Sorry, but the first thing that pops to mind when something is referred to as “pornographic,” particularly in the metaphorical sense, is not that it is staged. More to the point, it's not the attacks themselves that I regard as pornographic (you may have hit the nail on the head with “demonic”), but rather the replaying of them for, perhaps not the express purpose, but certainly the purpose of provoking a gut-level, oh-my-God, can’t-look-away response both in the Moussaoui jurors and in the readers of the newspapers that didn’t just report on the tapes, but ran the transcripts in special little boxes complete with colorful graphics and reconstructed timelines. Graphic detail. Specific intent to provoke. Even without Paris Hilton involved, I'm sticking with "pornographic."

As for your serene indifference to Moussaoui’s fate: I envy you but obviously disagree. Not paying attention to how our government dealt with these death-loving holy warriors in the past has led to some nasty consequences. Without question, the United States can’t worry so much about fueling anti-American sentiment that we in any way compromise national security, but if you really think this guy’s sentencing doesn't matter one way or the other, why even risk turning him into a poster child for the cause? You can argue that justice demands that Moussaoui die or even that the victims’ families deserve closure, but to argue that you can’t be bothered... I’d feel better about that stance if I thought the bad guys (and potential bad guys) were content to stay home folding their laundry as well. 

--Michelle

      

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.