Zacarias Moussaoui, the only individual convicted in a U.S. court for a role in the September 11th attacks, has declared his renunciation of terrorism, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State (ISIS). This surprising declaration comes from the man once dubbed the “20th hijacker,” currently serving a life sentence at a federal prison in Colorado.
Moussaoui’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks has always been a complex issue. While his membership in al-Qaeda was undeniable, evidence directly linking him to the hijackings remained scant. Prosecutors successfully argued that his lies to the FBI about his knowledge of al-Qaeda’s intentions, following his arrest in August 2001, prevented authorities from potentially thwarting the attacks. This deception ultimately led to his conviction and life imprisonment, narrowly avoiding the death penalty in his 2006 trial.
In a handwritten court motion filed in Alexandria, Virginia, last month, Moussaoui stated, “I denounce, repudiate Usama bin Laden as a useful idiot of the CIA/Saudi. I also proclaim unequivocally my opposition to any terrorist action, attack, propaganda against the U.S.” He further expressed his desire to “warn young Muslim against the deception and the manipulation of these fake Jihadis.”
This stark contrast to his defiant behavior during his 2006 trial, where he taunted victims and celebrated his life sentence over execution, has raised questions about the sincerity of his newfound stance. His previous pronouncements, including proclaiming “God save Osama bin Laden” at his sentencing, further underscore this dramatic shift.
Moussaoui’s renunciation is embedded within a petition seeking a relaxation of the special administrative measures governing his imprisonment. He specifically requested legal representation from either Rudy Giuliani or Alan Dershowitz to enable his testimony in a civil trial initiated by 9/11 victims. Prison documents indicate Moussaoui received a response to a letter addressed to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), but access was denied due to its classification as privileged legal communication.
This isn’t Moussaoui’s first foray into legal correspondence. Having represented himself for years leading up to his trial, he frequently filed motions, consistently referring to himself as “Slave of Allah,” a title he continues to use. He has persistently sought to testify in the 9/11 civil trial and military trials of al-Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, these past requests lacked the explicit denouncement of terrorism present in his latest letter. As recently as 2018, court documents reveal his self-proclaimed identity as a “natural born terrorist.”
Katherine Donahue, author of “Slave of Allah” and an anthropology professor who observed Moussaoui’s 2006 trial, noted the unprecedented nature of this renunciation. Despite his admitted lies to the FBI, she believes his current statements may be genuine, attributing it to 14 years of reflection in prison. “It’s a long time to think about what you’ve done,” she observed, adding that Moussaoui had ample opportunity to lie for personal gain in the past but chose not to.
Conversely, Terry Strada, a 9/11 widow and plaintiff in the lawsuit against Saudi Arabia, expressed skepticism, stating, “I don’t trust him, that he’s reformed himself in prison. I wouldn’t trust him around anybody’s youth.”
Attempts to reach the 9/11 plaintiffs’ lawyers, Giuliani, and Dershowitz for comment were unsuccessful.
Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presided over Moussaoui’s trial and endured his frequent insults, denied his request. She directed any grievances about his prison treatment to the appropriate authorities in Colorado. “Raising these issues with this Court is an act of futility,” she wrote.
Moussaoui has appealed Judge Brinkema’s decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. The implications of Moussaoui’s renunciation and his desire to testify remain uncertain, adding another layer of complexity to the ongoing legal battles surrounding the September 11th attacks. The appeals court’s decision will undoubtedly shape the future trajectory of this already convoluted case.
