WTF? OBL is "not wanted" for the attack on 9/11?

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

FBI says "no credible evidence exists to charge or accuse him" hmmm, how come ** said he did it then?
http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/15910/June_6_2006_FBI_says_No_hard_evidence_connecting_Bin_Laden_to_9_11

[Jara sang]

1. Osama Bin Laden is Emmanuel Goldstein.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fovea]

33. Google Goldstein and Orwell

This is the fictional enemy of Big Brother and EngSoc in 1984.
His saboteurs and spies are everywhere...

[Jara sang]

42. Educate yourself, read 1984.

And stop throwing around unfounded accusations.:mad:

[SmokingJacket]

2. That's because he had nothing to do with it.

More evidence.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adriennui]

27. some people just can't leave the mossad out of anything...

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.....the planes were commandeered by 19 islamists taking their orders from al quada. where's your outrage with our friends the saudis and the taliban.

oh, i forgot it's always easy to blame israel. i resent your implications.

[GrumpyGreg]

3. What the hell is he wanted for? Diddling a little girl?

[treestar]

4. This is fascinating

I wonder why we are not investigating this. Why shouldn't the FBI look for evidence to indict him - if they could do it for the 1998 attack, why not for 911?

After all, the world changed because of 911, :sarcasm: you'd think the desire to bring the perpetrator to justice directly would be there.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. You would think that, no? I guess not.

Silly me.

[Jara sang]

11. It's obvious that the plan was never to bring him to trial.

They will merely kill him or his look alike and claim victory, but they will do this at their own discretion.

[Che_Nuevara]

21. Don't make me laugh.

Any trial involving Osama bin Laden would be a hollow mockery of the justice system. Do you REALLY believe he could get a REAL trial according to US law after the events of 11 Sept, 2001?

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. The 1993 WTC bombing trial

was 'US vs Usama bin Laden', so it wouldn't be the first time.

[Americus]

41. Apparently, the OCT'ers here agree that OBL had zero to do w/911

It's very strange to me that not one of the regular OCT Spin Doctors has weighed in with all the same righteous indignation you'd expect from a neocon. Why aren't they railing against what to them, could only be considered the immoral "coddling of a master criminal, whose murderous ways exceed even those of the former Evil Empire" or one of those infamous so-called rogue nations?

What possible (rational) reason explains their total silence? I think the old saying really is true: "silence is consent". They know OBL isn't the real perp behind 9/11 but they also know that the Bush administration can't afford to "catch" him. After all, Osama has kidney ailments, but that doesn't mean he can't talk. And the real perps fear what he might have to say. That, plus the fact that if OBL WERE to be charged with something, there's no credible evidence to support the charge that he was responsible for 9/11. THEN what would they do?

[ovidsen]

6. Our tax dollars at work

Of course this is the same government that told us Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, because he and Osama were bosom buddies.

Right?

I need a drink.

[williesgirl]

7. I guess there's no more reason to spy on us since they're not interested

in him or his cohorts - RIGHT?

[Roland99]

8. At the very least, go after Zawahiri. But NOOOOOOOO....had to invade Iraq

[Suich]

9. This doesn't make any sense.

Am I missing something? :shrug:

[Beelzebud]

10. But gee whiz. I thought we found a video taped confession?!?

It would be funny, if it weren't so utterly fucking sad...

[madokie]

14. and countless lives lost and numerous injuries all around

this war is illegal and the perpetrators should be behind bars, now.

[Che_Nuevara]

12. Osama bin Laden is not wanted for ANYTHING by the FBI

because the FBI is in charge of domestic legal affairs. He was never on US soil at the time of an attack, and is not a US citizen, and thereby is not under US FBI jurisdiction.

The CIA, on the other hand, is not required to produce "hard evidence" as suggested. The CIA is responsible for international affairs, and they at least -were supposed to be- looking for him.

End of story.

[WePurrsevere]

18. Why is he wanted in connection with bombings outside the US then?

Was he on US soil when the US embassies were bombed back in 1998? Was he somehow a US citizen?

If he can be "Wanted" by the FBI for the bombings of US Embassies situated in foreign countries how is that different enough to make it okay for him to be "Wanted" for those crimes and not wanted for 9-11 other then many more people died and on US soil?

[Che_Nuevara]

20. Touche.

US embassies technically count as US soil. If he can be tied to those, he can be help responsible for them. In order for conspiracy to be established, only one part of the conspiracy need take place on US soil, and anyone involved in the crime is liable.

I stand by my 'hard evidence' statement, though.

[WePurrsevere]

35. "Hard evidence"... *IF* Usama Bin Laden's "Confession Tape" is authentic

(which I must admit I have my doubts about) then I believe that normally it would be considered "hard evidence". Why not in this case?

This article has some interesting points ( http://tinyurl.com/z6deb ):

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

[HamdenRice]

40. You don't know the law

Bin Laden can be tried by US courts because the crime he committed (if bin Laden was part of the 9/11 conspiracy) took place on US soil. Therefore, the US has jurisdiction over him. This is why the US can extradite South American drug lords who never set foot in the US but conspire to distribute drugs in the US.

So bin Laden can be subject to US criminal jurisdiction, and the FBI has jurisdiction to investigate his crimes.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

19. Nice try, but wrong

Someone can be wanted by the FBI who has never been in the US.

For a variety of crimes.

[MissWaverly]

13. Why wasn't there a trial

I really don't understand this, it seems like we are always out of sync

First they held a press conference and linked Osama to 9-11

Then they said we would go after Osama by going to Afghanistan

Then we would go after Saddam because he had WMD's and was going to attack us,
now remember Saddam's budget was half of 1% what our military budget is

Now we find out there were no WMD's, no biological weapons and Saddam had no ties
to 9-11.

Now we find out the FBI does not have enough evidence to tie Osama to 9-11
and
we are still at war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

and Karl Rove says the Republicans are better at post 9-11 thinking than us, well, I would
just like to ask this question, who in the h*ll was behind 9-11 and where is he?

Why?

[Rex]

15. That is the method of delivery for the BFEE

No link between OBL and 911? That sure ain't the BFEE mantra. Minutes after 911, OBL was named the prime suspect. See here is the delivery - 911 is treated as a declaration of war, not a criminal act. If they would have come out and said 911 was a crime then an investigation would have been in order. Treat it as a war and no criminal investigation. Slick ass shit from the BFEE.

[serryjw]

39. PLEASE find me some

articles or quotes from Bushit & CO. I can't find any.......where did they all go???

[WePurrsevere]

16. Not wanted for 9-11?! Unflippin' believable. How many have died because

we're supposedly hunting for this man, this "terrorist" for planning, etc 9-11 and he's not even WANTED for the very crime we went to WAR for?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[glitch]

22. If they put him on the wanted list then his was a criminal act, not a war

Can't respond as if he were a criminal, no war profits in that.

[bleever]

26. Bingo. Remember the sometimes odd-sounding talking point about

the Democrats approaching this as a "law enforcement situation, instead of an act of war that needed a military response".

They've repeated that, over the last few years, at regular intervals.

Cut the FBI out of this, centralize the power and decision-making in the Defense Department.

[Montauk6]

23. But you know something (hee hee hee) I got the best liberal spin for this

This is great fodder for the next time your freeper in-law in desperation reaches for the "Blame Clinton" card.

[robbedvoter]

25. Dear Afghanistan: Oops! And you misspelled Zarkawi. It was HIM

all along - the Bin Ladens are serious businessmen - Poppy can vouch for them. :sarcasm:

[lyonn]

29. Osama: Dead or Alive on Discovery Times

at 12:00 a.m. Central time.

[satya]

30. NYT, BBC 10/14/2001 Bush rejects Taliban offer to turn over bin Laden

Wouldn't be the "War President" had he allowed bin Laden to be tried for 9/11. And anyway, no trial necessary in * world, because "we know he's guilty".

President Rejects Offer by Taliban for Negotiations

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 — President Bush forcefully rejected another offer from the Taliban today to begin talks about the surrender of Osama bin Laden if the United States stopped bombing Afghanistan.

"When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations," Mr. Bush told reporters upon landing on the South Lawn of the White House after returning from a weekend of intensive national security briefings at Camp David.

He added that he was not interested in discussing Mr. bin Laden's innocence or guilt. "We know he's guilty," he said.

more ... (registration required)

Reporters see Afghan bomb damage

Updated 14 October 2001, 19.17
Rubble in the village of Kouram
As a second week of bombing on Afghanistan begins, the Taleban said they'd talk about handing over Osama Bin Laden to a neutral country if the US stopped the strikes.

But Maulvi Abdul Kabir,Taleban's second in command, again asked for proof that bin Laden was behind the 11 September attacks. President Bush has said no to the offer.

more ...

[OneBlueSky]

31. ever feel like you've fallen down the rabbit hole? . . . I do . . . n/t

.

[WePurrsevere]

36. It is all a bit surreal isn't it? n/t

[Wilms]

32. .

[Americus]

37. OBL is a longtime CIA asset. Why would HE be wanted for the 911 attacks?

n/t

[Americus]

38. OBL is a longtime CIA asset. Why would he be WANTED for the 9/11 attacks?

Whenever the perps were planning 9/11, maybe he was wanted, as in: "We need a patsy and OBL would be the perfect person for that".