USAMA BIN LADEN : Why has he not been charged?

[NoStateofMind]

So after watching the Ron Paul rally last night (Jesse Ventura speach) I got to thinking about the question he asked. Why hasn't Usama Bin Laden been charged for his role in the 9-11 attacks? We were told he was involved, that his Al Qaeda thugs ran into the world trade center because they hate our freedom. Taking the presumption that this is the truth why has he not been brought up on charges? Here's his FBI page: Usama Bin Laden. Another site for reference: Wired.

When the terrorists who commandeered the four airplanes in the Sept. 11 attacks were identified, their faces appeared in news publications all over the world.

President Bush has said he has evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, so it would seem obvious that the FBI would include him and other suspects on its 10 most wanted fugitives Web page.

Think again.

Bin Laden is listed, but only for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. There is no mention of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000, both of which he is widely believed to have orchestrated. And forget about Sept. 11.

The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."

So if they have the evidence it shouldn't be a problem in formally charging him. Let me get this right though, cause I want to understand this correctly. Usama Bin Laden is suspected to have orchestrated multiple terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. The evidence has not been used in any charge against him. Yet, we take that and automatically assume he is guilty and start a "War on Terror" that has no end. Since when did we find people guilty before atleast bringing the evidence before the court?

I don't know about you, but this sure doesn't seem like the America I am fond of. The one that recognizes the rights of individuals, innocent until proven guilty and habeas corpus. 9-11 has changed many things.....

 

[mxyzptlk]

I agree.

How do we go about fixing this?

edit: I mean, neither major party's stated platform really addresses these sorts of fundamental questions. Even if they did, I have this sense of dread that the openly stated platforms and what will actually take place in the next administration aren't exactly going to match up.

Worse still, it seems that not many even notice or care about how far America can stray from its founding ideals. How do you get people to even want to fix it?

 

[Fern]

Good/interesting point, but first:

Attacking the Taliban (if that's what you're referring to in your last sentence), a foreign government etc, has nothing to do with "the rights of individuals, innocent until proven guilty and habeas corpus". These are Constitutional concepts that for the most only apply to citizens in the USA and are applicable to domestic law enforcement activities. War time stuff is radically different. The Constitution actually applies some vastly different concepts during war time (e.g., Congress can suspend the right of habeus corpus etc).

But, yeah, I find it odd that the FBI doesn't think they have enough evidence to charge UBL?

But since they've got him charged on the other stuff, probably has zero *real world* impact.

Fern

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If there are no charges why does he have a $25 million dollar bounty on his head?

Besides, I don't want that asshole to be brought to court and tried. If we ever locate his scared little hiding ass he should get shot dead on the spot.

 

[bsobel]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2006082700687.html

He's already charged for an earlier attack (FYI)

 

[First]

He has admitted to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...den-Yes,-I-did-it.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...binladen_10-29-04.html

He has praised them consistently:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...CQw5lobuu5lx_xqFlMJcfA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...nrthY6Zm40G31x2U_TKcjA

He has already been charged with other terrorist attacks that, if convicted, will give him life in jail anyway:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2006082700687.html

A quote from an FBI agent who clearly states, in the above Washington Post article, that "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."

So no offense, but you are dumb as a stump if you honestly think this is a provocative question.

EDIT: Btw, that article either is willfully ignorant and/or cannot see that the distinction between the top 10 most wanted list and most wanted terrorist list is nil save for obvious differences in national origins between fugitives determining who gets on said lists. But despite this, the FBI prominently touts OBL on their most wanted terrorist AND on their top 10 most wanted fugitive lists, here: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm. The fact that a 9/11 conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura can't come to reasonable conclusions doesn't warrant the attention of clear thinking Americans.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If there are no charges why does he have a $25 million dollar bounty on his head?

Besides, I don't want that asshole to be brought to court and tried. If we ever locate his scared little hiding ass he should get shot dead on the spot.

Thankfully you don't make important decisions in our government.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Fern
Good/interesting point, but first:

Attacking the Taliban (if that's what you're referring to in your last sentence), a foreign government etc, has nothing to do with "the rights of individuals, innocent until proven guilty and habeas corpus". These are Constitutional concepts that for the most only apply to citizens in the USA and are applicable to domestic law enforcement activities. War time stuff is radically different. The Constitution actually applies some vastly different concepts during war time (e.g., Congress can suspend the right of habeus corpus etc).

But, yeah, I find it odd that the FBI doesn't think they have enough evidence to charge UBL?

But since they've got him charged on the other stuff, probably has zero *real world* impact.

Fern

Good points and well noted. Those war time changes would only take place in war time correct? Usama Bin Laden being the culprit for the 9-11 attacks is the drum that the bush war machine was beating to get that war. Once a law is broken on our land, they are subject to our laws. Those laws include the right to an attorney and the right to trial by jury. Would it be a military tribunal type job? IDK and I wouldn't say it was unconstitutional.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: bsobel
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2006082700687.html

He's already charged for an earlier attack (FYI)

Yes I realize he has been charged with other terrorist activities. That doesn't concern me. I am just trying to figure out why he hasn't been charged formally.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Besides, I don't want that asshole to be brought to court and tried. If we ever locate his scared little hiding ass he should get shot dead on the spot.

I honestly think this is the administration's thinking on the subject. And, so help me, I think I agree. A captured Bin Laden and his subsequent trial would be a long, drawn out public relations nightmare for the US in the Arab world.

 

[Dari]

Is there supposed to be a conspiracy here? We want him, dead or alive.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
He has admitted to orchestrating the 9/11 attacks:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...den-Yes,-I-did-it.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/up...binladen_10-29-04.html

He has praised them consistently:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...CQw5lobuu5lx_xqFlMJcfA

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...nrthY6Zm40G31x2U_TKcjA

He has already been charged with other terrorist attacks that, if convicted, will give him life in jail anyway:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2006082700687.html

A quote from an FBI agent who clearly states, in the above Washington Post article, that "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."

So no offense, but you are dumb as a stump if you honestly think this is a provocative question.

EDIT: Btw, that article either is willfully ignorant and/or cannot see that the distinction between the top 10 most wanted list and most wanted terrorist list is nil save for obvious differences in national origins between fugitives determining who gets on said lists. But despite this, the FBI prominently touts OBL on their most wanted terrorist AND on their top 10 most wanted fugitive lists, here: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm. The fact that a 9/11 conspiracy theorist like Jesse Ventura can't come to reasonable conclusions doesn't warrant the attention of clear thinking Americans.

First, I could care less how "dumb as a stump" you think I am. If you wish to discuss this topic please do. I am not going to mentally spar insults with you.

Secondly I have already linked in the OP from the FBI's top terrorist wanted list. He is listed as most wanted but they do not list anything about the 9-11 events. Is that important? I think so. It shows one of two things. One they do not have the evidence to charge him or two, the evidence they do have is only circumstantial and would not hold up in the court of law.

Last point I want to discuss with you is the bit about him confessing to having attacked the world trade center. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. There are some who say its not his voice, he is wearing a watch which is against their religion etc etc. What I've just stated though doesn't matter to me much. Ask yourself this, if your friend had been murdered by someone and this murderer had killed multitudes of people, would you be ok with the state not charging him for your friends death even though he admitted it? It just wreaks of 4 months old fish in the fridge. There is no reason not to charge Usama other than the reasons stated before.

 

[Jaskalas]

Saddam was captured and THEN charged, right? Why would Osama be treated any differently? It appears to be a set precedent on how we handle foreign enemies. First you have to capture them, dead or alive.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Secondly I have already linked in the OP from the FBI's top terrorist wanted list. He is listed as most wanted but they do not list anything about the 9-11 events. Is that important? I think so. It shows one of two things. One they do not have the evidence to charge him or two, the evidence they do have is only circumstantial and would not hold up in the court of law.

As the FBI agent said, it's mostly inconsequential as they already have evidence on him from a prior bombing, which in all likelihood would put him away for life anyway. I'm sure the amount of circumstantial evidence on him for 9/11 is high enough to the point where it would provide good supporting evidence in a case against him on some other bombing.

Last point I want to discuss with you is the bit about him confessing to having attacked the world trade center. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. There are some who say its not his voice, he is wearing a watch which is against their religion etc etc.

Yes, I know, conspiracy theories. He has admitted to it, it's on tape.

What I've just stated though doesn't matter to me much. Ask yourself this, if your friend had been murdered by someone and this murderer had killed multitudes of people, would you be ok with the state not charging him for your friends death even though he admitted it?

Admitting to something isn't direct, hard evidence of a crime. There are a multitude of reasons for it, and I would be fine with not charging a person for my friend's death as long as they were trying to hunt him down as vigorously as the CIA and other agencies are. Though, of course, I'm hugely disappointed Bush hasn't been more concentrated in his efforts to get OBL. He's a complete failure on that front.

It just wreaks of 4 months old fish in the fridge. There is no reason not to charge Usama other than the reasons stated before.

Then you simply do not understand what's going on.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If there are no charges why does he have a $25 million dollar bounty on his head?

Besides, I don't want that asshole to be brought to court and tried. If we ever locate his scared little hiding ass he should get shot dead on the spot.

Thankfully you don't make important decisions in our government.

Nor do you, and that's a very good thing because if people think things are fucked up now...

As Perknose already stated, bringing OBL to trial would be a PR nightmare and a circus. He deserves nothing more than to be summarily executed the second he is found. There is no debate on his guilt whatsoever so there's no need for any sort of trial, nor would a trial for OBL be desired by anyone with their head screwed on straight. Of course, that knocks you right out of consideration for making that kind of decision in the first place.

 

[palehorse]

oh boy... :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Saddam was captured and THEN charged, right? Why would Osama be treated any differently? It appears to be a set precedent on how we handle foreign enemies. First you have to capture them, dead or alive.

Saddam wasn't tried in the US. He was tried by the Iraqi courts and executed there primarily as a dog & pony show for the Iraqi people.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Nor do you, and that's a very good thing because if people think things are fucked up now...

As Perknose already stated, bringing OBL to trial would be a PR nightmare and a circus. He deserves nothing more than to be summarily executed the second he is found. There is no debate on his guilt whatsoever so there's no need for any sort of trial, nor would a trial for OBL be desired by anyone with their head screwed on straight. Of course, that knocks you right out of consideration for making that kind of decision in the first place.

Naw, I'm just intelligent enough to see that executing him on the spot shows very little forethought. It wreaks of the sort of emotion you'd see from a revenge-driven teenager than a grown-up adult, wreaks of a guy who hasn't really thought it through. For example, the mountain of information and evidence OBL might hold if our interrogators can break him, potentially leading to thrawting all sorts of domestic and foreign plans to attack our country. This easily outweighs any potential PR nightmares.

Again, this did not occur to you, and I don't blame you because you're just not that sharp.

 

[CanOWorms]

Why has the German government not been held responsible for their role in the 9/11 attacks? There are lots of unanswered questions.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Why has the German government not been held responsible for their role in the 9/11 attacks?

That's easy; they didn't have one.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Why has the German government not been held responsible for their role in the 9/11 attacks? There are lots of unanswered questions.

just when I thought that this thread couldn't get any nuttier, along comes CanOfStupid to raise the bar!

wow...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If there are no charges why does he have a $25 million dollar bounty on his head?

Besides, I don't want that asshole to be brought to court and tried. If we ever locate his scared little hiding ass he should get shot dead on the spot.

Thankfully you don't make important decisions in our government.

Nor do you, and that's a very good thing because if people think things are fucked up now...

As Perknose already stated, bringing OBL to trial would be a PR nightmare and a circus.

He deserves nothing more than to be summarily executed the second he is found.

There is no debate on his guilt whatsoever so there's no need for any sort of trial, nor would a trial for OBL be desired by anyone with their head screwed on straight.

Of course, that knocks you right out of consideration for making that kind of decision in the first place.

I don't understand people that hate America so much living here.

TLC why are you here?

 

[lupi]

Why would Jesse what him charged since the government did it.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Secondly I have already linked in the OP from the FBI's top terrorist wanted list. He is listed as most wanted but they do not list anything about the 9-11 events. Is that important? I think so. It shows one of two things. One they do not have the evidence to charge him or two, the evidence they do have is only circumstantial and would not hold up in the court of law.

As the FBI agent said, it's mostly inconsequential as they already have evidence on him from a prior bombing, which in all likelihood would put him away for life anyway. I'm sure the amount of circumstantial evidence on him for 9/11 is high enough to the point where it would provide good supporting evidence in a case against him on some other bombing.

Last point I want to discuss with you is the bit about him confessing to having attacked the world trade center. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. There are some who say its not his voice, he is wearing a watch which is against their religion etc etc.

Yes, I know, conspiracy theories. He has admitted to it, it's on tape.

What I've just stated though doesn't matter to me much. Ask yourself this, if your friend had been murdered by someone and this murderer had killed multitudes of people, would you be ok with the state not charging him for your friends death even though he admitted it?

Admitting to something isn't direct, hard evidence of a crime. There are a multitude of reasons for it, and I would be fine with not charging a person for my friend's death as long as they were trying to hunt him down as vigorously as the CIA and other agencies are. Though, of course, I'm hugely disappointed Bush hasn't been more concentrated in his efforts to get OBL. He's a complete failure on that front.

It just wreaks of 4 months old fish in the fridge. There is no reason not to charge Usama other than the reasons stated before.

Then you simply do not understand what's going on.

How is charging Usama Bin Laden inconsequential? The terrorist responsible for the worst single attack on US soil and thats inconsequential? Surprising. I imagine people studying history 100yrs from now will have trivia questions thrown at them like "Who was responsible for the WTC attacks and what was he charged with?". I don't understand how our government can be so lackadaisical about such an important event in world history.

Maybe they see charging Usama Bin Laden more symbolic now, but I sure as hell don't.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse
oh boy... :roll:

Nice addition to the thread :roll: