Michael Isikoff is a reporter I have had many problems with, but he did make some sense on Hardball yesterday.
Will Bunch: "Say what you will about Isikoff's past work, but he was the only one we've heard who pointed out that the Moussaoui trial was a kind of a bait-and-switch, and that there's been no justice administered to the real killers of Sept. 11, 2001."
Isikoff: This entire Moussaoui trial was a side show. The Justice Department indicted him at the time, they thought he might have been the 20th hijacker. They later learned he was not. But there was a feeling, that for altogether understandable reasons, that the country needed a trial, the cathartic effect of a trial to deal with the most horrific crime in American history. What this trial ought to do at this point provoke a debate and discussion and concentration on why we haven`t tried the people who were responsible for 9/11. But there was a feeling, that for altogether understandable reasons, that the country needed a trial, the cathartic effect of a trial to deal with the most horrific crime in American history.
But the point is that after the time that they indicted Moussaoui, we came to get into custody the people who were directly responsible for that crime, the architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (pictured here at top), Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was Mohammed Atta`s collaborator at every step of the way -- twice in 2001, Atta leaves the country to consult with Ramzi bin al-Shibh about the for the attack -- the financier who was also in custody, Qualli bin Atassh (phonetic) who helped planned it at the Malaysia meeting.
But the government has been completely stymied about what do to with these people. Why -- and this is the one where it is really worth connecting the dots. It goes straight into the White House, the Oval Office and the vice president`s office because key decisions were made about aggressive interrogation techniques that were going to be used on these people.