Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Bin Laden ever indicted by a grand jury?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BushOut06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:03 AM
Original message
Was Bin Laden ever indicted by a grand jury?
After the first WTC bombing, we got indictments and then went after the terrorists. Unless I'm mistaken, * never even sought an indictment against Bin Laden or anyone else for the 9-11 attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not for 9/11
That's why it's not listed as one of his offenses on bin Laden's FBI Most Wanted page.


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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. No. He's not even on an FBI 'wanted' list.
Because the FBI couldn't gather enough actual EVIDENCE
to consider him a suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yes he is but just not for 9/11
Edited on Tue Jan-09-07 10:09 AM by nuxvomica
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. My bad; you are entirely correct. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nuxvomica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. He's not even charged with the 9/11 attacks
He's on the most-wanted list for the embassy bombings in the 1990s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. Difference
I think the difference was that we treated it like a law enforcement/criminal action for the 1993 bombing, whereas we took the position that it was an act of war in 2001. So no real need for an indictment, just as we did not seek an indictment of Japanese leaders after Pearl Harbor.

I guess it's all in how you interpret the act of terrorism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
htuttle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Japan was a nation-state when they attacked at Pearl Harbor
You cannot 'declare war' on a person, only on a country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Bush* said he had solid evidence but it was secret and no one could see it
How do you know Bin Laden was involved in any way in 9-11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikey929 Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Well
How do I know personally? I don't have any personal information on it. Seems like he's accepted responsibility for it. But can I vouch personally that he was the one? Of course not.

I also have no personal knowledge that Charles Manson orchestrated the Tate/LaBianca murders. So maybe he's innocent too. And maybe OJ is still out there searching for the real killers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-10-07 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. So all you are going on is what the Bush* Administration put out
Remember all those tapes of Bin Laden, the skinny one and the fat one, came from the administration that refuses to show any evidence but asks that you take their word for it. Nice you are so trusting. I grew up with the adage "Question Authority" and I do so frequently. I have no way of knowing whether Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with 9-11. There appears to be more evidence that Saddam was responsible than Osama but who knows it may have been Charles Mansion as well. That is why we attacked Iraq is it not? Saddam was in colusion with Al Qaeda and planned to blow up America with his WMDs. But then again upon further examination and thousands of lives lost it appears Saddam didn't really have anything at all to do with it. Hmmm makes one wonder if Osama is just as guilty.. Glad you are so convinced...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Don_1967 Donating Member (231 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
8. The fact that he confessed is good enough for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. He initially DENIED any involvement, you know.
He only started claiming resposibility after it became
clear that doing so would be a great political move
for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. He initially DENIED any involvement, you know..
he denied it twice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. The fat one or the skinny one?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-10-07 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. I think the fat Osama who resembled Fidel Castro did kind of confess
But I am not sure that counts for much.

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-09-07 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
13. no. that would have required evidence to be presented in a court of law.
that would be impossible and would have been emarrassing to the bush cabal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 12th 2024, 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC