That’s why the Moussaoui case — or more accurately

That’s why the Moussaoui case — or more accurately, the Pentagon’s claim of power to punish Americans and

others without due process of law — still presents the most ominous threat to the freedom of the American

people in our lifetime.”

The funny part is that the feds have said before that they don’t even really believe he was meant to be the

twentieth hijacker. That was Ramzi Binalshibh. As Seymour Hersh has written,

“The assumption of government bungling was predicated on the assumption that Moussaoui was indeed the twentieth

hijacker. (There were five hijackers on each of the three planes that hit their targets, but only four on the

flight that went down in Pennsylvania.) Moussaoui has said in federal court that he was a member of Al Qaeda,

but he has denied any involvement in the hijackings. Many present and former F.B.I. and C.I.A. officials have

told me that they believe he was “a wanna-be,” as one put it, and far too volatile and unstable to handle a

long-term undercover terrorist operation. Nevertheless, they said, Moussaoui may have crucial knowledge about

Al Qaeda.”

Of what use is “democracy” when the dominant culture would bring about a political condition that might make

the current Saudi regime appear “moderate” by comparison?

Good question, though not a new one for readers of Antiwar.com. The neocons’ democratization rhetoric plays

well because it’s not a total falsehood. It’s a quarter-truth. It starts from the half-truth of equating

democracy, the freedom to participate in a political system, with freedom generally. Then it halves that truth

again by saying that everyone wants freedom. Well, sure – every person (with the exception of certain save-us-

from-ourselves ninnies in post-liberal societies) wants freedom of thought and action for himself. This innate

desire for personal license – which is easily hitched to authoritarianism – is obviously light years away from

a commitment to “liberty for all.” The Puritans came to America, as Garrison Keillor once quipped, “in the

hope of finding greater restrictions than were permissible under English law at that time.”* Massachusetts was

to Puritans what Woodstock was to hippies: a place where all was permitted – all that they wanted to do, that

is. Which was go to church every spare moment, stamp out heresy and secularism, drown witches, etc. Now imagine

the Islamist equivalent of Salem, and you have a realistic picture of a democratic Saudi Arabia.