Where are the 9/11 charges against Usama Bin Laden?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Winzer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bin Charge
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
35 replies · 8K views
Winzer
Messages
597
Reaction score
0
Usama Bin Laden--9/11 Charge?

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm" is a link off the FBI's most wanted terrorist to Usama Bin Laden.
It's noted that:
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Where are the charges for 9/11?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org

Discussion



Perhaps that's the "other terrorist attacks" or perhaps Bin Laden is not believed to have had a direct hand in the operational execution of 9/11.

Personally, I don't think he should be on a "most wanted" list. He's not in the FBI's jurisdiction.
 


Remember, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.
 


Bin Laden was wanted before 9/11 due to attacks against the United States for several years before. I think 9/11 bumped him up on the list. Unfortunately, I think having him on the list now serves more of a political purpose now than anything serious.
 


Winzer said:
Here is a link off the FBI's most wanted terrorist to Usama Bin Laden.
It's noted that:

Where are the charges for 9/11?

Between testimony of other al-Qaeda members, backed up by satellite phone records, there's very good evidence for conspiracy charges on the '98 bombings.

As far as evidence that's already been released, you have a video tape made 2 months after the attack where the bin Laden and Khaled Al-Harbi have a discussion that suggests that both knew of the attack before it occurred. You have a taped confession by bin Ladin made 3 years after the fact and 3 days before a US Presidential election. You also have two tapes made in 2006 where bin Laden claims that he was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

The 2004 and 2006 tapes would probably be worthless, as one was almost certainly released solely to affect the US Presidential election and the other could be considered an attempt to raise the reputation of a beleaguered al-Qaeda in an effort to improve recruiting. It's not unheard of for people to confess to crimes they didn't commit with the main obstacle to tossing a confession being to show why the person might be motivated to confess to something they didn't do. The 2001 tape might prove knowledge, but it's generally hard to jump from pre-knowledge of a crime to conspiracy to commit the crime. I think it would be easier in the case of the head of a terrorist group knowing ahead of time a terrorist attack by some of the members of the terrorist group, but it still requires something additional to make the jump.
 


I found http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563958.stm" BBC article that tells a little. more. It does not seem that there is any conclusive evidence for linking Usama with the 9/11 attacks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Winzer said:
I found http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563958.stm" BBC article that tells a little. more. It does not seem that there is any conclusive evidence for linking Usama with the 9/11 attacks!
That BBC piece is dated 15 days after the attack. Much more information has become available since then.

russ_watters said:
Perhaps that's the "other terrorist attacks" or perhaps Bin Laden is not believed to have had a direct hand in the operational execution of 9/11.
Per Wright's Pulitzer winning The Looming Towers, the origination and responsibility of the 911 attack went something like this:
  1. Osama Bin Laden launched Al Qaeda in the Sudan in the early 90's, using his family wealth and based on the reputation he created by funneling and leading Arabs into Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. He thus created and led the organization the subsequently spawned all of the 911 hijackers.
  2. Bin Laden, upon return to Afghanistan in the 90's, creates and is the primary funding conduit for several terrorist training camps where most (possibly all) of the 911 hijackers trained for a time.
  3. Believing that the jihadists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_massacre" were ineffective,
    Bin Laden issues a fatwa in the late 90's that enjoins all Moslems everywhere to concentrate instead on attacking the United States. Though he acknowledged US military and economic strength, he literally believed a few spectacular attacks could destroy the US's ability to continue as a world leader.
  4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who had been part of Al Qaeda for a couple years, conceives the idea to crash several air planes into various US targets; he approaches Bin Laden with his plan Bin Laden is personally involved in vetting the targets; he personally veto's a KSM proposed grand standing finale where KSM himself would kill all the men on the last plane, then land the plane to free the women an children.
  5. The Hamburg German's appear in the Afghan AQ camps shortly after, providing the needed sophisticates who could merge into the US society and take pilot training, and the plan goes forward.

That much is documented on the history prior to the attacks, then we have Bin Laden's statements after 911 All of this seems to be more than enough for prosecution even if he never personally bought an airline ticket or box cutter.

russ_watters said:
Personally, I don't think he should be on a "most wanted" list. He's not in the FBI's jurisdiction.
By that you mean not that he's hiding outside the United States, but that he's responsible for an act of war against the US, vice committing a crime? Certainly the FBI or other federally agents routinely participate in grab jobs with foreign police forces and extradite the suspects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef" , 93 tower bomber and nephew to KSM, was snatched from Pakistan by the Pakistan ISI and US federal agents. Whoever grabs him, I believe he should be tried under military jurisdiction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


mheslep said:
That much is documented on the history prior to the attacks, then we have Bin Laden's statements after 911 All of this seems to be more than enough for prosecution even if he never personally bought an airline ticket or box cutter.
I'm not so sure, but in any case, I'm not real interested in arguing it.
By that you mean not that he's hiding outside the United States, but that he's responsible for an act of war against the US, vice committing a crime?
Yes.
Certainly the FBI or other federally agents routinely participate in grab jobs with foreign police forces and extradite the suspects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Yousef" , 93 tower bomber and nephew to KSM, was snatched from Pakistan by the Pakistan ISI and US federal agents. Whoever grabs him, I believe he should be tried under military jurisdiction.
No one should grab him. Even if I agreed that he should be tried, it is not worth the lives of soldiers or FBI agents to go after him. And I don't: he's far beyond the bounds of what the justice system is equipped to deal with. He is quite simply not worthy of such treatment.

Killing him via remote control from Montana would be far more appropriate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


russ_watters said:
No one should grab him. Even if I agreed that he should be tried, it is not worth the lives of soldiers or FBI agents to go after him. And I don't: he's far beyond the bounds of what the justice system is equipped to deal with. He is quite simply not worthy of such treatment.

Killing him via remote control from Montana would be far more appropriate.

Are you being emotional here?
 


russ_watters said:
No one should grab him. Even if I agreed that he should be tried, it is not worth the lives of soldiers or FBI agents to go after him. And I don't: he's far beyond the bounds of what the justice system is equipped to deal with. He is quite simply not worthy of such treatment.

Killing him via remote control from Montana would be far more appropriate.
I see your point, and agree - if he could be positively identified and singled out from innocents, which is unlikely.
 


mheslep said:
I see your point, and agree - if he could be positively identified and singled out from innocents, which is unlikely.
It is unlikely that "innocents" would be allowed to get near him, except perhaps for the purpose of using them as human shields, but even that is unlikely.
 


russ_watters said:
No, why - are you?

I was referring to
No one should grab him. Even if I agreed that he should be tried, it is not worth the lives of soldiers or FBI agents to go after him. And I don't: he's far beyond the bounds of what the justice system is equipped to deal with. He is quite simply not worthy of such treatment.
I didn't quite get what you meant here but I understood that you are characterizing him so evil that he don't deserve a fair trail under any justice system including one that prosecuted war criminals. I would favor in putting him under some international court if he ever get caught.
 


What would happen to Bina Laden if he is ever caught alive anyways? Would he be put on trial at the International courts? American? Somewhere in the middle east?

Would he be put to death? Life in some sort of military prison? Put in stocks in the middle of New York?
 


There will be a media frenzy and someone will end up shooting him as he exits a courthouse. Cue conspiracy theories
 


rootX said:
I was referring to

I didn't quite get what you meant here but I understood that you are characterizing him so evil that he don't deserve a fair trail under any justice system including one that prosecuted war criminals.
Yes, you did not get what I meant. Anyway, there isn't really any more to explain* - you simply read something that wasn't there. Reread it and don't insert your own emotions or assumptions about mine. The statement was technical, not emotional.

*I could write a thousand words about that thesis, but the general technical problem with trying an Afghan cave dweller in an American court is so obvious there really isn't any need to expand.
 


I have a serious problem with the 9/11 hijackers and the mastermind being tried in New York City. It will be credited as a show trial and there will be no way that anyone could say that the jury was impartial.
 


russ_watters said:
It is unlikely that "innocents" would be allowed to get near him, except perhaps for the purpose of using them as human shields, but even that is unlikely.
Bin Laden could me mixing in some Pakistani community that doesn't know who he is. The commonly held view that he's 6'5" and stands out in a crowd is a myth. Before the US invasion of Afghanistan in '01 he kept close company with his three wives and dozens of children in the camps. Now, if he and Zawahiri still have military value to the Afghan war, then possible harm to innocents has to be considered a cost of war, but not if the goal is simply to carry out justice to Bin Laden.
 


Pattonias said:
I have a serious problem with the 9/11 hijackers and the mastermind being tried in New York City. It will be credited as a show trial and there will be no way that anyone could say that the jury was impartial.


Used to be that the crime was tried where it occurred. this concept of jurisdiction isn't perfect. And indeed we may see efforts to change venue. Really, there is no alternative without a declaration of war and a military tribunal system which functions.

I'm not sure that this bullrings NY as a target. The fairest and most open way we proceed reduces the future threat IMHO.
 


denverdoc said:
Really, there is no alternative without a declaration of war and a military tribunal system which functions.
Why does a military tribunal require a declaration of war? Or more to the point, why would we even go to the effort to arrest him if we could just kill him instead?
 


russ_watters said:
Why does a military tribunal require a declaration of war? Or more to the point, why would we even go to the effort to arrest him if we could just kill him instead?

It doesn't and we wouldn't. I know when I was in the military we were told that it would be preferable to bring in the corpse of a high-value target as opposed to a prisoner. While they for the most part stopped short of telling us to violate the Geneva Convention, we were told "if they had a chance to surrender then you didn't kill him fast enough."

There were no bones about Bin Laden. If by some miracle we saw him, we were told to kill him, whether he was carrying a rifle or waving a white flag.
 


russ_watters said:
... Or more to the point, why would we even go to the effort to arrest him if we could just kill him instead?
Intel?
 


I searched and found a lot of 'evidenc', that I can not confirm, about his dead shortly after 9/11.
Benazir Butho also confirmed at a major USA tv program, also a local news from a newspapper of Egipt,... There is a lot to be find. But is dead is no good for anyone. some need a martir, some need a target.
 


Choronzon said:
It doesn't and we wouldn't. I know when I was in the military we were told that it would be preferable to bring in the corpse of a high-value target as opposed to a prisoner. While they for the most part stopped short of telling us to violate the Geneva Convention, we were told "if they had a chance to surrender then you didn't kill him fast enough."

There were no bones about Bin Laden. If by some miracle we saw him, we were told to kill him, whether he was carrying a rifle or waving a white flag.

I hope you understand that what you just said was in contradiction with our standard rules of engagement and also implies that the Army or US military was telling you to break the Geneva Convention. I know for a fact that these are not the instructions given to our soldiers overseas. Your Commander or someone who was briefing you may have said this, but you could be held liable for actually behaving like this in combat. I just want to make it clear that saying these kinds of things in a public forum make the US military and yourself appear unprofessional.
 
Last edited:


Pattonias said:
I hope you understand that what you just said was in contradiction with our standard rules of engagement and also implies that the Army or US military was telling you to break the Geneva Convention. I know for a fact that this is not the instructions given to our soldiers overseas. Your commander or someone who was briefing you may have said this, but you could be held liable for actually behaving like this in combat. I just want to make it clear that saying these kinds of things in a public forum make the US military and yourself appear unprofessional.

Even though I am very proud of my service, I'm more interested in telling the truth about my experiences, rather than making the military look good. I have my own opinions about the professionalism of the U.S. Army, and that opinion has not been improved my the pathetic pandering to the anti-war crowd.

As for breaking the Geneva Conventions—you are absolutely wrong. People who are not officially part of a recognized states military and are not uniformed have absolutely no protections under the Geneva Convention.

Our Rules of Engagement changed a few times, but for the most pat we were instructed to allow combatants to surrender even if they weren't strictly qualified to receive that right under the Geneva Conventions. That's why I threw that line in there about not killing them fast enough. It was a little joke we had in the infantry that if you took a prisoner you had done poorly—as in you should have killed him before he even could think of surrendering.

Oh- in my Zeal, I forgot my main point. We of course were never told to specifically kill anyone, with the singular exception of Bin Laden. Even that was more Braggadocio then anything. None of us were actually hunting Bin Laden, but we'd all laugh and talk about what we'd do to him if we found him. Decapitation with a subsequent carrying around of the head by the beard was pretty popular. Whether anyone of us would have done it if we had found him—well, I guess we'll never know.

As for the whole "better a corpse than a prisoner" thing—we were not told to execute them or any such thing. We were basically told not to go out of our way to encourage surrender. If they wanted to go down fighting, less hassle for us.

And if you think that theses sorts of things don't happen in the U.S. military, then you're mistaken. Maybe the people you know weren't in combat positions, but in the Units I was in, we sang songs about killing terrorists while we ran.

And there are no "Standard Rules of Engagement." The RoE changes quite often.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


russ_watters said:
Generally, you milk the underlings for intel to help you find the leader, not the other way around.
In some situations perhaps; in a distributed and largely autonomous terror network I want to find all the underlings and the leader may have good knowledge of that. Egypt, for example, wiped out the Al Jihad movement in country when they grabbed a leader's laptop (Zawahiri's I believe). Also, it is known that at least on one occasion Bin Laden tried to buy ready to go, weapons grade fission fuel (while int Sudan ca 1992). I'd like to know every source that even considered talking to him on those kind of matters.
 


Sorry! said:
...
American military intel and logistics are in my opinion without a doubt the best in the world...
Basis for your opinion?
 


russ_watters said:
Generally, you milk the underlings for intel to help you find the leader, not the other way around.

It is true that the underlings can tell you who the leader is and can probably give a lot of info about the operations they are/were involved in, but the leader can tell you about all operations(and underlings) including some in the pipeline that the underlings haven't even heard about yet, that being said it is far easier getting the underlings to talk than the leader I would think.
 


Choronzon said:
As for breaking the Geneva Conventions—you are absolutely wrong. People who are not officially part of a recognized states military and are not uniformed have absolutely no protections under the Geneva Convention.

Incorrect.