This week's events in the Moussaoui case are pitiful, of course.  We can only guess what motivated Ms. Martin to blow the death penalty case for the prosecution, but its as good as over in my mind.  Moussaoui will spend the rest of his life in jail, though we should expect an appeal by next week from the prosecutors who are trying to salvage the case. 

The lessons of Moussaoui, I fear, are that the criminal justice system can't handle terrorism cases.  They are already starting to say it.  Think again.  Moussoui was an easy case, if only they got the accusation right.  The U.S. has shifted its legal strategy -- was he the 20th hijacker, was he part of al qaeda -- so much, in the end, it was hard to determine what the heck he finally pled too.  Nonetheless, wanting to have at least one 9/11 trial, the U.S. pushed forward for the sentencing hearing.  I understand wanting to give the 9/11 families their day in court, but the events this week do make me wonder:  why the heck did Moussoui plea in the first place.

I think there is a story there, and I hope we find out what it is.  Moussaoui pled to terrorism related charges, not anything related to 9/11.  The sentencing hearing theory for the death penalty, as we now know, was that had Moussoui only told the truth, the FBI and FAA would have risen to the occasion and stopped the 9/11 attacks.  Even Ms. Martin thought that that was a specious argument.  Judge Brinkema was always uncomfortable with it.  But, the U.S. still charged forward wanting to execute Moussaoui. 

It seems clear to me now that the U.S. never had a strong case on Moussaoui.  That this trial was more for show (and that may not necessarily be bad, its only worth noting) and vindication, than anything else.  But, it is interesting, looking at it now, that Moussaoui refused to plea to 9/11, the U.S. was willing to accept that, and that any proof of his ties to 9/11 were clearly suspect.  That being the case, I wonder whether the threat of a military tribunal had been used in this case (it clearly had in the Lackawana case in NY) to force Moussoui's hand.  This isn't to say that he is innocent of everything, only that the theory behind executing him (he could have stopped 9/11) was weak.  There is a great story to tell here, and it isn't that the justice system can't handle this. 

 Another point:  It was the prosecutors who told the judge about Ms. Martin's transgressions.  Good for them.  They were also likely fearful that the witnesses would have disclosed her conduct to the court.  But,  isn't it ironic to hear a U.S. prosecutor tell the judge that this terrorist's rights may have been violated because the witnesses had been tampered with and that the sytsem had been hurt by Ms. Martin's activities?  I find it kind of odd, cause i"ve been hearing from the same lawyers that terrorists can get satisfactory due process in military or secret tribunals where procedural rules don't even come close to those in a U.S. court (and where Ms. Martin's conduct would have likely been shrugged off).

I'm a big fan of the criminal justice system; in the alternative, in some instances, maybe the UCMJ should apply to some of those captured. The system wasn't disfunctional in this case.  The lawyer was.