- Oct 14, 2005
- 9,711
- 6
- 76
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.
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.....
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.....