the point of theis section is to demonstrate the state of mind fo moussaouui to prevent revisionism.Mrdthree 00:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Link referencing the "smoking gun" does not work

The Link referencing the "smoking gun" does not work. It should be deleted.

I replaced it with a FindLaw link. Findlaw has some different junk on it. Someone with some copy-edit skils needed.Mrdthree 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please link to eo

Please add a link to [[eo:Zacarias Moussaoui]]. Thanks! -- Yekrats 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. - SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Life

While I would have preferred to see his head on a pike just wait till he gets to Florence. Buried alive in concrete and never seeing direct sunlight again. In a few decades he is really going to regret being such a murderous terrorist bastard. He will become a shell. Good.

23:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Whilst some of us may agree, "This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Zacarias Moussaoui article." Wikipedia is based upon fact, not opinion. No offence intended.

semi protect?

Many people have strong feelings about the subject; some are venting by vandalzing the article. Is this not the time for a temporary semi-protect?Dlohcierekim 01:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

New motion from Moussaoui

When the article becomes un-protected, please include a reference to http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/72453/0.pdf -- his latest motion to withdraw his guilty plea. (IIRC, it was denied by the judge.) Chip Unicorn 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I am logged in, and I can add the information myself. Chip Unicorn 17:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A little too rhetorical to limit the affadavit statements to 11-14 rather than 10-15. I included 10 and the part of 15 that is not redundant with 10.Mrdthree 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Chip Unicorn 19:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

false accusations

"As first generation immigrants from Morocco, they frequently faced racism, including violence and theft"

I don't remember how to do the citation, but, like the one about his sporting interests, is from the book by Abd Samad Moussaoui. Interestingly, references to this book have been removed from this article at some point - I don't have the time to work out when or by whom, but it should be reverted, as it is an important source on Moussaoui. Gwaka Lumpa 15:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation

The following Washington Post story: [2] provides a source for the article's statement, "The foreman of the 12-person federal jury told The Washington Post that the panel voted 11-1, 10-2 and 10-2 in favor of the death penalty on the three charges for which Moussaoui was eligible for execution. A unanimous vote on any one of the three terrorism charges was required to return a death sentence." I'd add it myself except the page is protected at the moment. 141.211.63.34 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed.

Will somebody who knows anything about this trial please provide a source for the following?

Carla Martin. Martin had sent e-mail to seven Federal Aviation Administration officials describing opening statements of the prosecution and commentary on government witnesses from the start of the testimony[citation needed],

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 04:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

All right, I don't edit wikipedia that often so I don't feel comfortable doing this, but someone needs to clean up the despicable vandalism that is on this page and find the sick person responsible for doing it. All over the trial proceedings it refers to the US as the United States of Satan among several other obvious errors. Someone please take care of this- i can't believe someone would do this to the article regarding the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. --128.175.156.138 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, when I first read those parts about the Satan or Sodom I thought it was vandalism too, but those were Zacarias' actual words. - Fayenatic london (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, not sure how far into the article you got, but Moussaoui was anything but the mastermind of the attacks - while he had (limited) contact with the hijackers, they largely viewed him as "too unpredictable/insane" to let in on their plot - and he instead tried to figure out his "own thing". As per the comments, they are indeed Moussaoui's own terms, he was fond of his clever "wordplay" (not unlike the Zodiac Killer in that respect), often making his motions use the intials "UBL" or "WTC" to 'rub it in', in a sense. This is an example of one of his motions, per se. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs Protection

As I have been reading this article I have come across a lot of vandalism. I have removed what I can see this time but this article needs protection from further acts of vandalism.TammiMagee 13:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above (#Vandalism). Despite appearances, it's not vandalism; the deliberately offensive words are genuine extracts from court records. Just click the links in the references to see the originals. - Fayenatic london (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)