Why hasn't Usama Bin Laden been charged with the crime of 9/11?
I know....You're thinking, not another 9/11 thread.
Hate to break it to you but, 9/11 was the most significant blow to our Constitutional rights. It is changing our world and our Country in ways we could only imagine.
I have seen many threads debating the event of 9/11, and have even participated in a few.
9/11 is an important debate IMHO, and was the beginning of the loss of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, caused 2 wars, and probably more wars to come.
It has worsened already bad relations with the rest of the world, and will probably change our political landscape forever, if we don't stand together and fight.
Many people seem to have all the answers,but no one seems to want to tackle this particular question.
I was thinking that maybe some of the folks that have these "conspiracy theories" debunked, could help out the FBI. You know, do your patriotic duty and all.
Why is it that there are sooo many websites, that seem to have an answer for whatever theory is out there,and the FBI can't even muster up charges against UBL or Al Qaeda?
Do THEY know something we don't? or Do WE know something they don't ?
If the FBI can't charge him, than how can we?
Either way, I would like to see the REAL perpetrators brought to justice. So that we can heal and move on to restoring the Republic.
See for yourself.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
From what I understand
they simply don't have the evidence. They really just played blame game. (or was it) it is on video somewhere. Lou Dobbs maybe? Actually I think it might be one of the reccomended videos on here: Bill Moyers the "Secret Government" Been a while but even if thats not it it is a good watch.Scroll down to essential videos.
Maybe they are
afraid that they may have to openly supply evidence in front of a grand jury. It's too risky that some ambituous,honest investigator might reveal the U.S.'s past personal relationship with Osama and gang. It might be dissected and exposed that Osama was a CIA operative at the time of the attacks and this would anger the sheeple.
The drug sales, arm sales, slave trade will all be expsed....
The FBI is waiting on the kangaroo court in Guantanamo
KSM and others after 5 years of torture to implicate UBL. If I was tortured for 1 day I think I would implicate whoever I was asked just to get them to stop.
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
I haven't been charged for
I haven't been charged for any 9/11 crimes. That makes me the same as bin Laden.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.
They
haven't charged him because he is dead. Bhutto said it her self in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
The FBI not charging him with 9/11 proves nothing.
If, as Truthers state, 9/11 was an inside job, Al-Qaeda works for the CIA and Bin Laden is dead, why wouldn't they charge him? How would it hurt their plot if they charged Bin Laden with crimes associated with 9/11? Since he is already dead or a CIA backed operative, what difference would it make? They could charge him with the crime knowing full well he would never face the charges, so why wouldn't they? How does this question prove your case?
I think the reason they have not charged him is because they did not or do not plan on bringing him to trial. If they find him, they will kill him.
After 9/11, in the government's mind, they were going to war, not starting a police action. They did not want to arrest Al-Qaeda members and let them have a jury trial. That would expose methods the government agencies use and informants. Gitmo and the secret prisons were started for this reason, according to them. Why bother getting a Grand Jury together to charge OBL with 9/11 when they never planned on bringing him to a court of law? They were either going to kill him, make him face a military tribunal, or keep him locked away forever with no tribunal or trial.
If for some reason they captured him and had to put him on trial in a court of law, they already had enough charges from the previous terrorist attacks to get him the death penalty. Once he was captured and had to face a trial, they could then convene a Grand Jury and charge him with 9/11. But that would never happen because they plan on doing the same thing to him that they did to Zarqawi, the leader of AQI.
Proves nothing?
Maybe in your mind. To me it says that they don't have the evidence to charge him with the crime. What else could it mean?
Maybe you could send them some of your nifty links,and they could get some help understanding 9/11? Whatd'ya think?
No?
__________________________________________
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
http://www.ronpaulbrochure.com/
http://www.dailypaul.com/donate
So, criminal government apologist,
our government invading another country and then another, murdering countless innocents along the way, which amounts to murder given the lack of a declaration of war as required by any moral person (I use that term loosely) and our Constitution, is fine with you. Our government's use of our precious troops (I distinguish the troops from the "brass") in these murderous expeditions is ok with you? Our government's bankrupting of this republic to wage an illegal and immoral war is ok with you? Our government's failure to punish the grossest incompetence--along with its disgusting reluctance to even investigate said incompetence that led to the murder of United States citizens and others--is ok with you? Our government's willingness to weave a fairy tale using the bogey man, bin Laden, without the evidence to even issue a parking ticket to same is ok with you?
What difference does "no hard evidence" to indict bin Laden make? Please, stop your disgusting nonsense.
You sure are mentally ill, Devoted.
Where did I state any of those accusations that you leveled at me? No where.
Did you read my post? Your reply makes no sense whatsoever. None of the first four are o.k. with me. The last two I addressed in my post above. I'm not sure how you made that leap. The only conclusion is you are mentally ill.
Are you kidding?
"After 9/11, in the government's mind, they were going to war, not starting a police action." The Patriot Act I & II, Military Commissions Act, FISA are all directed at the people not the so called "terrorists".
If the CIA have knowledge of his death, which I'm sure they do, then why not release it to the people? What good does it do other than keep the boogie man around? "Secrecy in a free an open society is repugnant" Right?
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
There is no such thing as Al Qaeda
Just another huge mind-blowing lie for you to wrap your mind around (and BTW, O bin laden was just a scapegoat):
Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said:
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US."
Cook has previously written:
Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Cook is merely confirming what others have said. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=235896
The same way.....
The same way Rumsfeld claiming there's "No Doubt" of Bin Laden's complicity proves nothing to me.
The reason they aren't charging him is because they don't have the evidence to. They can't just go ahead and charge him like you're suggesting without disclosure of evidence. Instead, they roll out a sketchy confession tape that may be a fake w/o ever having to prove it's authenticity. If they were to charge him, the authenticity would have to be proven....and a little something called hard evidence would also have to exist, which it does not.
Think of all they could gain from charging him. It would pretty much legitimize the whole War On Terror and it would bitch slap all the crazy, insane, smelly and just plain ugly 9/11 truthers.....but you think they would bypass this oppurtunity because he's already dead???? So, by your logic, if someone allegedly bombs a pre-school and then dies, it's not important to prove his guilt because he'll never face charges? What about the families that want the truth? What about the possibilty of the true perpetrators still being out there? What about the billions of dollars in anti-terror legislation that would result from this....don't you want to make sure it's justified????????????????
And are you suggesting that to "bring him to a court of law" is a more legitimate reason for producing evidence of his guilt than if we wanted to "kill him, make him face a military tribunal, or keep him locked away forever with no tribunal or trial"????????? Forget about having to prove it to a jury...how about just having to prove it to yourself before you go murder the guy.
Proves that the FBI doesn't think he's responsible.
Willful suspension of disbelief... Your article speculates much and says ZERO
Aku Soku Zan
Aku Soku Zan
"Your article"
What article are you talking about? No, the FBI not charging him with 9/11 does not prove that the FBI doesn't think he's responsible. Why don't you address the specific points in my post, instead of your usual Truther dismissal. Your reply says Zero.
Here we go with the deragotory BS...
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
"The use of 'Conspiracy Theorist' or 'Truther' as a derogatory -- as an epithet almost -- is something the propagandists have perfected over the decades, and it's a useful tool for eliminating articulate dissent."
I Addressed Your Points
I addressed your points specifically, so we could have had a good argument, but instead you choose to engage in BS name calling with this guy. Why don't you stick to the subject and answer my post....
Your choice of who to respond to speaks volumes....
why was the bin laden family and their friends the only flight
Allowed to leave the country when all other flights were grounded ? This is a fact by the way like most things us "truthers" inject into the debate.
~Mikael / Peace, love, Light and unity ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Stop the NWO....It's just illumi..Naughty !
need a boogeyman...
To keep the masses hypnotized.
_________________________________
My liberty-minded home base of thought:
www.ponderthis.net
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered
Aired on 2nd November 2007,David Frost the presenter did not challenge her on her assertion (2:14) that Bin Laden was murdered, so maybe he was and the West has not announced it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg
Because he had nothing...
TO DO WITH IT !!!!!!!
Fortune Favors the Bold Bin
Fortune Favors the Bold
Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.
But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice.
Politics Trivia
Which politician once boxed Oliver North?
H. Ross Perot
John McCain
James Webb
George Allen
Save & Share
Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb
3. Tag This Article
The curious omission underscores the Justice Department's decision, so far, to not seek formal criminal charges against bin Laden for approving al-Qaeda's most notorious and successful terrorist attack. The notice says bin Laden is "a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" but does not provide details.
The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.
Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.
"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
Bin Laden was placed on the Ten Most Wanted list in June 1999 after being indicted for murder, conspiracy and other charges in connection with the embassy bombings, and a $5 million reward was put on his head at that time. The listing was updated after Sept. 11, 2001, to include a higher reward of $25 million, but no mention of the attacks was added.
Others on the list include Colombian drug cartel leader Diego Leon Montoya Sanchez and fugitive Boston crime boss James "Whitey" Bulger, charged with a role in "numerous murders" in the 1970s and 1980s.
The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.
"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
Fortune Favors the Bold
My god at least edit out the advertisements before you post a
whole article...
CHA-CHING!
Care to answer the question?
__________________________________________
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
http://www.ronpaulbrochure.com/
http://www.dailypaul.com/donate
I already did.
I don't know why everybody ignored my post though...
CHA-CHING!
It is weird that he has not been charged with it only because
They are curiously playing by the rules on that one. They propped up a scientist and killed him off for the Anthrax attacks, they put 19 faces of random Saudis on posters and called them "hijackers", they made new realities to deal with basic physics for the towers. It IS weird that they stop short of officially charging UBL isnt it? Maybe they figure it could haunt him later when we elect him president.
Because we haven't caught him yet?
?
CHA-CHING!
They don't have to catch him to, charge him.
They have to catch him to convict him, if he is still alive.
__________________________________________
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
http://www.ronpaulbrochure.com/
http://www.dailypaul.com/donate
Joesmoe. You are correct. The better question is why is OBL
not a suspect? If the FBI doesn't even want to talk to him about 9-11, they're not looking for him in connection with it. Tim Osman. Ana Raicha Al Queda.
Explore Orthodox Christianity
Lack of concrete evidence.
But that thought has a brother. Who do we have concrete evidence for?
And who has more circumstantial evidence against them than Osama?
CHA-CHING!
You keep saying
Osama has circumstantial evidence against him, but fail to provide any specifics about that evidence. In reality, most of the evidence suggests 9/11 was an inside job.