Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11

[furrod]

Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11

I'm arguing with a CTer. This came up. It is curious. Does anyone know why? Thanks.

[Dog Town]

Has anyone? Besides Mooseboy the carzy almost hijacker.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

FBI states that they have no hard evidence linking 9/11 to Osama Bin Laden

The only thing the FBI has is a bunch of tapes with Osama Bin Laden talking about his part in 9/11. Confessions cannot be used in the court of law effectively, hence the term hard evidence. What the FBI has is admissible evidence, which doesn’t show a chain of custody from the Bin Laden tapes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003501----000-.html
You would think a big bad evil Zionist globalist government hell bent on taking over the world by using fake terror plots, false flag operations, and kill 3000 of their own people would simply lie about Osama Bin Laden on the FBI most wanted page.

From the most excellent http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/

[ryanebelhar]

I believe indicting terrorists was a bill Clinton manuever, and Bush would rather just weed them out with bombs.

[valis]

I believe indicting terrorists was a bill Clinton manuever, and Bush would rather just weed them out with bombs.

Exactly, I think that is the root difference between the Democrat view of terrorism and the Republican view.

The Republicans see it as a war against an dangerous philosophy.
The Democrats see it as a series of law enforcement actions against specific people.

[brodski]

I believe indicting terrorists was a bill Clinton manuever, and Bush would rather just weed them out with bombs.
So Clinton didn't bomb what he thought of where terrorist targets? I'm sure the 3rd world's pharmaceutical industry will feel comforted by that fact.
But then they still don't know why their aspirin factory blew up. :(

[Kent1]

Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11

I'm arguing with a CTer. This came up. It is curious. Does anyone know why? Thanks.

It comes from here http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
I've spoken to Ed Haas a little bit about the story. He states that Mr. Tomb later backed down from statements. Ed also states that he stands by his story. I am working on getting a reply from Mr. Tomb.

His e-mail is: rex.tomb@ic.fbi.gov

A more recent story was in the paper yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

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."

[defaultdotxbe]

So Clinton didn't bomb what he thought of where terrorist targets? I'm sure the 3rd world's pharmaceutical industry will feel comforted by that fact.
But then they still don't know why their aspirin factory blew up. :(

it blew up because clinton wanted the news covering something other than his impeachment

[jon]

Also, if Bin Laden made it to court and were convicted of many of the acts alleged in the 1998 indictment (http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html), I'm not sure that other charges would be needed. Of course, convicting him re. 9/11 would have a great deal of symbolic significance, but the allegations in the 1998 indictment are sufficient for any practical purpose I can think of.

At any rate, the odds of Bin Laden being captured alive seem pretty remote...

[brodski]

it blew up because clinton wanted the news covering something other than his impeachment
As shown in the documentary "wag the dog", just like bush's crimes are shown in "v for vendetta"?

[Childlike Empress]

Of course every informed person knows that Bin Laden wasn't directly involved in 9/11. The FBI/DOJ simply hasn't enough evidence to indict him. No problem. Thanks to the Commission Report we all know that the masterminds of 9/11 were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. Both captured.

Oh, wait. Binalshibh captured on 9/11/02 - not indicted. KSM captured on 3/1/03. Not indicted for and no mentioning of 9/11 on his rewardsforjustice (http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Khalid_Mohammed)-page.

:confused:

[T.A.M.]

One could have made the same argument you make for OBL, for Charles Manson. There was very little, if any evidence that he actually committed the crimes, but he was the role model, and in charge of those who did the killings. I believe he is in jail for the crimes right now, is he not?

[Gravy]

Of course every informed person knows that Bin Laden wasn't directly involved in 9/11.
How does every informed person know that? I, for one, find some of his admissions to involvement to be quite interesting.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

[Childlike Empress]

I made an argument for OBL? I don't think so. I made an argument for the FBI/DOJ. No hard evidence against him. But i thought there should be enough evidence against KSM and Binalshibh to indict them, don't you think so?

[drkitten]

FBI states that they have no hard evidence linking 9/11 to Osama Bin Laden

The only thing the FBI has is a bunch of tapes with Osama Bin Laden talking about his part in 9/11. Confessions cannot be used in the court of law effectively, hence the term hard evidence. What the FBI has is admissible evidence, which doesn’t show a chain of custody from the Bin Laden tapes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003501----000-.html


Huh?

The FBI tapes are not "admissible evidence." The reason that they're not admissible is because they cannot be proven genuine; that's where the "chain of custody" comes in. Basically, they (the FBI) can't prove that the tapes describe an actual authentic event.

[Gravy]

I made an argument for OBL?
You made a statement that any reasonable person knows he wasn't directly involved. On what basis do you make that statement?

[T.A.M.]

CLE:

The "jist" i got from your comments was that you feel that OBL is not responsible for 9/11 because he didn't directly organize or carry out the attacks.

My counter to that was that Manson, allegedly, did not stick the knife in anyone, but if he said, about someone, "I want them dead", his little women would do so...

I would say the only thing stronger on convicting Manson over OBL, is that he may have plotted to go to the various murder scenes, with murder on his mind.

[ryanebelhar]

So Clinton didn't bomb what he thought of where terrorist targets? I'm sure the 3rd world's pharmaceutical industry will feel comforted by that fact.
But then they still don't know why their aspirin factory blew up. :(


Sure he did, but not on the level that Bush has.

[MarkyX]

Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11

I'm arguing with a CTer. This came up. It is curious. Does anyone know why? Thanks.

http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr

Just tell him to read this and go back to reality.

[brodski]

Sure he did, but not on the level that Bush has.
That's very true, but what did Bush do to combat terrorism during his first year in office?
What changed in that year to focus his mind on terrorism?
Or are Bush's anti terrorist operations purely politically and ideologically motivated?

[Childlike Empress]

You made a statement that any reasonable person knows he wasn't directly involved. On what basis do you make that statement?
The 9/11 Commission Report. (Hey, amnesty for me, Gravy? :))

@T.A.M.: #11 was written from the official POV (you ignored the irony). What do you think about the second paragraph?

[Kent1]

How does every informed person know that? I, for one, find some of his admissions to involvement to be quite interesting.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Both the Bin Laden tape and things like a Ramzi Binalshibh money transfer to hijacker Marwan Alshehhi have been used in the Moussaui Trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marwan_al-Shehhi
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/size600/FO11003-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/index.php?sortby=datedesc

Tomb later backed down on statements. They have also explained on the web page that "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."

I'm digging a little further, but honestly I think this one is really shallow.
Another good site is the State Department.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-610042.html

[Kent1]

The 9/11 Commission Report. (Hey, amnesty for me, Gravy? :))

@T.A.M.: #11 was written from the official POV (you ignored the irony). What do you think about the second paragraph?
The 9/11CR says nothing of the sort. At least I can't find anything backing that statment.
But the CR does state:
Bin Ladin, Atef, and KSM developed an initial list of targets. These included the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. According to KSM, Bin Ladin wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon, KSM wanted to strike the World Trade Center, and all of them wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets.

Bin Ladin also soon selected four individuals to serve as suicide operatives: Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khallad, and Abu Bara al Yemeni. (p. 155)

[Gravy]

The 9/11 Commission Report. (Hey, amnesty for me, Gravy? :))

@T.A.M.: #11 was written from the official POV (you ignored the irony). What do you think about the second paragraph?
Sorry, you've said that the Commission Report cannot be used as evidence. Try again.

[Childlike Empress]

Kent1, according to the CR, KSM (beeing interrogated somewhere by someone) said Bin Laden ordered the attacks from his cave in 1999. That's not direct involvement that can be used in an indictment. Why isn't KSM indicted?

Hopefully you will also try to get a reply from the DOJ concerning these (http://www.teamliberty.net/id290.html) valid questions teamliberty asked them. Did you edit the link out of your post?

@Gravy: *yawn*

[defaultdotxbe]

did they actually say "from his cave" because from what i heard OBL didnt get into spelunking until AFTER 9/11 when we invaded afghanistan

[Childlike Empress]

No they didn't. I had quotes around "from his cave" but i removed them because i knew you would take it as a quote ;)

[Kent1]

Kent1, according to the CR, KSM (beeing interrogated somewhere by someone) said Bin Laden ordered the attacks from his cave in 1999. That's not direct involvement that can be used in an indictment. Why isn't KSM indicted?

Hopefully you will also try to get a reply from the DOJ concerning these (http://www.teamliberty.net/id290.html) valid questions teamliberty asked them. Did you edit the link out of your post?

@Gravy: *yawn*
That doesn't refute the information I presented regarding the CR9/11. I believe your first statement was clearly incorrect. As shown by the CR9/11 p 155
Now as to "direct involvement that can be used in an indictment" I don't see anything that would not make this possible. Why wasn't KSM indicted? I'm guessing because they haven't done it yet. I suspect you only have hollow conjecture as to why they haven't.
Especially considering the questions posted to the DOJ in your link.
As to the "valid questions" I posted this link
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html No it didn't have the same as your link.

As to the answers, honestly the DOJ would be the ones to ask.

[Childlike Empress]

Ok, i thought i had seen that link (http://www.teamliberty.net/id290.html) in your post #7 and it's disappearing but perhaps i'm wrong - if so, sorry about that.

[Kent1]

Ok, i thought i had seen that link (http://www.teamliberty.net/id290.html) in your post #7 and it's disappearing but perhaps i'm wrong - if so, sorry about that.

No prob.:D

[Pardalis]

Childlike Empress, did you see Karim's film "The Usual Suspects (http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4220657430794722240&hl=fr)"?

At one point in the movie, we do see some of the highjackers in the same room as OBL and his cronies.

[T.A.M.]

CLE:

1. Prove they are not indicted (I am not saying they are, but prove to me they are not).

2. If they are not indicted, than I speculate it is either due to (1) the slow wheels of justice and/or (2) him continuing to plea bargain and/or negotiate for a reduced sentence as he gives them more info.

3. Rather than speculate, or postulate, why don't you, or team8whatever they are called ask teh DOJ or some such athority why they haven't.

4. If you or they have, then I like you, eagerly await the answer.

[furrod]

Would a reasonable answer be that other agencies within the US government must have sufficient evidence to invade Afghanistan but that evidence has not been turned over to the FBI for national security reasons or it is not enough for an indictment?

[Gravy]

@Gravy: *yawn*
Brilliant response. Please explain why it's not acceptable for us to cite the Commission report, but it's fine for you.

[gumboot]

CLE:

1. Prove they are not indicted (I am not saying they are, but prove to me they are not).

2. If they are not indicted, than I speculate it is either due to (1) the slow wheels of justice and/or (2) him continuing to plea bargain and/or negotiate for a reduced sentence as he gives them more info.


Well, once they start legal proceedings they probably aren't allowed to torture them any more. I hear KSM lasted over 2 minutes of waterboarding - the best the CIA agents have managed is 14 seconds. (Waterboarding is a form of torture in which you make the subject think they are drowning when in fact they are not).

Since he's obviously such a tough nut, they probably want to try out a few more techniques on him before they hand him over to that namby pamby legal system.

-Andrew

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't defendants required to be in attendence at grand jury hearings where indictments are handed down?

If federal prosecutors haven't empanelled a grand jury, that's probably more Bin Ladens fault for being unavailable than the governments.

[Skibum]

Well, once they start legal proceedings they probably aren't allowed to torture them any more.

I agree with that.

Once in the legal system, defense attorneys might have a slight problem with the tactics used to extract information from their clients.

[Cylinder]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't defendants required to be in attendence at grand jury hearings where indictments are handed down?

No. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 43 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule43.htm):

Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.

[Kent1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't defendants required to be in attendence at grand jury hearings where indictments are handed down?

If federal prosecutors haven't empanelled a grand jury, that's probably more Bin Ladens fault for being unavailable than the governments.
No because for example KSM and OBL have been indicted for earlier crimes.
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Bin_Laden
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Khalid_Mohammed

[Kent1]

No because for example KSM and OBL have been indicted for earlier crimes.
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Bin_Laden
http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/english/wanted_captured/index.cfm?page=Khalid_Mohammed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060906/pl_afp/usattacksjustice_060906224527

Bush: Sept 11 architect to face trial

Bush said he had moved Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the September 11 attacks, and 13 other top Al-Qaeda suspects to Guantanamo to be tried by military commissions that must be approved by the US Congress.

The 14 suspects included Mohammed; Abu Zubaydah, thought to be a top aide to Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden; and presumed September 11 conspirator Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

[einsteen]

Where can I post the latest conspiracy news or debunking news ?

Seen this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

[brodski]

Where can I post the latest conspiracy news or debunking news ?

Seen this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Welcome to eth forum! :)
we have a whole sub-forum (hint: you're in it ;) ), start a thread if you want.
This story is well known, it's almost 5 years old, and has been thoroughly debunked. Auntie Beeb may as well have used the headline "Two men have same name!".

[Pardalis]

Einsteen, instead of moving the goalposts around, why don't you keep to one subject at a time? Are you really after the truth?

[brodski]

Where can I post the latest conspiracy news or debunking news ?

Seen this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

have you read, and understood, this? http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

[JamesB]

Where can I post the latest conspiracy news or debunking news ?

Seen this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

September 23rd, 2001 is considered the latest? You really need to get out more often.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Where can I post the latest conspiracy news or debunking news ?

Seen this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

debunk 1 (http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#the-hijackers)
debunk 2 (http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html)
additional info for debunk 2 (http://www.911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri.html)

debunk 3

Some of the hijackers are still alive
This is based on a BBC report on September 23, 2001. We are in 2006, and much
information has been gathered since the original report. Some of the hijackers listed on
the BBC are simply mistaken identifications. Not every Arab name is unique, just like
there are many people named "Mark" and "Michael" in Western Societies.
In 2002, the Saudi embassy confirmed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were indeed Saudis and
their families have been notified.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
No one else has reported that the hijackers are still alive ever since that report. You
would think they would take the opportunity to destroy the official story and make the
United States look like fools (without the help of George Bush or Cindy Sheehan!).
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html source (http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/)

[einsteen]

I'm sorry I forgot to check the date, stupid me.. Someone posted it at an other forum as it is new news, I just copy pasted it, I'll read the debunk now

[jon]

One of the authors of the debunking 9/11 myths book (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X) talks about how CT use the Internet as a non-chronological medium. I'd read this type of story as an example of this - you see the same old stories being circulated (often cut-and-pasted) on forums etc., even long after there've been cleared up. You get outdated, falsified 'facts' being spread through the web at impressive speed.

[brodski]

You get outdated, falsified 'facts' being spread through the web at impressive speed.

There is only one speed faster than the speed of light, and that is the speed of bullsh!t.

[jon]

There is only one speed faster than the speed of light, and that is the speed of bullsh!t.

Well, it is so much quicker to cut and paste (or make something up out of some random facts) than to bother with things like fact checking :rolleyes:

[JohnM307]

Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11

I'm arguing with a CTer. This came up. It is curious. Does anyone know why? Thanks.

www DOT fbi DOT gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

It's actually worse. The FBI's most-wanted page on OBL doesn't mention 9/11. The closest the page comes is giving an unexplained "Airline Pilots Association" award offer for his capture.

Even if he weren't indicted, the page might still have mentioned something about 9/11 since his name is recognized by everyone as behind 9/11. After all, they do mention that he is a suspect in numerous other terrorist activities.

By the way, if they formerly allowed URLs without the H T T P prefix, they don't now. That was probably a bug they fixed.

[WildCat]

www DOT fbi DOT gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

It's actually worse. The FBI's most-wanted page on OBL doesn't mention 9/11. The closest the page comes is giving an unexplained "Airline Pilots Association" award offer for his capture.

Even if he weren't indicted, the page might still have mentioned something about 9/11 since his name is recognized by everyone as behind 9/11. After all, they do mention that he is a suspect in numerous other terrorist activities.
OBL is not about to be captured and brought to trial. If he is located, I suspect the warrant will be issued attached to a 500 lb. delivery from a F-16, like Zarqawi's was. The FBI is certainly not at the forefront.

[JohnM307]

OBL is not about to be captured and brought to trial. If he is located, I suspect the warrant will be issued attached to a 500 lb. delivery from a F-16, like Zarqawi's was. The FBI is certainly not at the forefront.

Of course they won't put him on trial. (Famous last words for JohnM307)

But that doesn't explain why the page doesn't mention 9/11.

[Arus808]

How would you counter this argument?

http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=247894&postcount=93

He does link to the CNN version, which is shrunk and of course encoded poorly.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How would you counter this argument?

http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=247894&postcount=93

He does link to the CNN version, which is shrunk and of course encoded poorly.

http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-4#osamas-confession-tape
http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html
and please take special note of pages 34-39 of http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/

[kc440_]

FBI states that they have no hard evidence linking 9/11 to Osama Bin Laden

You would think a big bad evil Zionist globalist government hell bent on taking over the world by using fake terror plots, false flag operations, and kill 3000 of their own people would simply lie about Osama Bin Laden on the FBI most wanted page.

From the most excellent http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/

That's exactly what we do have, an excellent description.

kc440

[MarkyX]

There is only one speed faster than the speed of light, and that is the speed of bullsh!t.

You sure? We need to Penn and Teller to do an "experiment"

[kc440_]

Attorney/Commentator Barbara Olsen was on one of those planes, I believe the one that "landed" in Shanksville, PA. Last year there were reports that she was arrested in Eastern Europe and had been living in the Vatican. After that, nothing more was heard of the story. If it was bogus, wouldn't that have come out? Why was it ignored?

kc440

[jon]

Firstly, it's not exactly unheard for newspapers, media outlets etc. to put out front page stories then later - when they're proved to have made a mistake - issue a much less prominently-placed apology. If those publishing this story messed up (for example, Flocco's reference to the border between poland and austria) they may not have wanted to shout about their own errors.

Secondly, if you believe this story the conspiracy seems to be broadening. If Flocco's story on Olsen is true, it'd require French, Polish and German intelligence to be involved. The mainstream media in Europe would also have to have passed up on the scoop of the century.

Thirdly, this story was 'broke' by Tom Flocco (http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/OlsenArrested.htm). He is not a reliable source. Aside from making too many errors with past stories, he also spelled Olson's name wrong, miraculously rearranged Europe so that Poland bordered Austria, and had Olsen carrying a load of counterfeit lira despite Italy now being in the Euro zone. Flocco claims to know about this because an unnamed intelligence source (who apparently believes that Austria borders Poland) phoned him; this does not seem convincing - why would they phone Flocco, and why trust Flocco's report of their alleged report? How can anyone check the accuracy of what Flocco's saying - or does he expect readers to just take him at his word?
It therefore seems likely that Flocco's reports were ignored because most who read them decided (reasonably enough) that they were BS.