OBL wanted for 9/11?

No.

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

USAMA BIN LADEN

Date of Photograph Unknown

Aliases: Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin, Shaykh Usama Bin Ladin, the Prince, the Emir, Abu Abdallah, Mujahid Shaykh, Hajj, the Director

DESCRIPTION
Date of Birth: 1957 Hair: Brown
Place of Birth: Saudi Arabia Eyes: Brown
Height: 6' 4" to 6' 6" Complexion: Olive
Weight: Approximately 160 pounds Sex: Male
Build: Thin Nationality: Saudi Arabian
Occupation: Unknown
Remarks: Bin Laden is the leader of a terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, "The Base". He is left-handed and walks with a cane.
Scars and Marks: None

CAUTION

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.

CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS PERSON, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST U.S. EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.

REWARD

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

June 1999
Poster Revised November 2001

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

What's that about?

Anyone can offer a reward for anything. If they have evidence, they need to provide it to the FBI.

No? Hmm, perhaps the airline industry groups mean some other attack besides those. Gee, I wonder which attacks those could be. Any clue, Why Syzygy?

I said if they have EVIDENCE of OBL involvement with 911, they need to give it to the FBI, who to date hasn't any! Get it?

Secondly, it isn't mentioned on his Most Wanted poster because he hasn't been indicted for 9/11 at this point. Third, as another poster properly pointed out, the Bush administration decided to pursue a military solution and the Obama administration apparently is following suit. You do know that Obama believes bin Laden did it, right?

The FBI HAS said it has no evidence. NO CHARGES against OBL for 911 have EVER been filed.

Again, excusing Bush's law breaking doesn't invalidate concerns.

I don't care what Obama "believes". I don't happen to have a mind meld with Obama.

And, if the FBI ever said that it had NO evidence against OBL, please produce proof of that statement. I suspect you're taking an earlier statement of Robert Mueller's and/or ignoring any subsequent corrections addendums he made.

that they DO have evidence and charges have been filed. Something you will not be able to do.

By insisting it is perfectly legit for Bush to start WARS rather than allow the FBI to do it's JOB, you are excusing his illegal activities.

I'm done with you for now. :boring:

as has been stated numerous times, the Bush administration chose to pursue a military option against bin Laden. Clinton did on several occasions too. How you're going to argue that's illegal is beyond me.

Last I checked, the president runs the executive branch. Please show me where I said it was okay for Bush to start wars. Have you ever read the War Powers Act?

then Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence division testifying before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 6, 2002:




http://www.representativepress.org/FBITestimony.html

So much for your rather stupid claim.

The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. (...)

emphasis added
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm



There's that cozy MIC.
And the question remains. The FBI had successfully prosecuted and imprisoned many terrorists prior to 911. Why would Bush now relieve them of duty, retiring 5,000 agents, to make WAR. Do you deny that he WANTED war with Iraq?

but, what the fuck does that have to do with your claim that the FBI stated that they had no evidence to link OBL to 9/11 when I just provided Watson't testimony to the Senate that they did? Why do you find it suspicious that Watson joined Booz Allen after leaving the government? You need to look us something called the "genetic fallacy".

due to what appears to be your abiding joy in censorship, you may join my Ignore list. :hi:

What a stupid post.

How is that any better than Rumsfeld's claims that "we know where the weapons {of mass destruction} are". Saying something doesn't make it true.

then, if you're still confused, let me know.

Where is the evidence of and information about money transfers, communications intercepts, planning meetings etc ?

claimed the FBI stated it had no evidence linking bin Laden to 911. Obviously, Watson's testimony contradicts THAT particular claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quit trying to move the goalposts.

When questioned, the FBI will tell you there is no evidence linking OBL to 911.

That was my point.

The US decided that the solution to OBL would be a military one - not a criminal justice one.

OBL said he was involved - that's good enough for me.

last I heard, he denied it. When you say the "US decided", of course you mean GW Bush DECIDED.

If there were any evidence that OBL was involved with 911, the FBI would be obligated to be involved. OTOH, the military has no right to go around deciding for itself who to pursue. It isn't an investigative entity.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/10/30/bin_laden_addresses_americans/




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5010764.stm


Of course the Commander in Chief decided - that's part of the job description.

No - the FBI would not be obligated to do anything. The executive gets to decides if it is criminal, diplomatic or military issue. Global terrorism is a complicated mess - to say that the FBI 'had' to to anything is wrong - the US government looked at the situation and directed a course of action appropriately. You may think it was the wrong decision but to say it was not a legitimate one is not correct. The President is given remarkable leeway in international affairs - that's the way it has always been.

The military made no decision at all - the were ordered to fulfill a mission by America's civilian leadership.

If I ever need an excuse or alibi for bizarre or unexplained behavior, I'll be sure to enlist the help of an OCTer. You guys are expert at pulling "the answer" straight out of your asses.

The BBC and Boston.com pull answers out of their ass.

Perhaps you could enlighten us (with evidence and facts) as to how, precisely, this is "bullshit" instead of just yammering that it is, dude.

Where exactly in those awesomely illuminating links is the official FBI statement: "based on the apparent confession of OBL, this is now a military issue. Therefore, we wont be adding 9/11 to the list of his terrorist crimes"?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I was simply explaining political reality.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's good enough for me to ask for an investigation! :eyes:

Did he initially deny involvement? Yes. Can you think of any reason why he initially issued a false denial? Hint: the Taliban who, at that time, ruled Afghamistan had already told him he would have to cease any terrorist operations or he would be subjected to expulsion. Can you see why he didn't admit it until later? Or do you just fall for the first thing you hear?

again! I asked for an investigation. That means I want the truth, not heresay!

How, specifically, is it "hearsay"? I hardly think the expense of a new investigation is warranted because you're not satisfied, dude.

on both parts but I must point out that I'm not the only one.