by Elias Davidsson
17 July 2005
On 22 April 2005, Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged by the U.S. government of acts related to 9/11, was reported by mass media to have “admitted” his guilt on six counts which expose him to the possible penalty of death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Although he did not admit to have participated in the events of 9/11, he reportedly admitted to have been chosen by Osama bin Laden to fly a hijacked plane onto the White House and admitted his intent to kill American civilians. His admission was oral and complemented by his signature to a five-page Statement of Facts, which he confirmed as representing true facts. The Statement of Facts begins by the following phrase: “If this case were to go to trial, the government would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt.” Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) asked Moussaoui in court on April 22, 2005: “If you sign that statement of facts and if I accept it, that will suffice to be a factual basis to find you guilty. Do you understand that ?” Moussaoui responded “Absolutly. I do understand this.” Brinkema: “All right. Do you want to sign that document at this time?” Moussaoui: “Yes, indeed, I want.”
By signing the Statement of Facts, Moussaoui effectively relieved the U.S. government from proving the facts, numbered 1-23, alleged in the Statement. This outcome was highly desired by the U.S. government, which has all along struggled to hide evidence on the events of 9/11 from the public.By having a person admitting to work for Osama bin Laden, intending to kill American civilians and incriminating himself in six criminal counts, confirming the Statement of Facts, the U.S. government continued its policy to hide evidence regarding the events of 9/11 from the American people and the world.
But was Moussaoui’s signature of the Statement of Facts legally valid?
Whatever Moussaoui’s motives for signing this Statement – and there are a number of hypotheses floating around – a mere glance at the document shows that Moussaoui’s signature was a charade.
Item 20 of the Statement of fact, for example, states:
“On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda operatives used force and violence to hijack American Airlines Flight 77, bound from Virginia to Los Angeles, and crashed it into the Pentagon.”
Moussaoui was not a witness of this alleged event. He sat in prison while the alleged event took place. There is no evidence that Flight AA77 crashed at all on the Pentagon, no photographs of wreckage, no video recordings. Many anomalies and physical impossibilities argue that the official account on AA77 is a fabrication. It was not as if Moussaoui had confirmed that he knew of an Al Qaeda plan to hijack AA77 and fly it on the Pentagon. He actually confirmed that the act, as described, took place. Moussaoui, obviously, could not corroborate such facts. While he sat in prison on September 11, 2001, AA Flight 77 could have been canceled, the alleged al Qaeda operatives arrested before boarding the plane or the hijacking thwarted. His knowledge of the alleged events came, at best, after the fact by reading newspapers or watching television.
Item 19 of the Statement of Fact states, as fact, that “as a result of the crashes of American Airlines Flight 11 and United Flight 175, approximately 2,830 people died in or around the World Trade complex.”
Moussaoui was not and is not in a position to confirm such a statement. As with Flight AA11, there is no public evidence available that the aircraft which hit the twin towers (not the “World Trade complex” !) were flights AA11 and UA175. Nor is it proved that the crashes of the two aircraft were the initial or main cause of these buildings’ sudden crashes.
The Court should have known that Moussaoui was confirming statements which he could not, logically, confirm. The acceptance of the Court of Moussaoui’s signature may thus be legally invalid and raises questions regarding the validity of other Moussaoui’s self-incriminating statements made during the court session of April 22, 2005.
The entire circus surrounding the Moussaoui case, which has lasted over three years, could have been avoided if the U.S. government had acted honesty and produced the evidence it claims to possess regarding the alleged guilt of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the events of 9/11. The U.S. government is apparently content to have its allegations regarding Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda confirmed by a megalomanic psychopath. This alone suggests that the U.S. case on 9/11 is extremely weak. The dubious admission by Moussaoui is certainly not the last episode in this circus.