It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why Wasn't Osama Bin Laden charged with a crime?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:46 PM
This is a really good question. I especially like Jesse's last point. Not enough, eh? That's an interesting basis for it....

I mean, if the Government were playing loose with everything, or hiding their own bad actions, then cooking up a bit of evidence to add to everything else wouldn't have been any challenge. Why not have charged UBL with 9/11? They could have just used Usama's own statements and the surreptitious video of him making downright prophetic statements immediately prior. I'd swear they've done more with less....

Oh.. but wait... The FBI's Top Roster carries a top payday, doesn't it? They had to accept someone MIGHT..somehow..capture him someday and see him to international authorities where such details would become extremely important.


posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:07 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

They actually put a bounty on someones head, that would have
every greedy politician in the country, trying to whack the
guy. Well before he could turn in and collect.
I wonder how many bounty hunters were greedy enough
to actually look? The bounty itself increases the task ten fold.
I haven't shopped around Wrabbit, but I wonder how many
twentyfive million dollar rewards have been paid out?

Seal team six, maybe they clammored for cash?

edit on Rpm42914v122014u44 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:55 PM
The War On Terror is really about controlling the remaining natural resources on the planet.OBL was a perfect bogey man when you look at his background he was exactly what they were looking for.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:09 AM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Some believed that OBL had died years earlier due to poor health before this supposed raid occurred, hence no way he could have been tried

They whole incident was odd, happened fast, and seemed staged with that photo op of Obama and his crew

Also, Obama claimed he was buried at sea as part of Muslim burial traditions
But unless a man died during battle, that is NOT how Muslims are buried
They are hardly ever buried at is very rare

-First..... is their bathing ritual
-Second...they shroud the dead body in a white cotton or linen cloth
-Third.....they have a funeral prayer
-Fourth...when they are buried, the head is turned so that it faces Mecca

And the fact that they were quick to get rid of the body is suspicious

So when one looks at the whole scenario, something just doesn't add up IMO

Obama has a piss poor record when it comes to telling the truth
He's the 'Master of Deception'
Or 'Master of Illusion'.....either one works when describing Obama

edit on 30-4-2014 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:26 AM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Probably because he wasn't guilty of committing a crime. Except for maybe the crime of being George Bush jnr's business partner somewhere in the past.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:33 AM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

He was...

Osama bin Laden was first indicted by a grand jury of the United States on June 8, 1998 on a charges of "conspiracy to attack defense utilities of the United States" and prosecutors further charged that bin Laden was the head of the terrorist organization called al-Qaeda, and that he was a major financial backer of Islamic fighters worldwide.[146] On November 4, 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on charges of Murder of U.S. Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death[147] for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony by former al-Qaeda members and satellite phone records, from a phone purchased for him by al-Qaeda procurement agent Ziyad Khaleel in the United States.[148][149] However the Taliban ruled not to extradite Bin Laden on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence published in the indictments and that non-Muslim courts lacked standing to try Muslims.[150]

Bin Laden became the 456th person listed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, when he was added on June 7, 1999, following his indictment along with others for capital crimes in the 1998 embassy attacks.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:34 AM
a reply to: semperfortis

What about 9/11? The attack he was blamed for?

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:40 AM
a reply to: DarknStormy

That was not the question posed in the OP

It was also not relevant to his wanted status if you read the history and understand the law..

He was a wanted International criminal... Simple

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:40 AM
I do not believe OsBiLa was killed in the raid - that's not to say that he may be alive today - but I have no reason to believe he was ever going to be brought before any court to face trial - captured or not.
I think they had to kill the PR surrounding the '9/11 OsBiLa distraction' - which they did. That was a successful mission. The 3rd Act ending "Burial At Sea' was very disappointing. That's Hollywood for you. Nothing more than that.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:46 AM
a reply to: semperfortis

The US government could charge him with crimes prior to 9/11 no worries, why couldn't they do the same after 9/11 if they knew it was OBL for certain? It just seems stupid. He was never charged for 9/11 either and that is another crime on it's own. And the OP is about 9/11....

edit on 30-4-2014 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:52 AM

Why Wasn't Osama Bin Laden charged with a crime?

Seriously? He was. That information is easy to find.

Maybe a better question would be ... why wasn't he brought in for a trial?

The answer to that depends on who you ask.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:52 AM
a reply to: DarknStormy


Why Wasn't Osama Bin Laden charged with a crime?


In all my years in Law Enforcement I have virtually thousands of "Suspects" I wanted to question for a crime I had reason to believe they committed. Some I obtained warrants on, some I did not. Just depended on the individual situation. No conspiracy, just the way law enforcement works.

I don't care what anyone chooses to believe in regards to 911 or anything else for that matter, but we should get our facts straight or we just add to the "Conspiracy Theorists are NUTS" crowd..

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:01 AM

originally posted by: LrdRedhawk
To answer the question: Simple, because he didn't exist. His real name was Tim Osman and he was a CIA asset. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Now, now, let's try to avoid facts please.

OBL was a madman, just say his name three times like candy man and watch him roll on your ass like an avalanche. After all that's what bogeymen are good for.

If Ghaddafi and Hussein (actual sovereign leaders) never had a fighting chance to present their story in court what makes anyone think OBL would have had the chance when it is well known he was a CIA asset "at one time". Although I've heard once CIA always CIA. Is that true Anderson Cooper? Just curious.....

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:24 AM
a reply to: semperfortis

Immediately following 9/11 all eyes went automatically to Usama Bin Laden because of what happened in 1998 and that he DID in fact promise to take out the world trade centers someday.

When fingers started pointing in his direction, he initially denied having any involvement in 9/11.

Later, but not too much later, he claimed responsibility, publicly and vocally said he was behind it all.

The US uses the second response, the one where he was seeking infamy... as proof whereas, there was never any physical proof, or at least not enough physical proof that would stand up in court that he actually committed the crimes he admitted to committing.

Sometimes, people want infamy, many people admit to crimes they never committed... all for their own reasons I suppose, and infamy is one of them. As a man of law enforcement you probably know this.

That said, this IS in fact something he promised to do in 1998, and later did in fact and not under any duress admit to. For me, that is enough proof...for others, it will never be because they want to know factually who was behind the 9/11 attacks beyond any shadow of a doubt.

The fact is, we will never have enough physical proof to say Usama bin Laden committed the crime... all we have is his word. For most, because the admission was not under duress is good enough. His crimes were capital before 9/11 anyway.
edit on 30-4-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:28 AM
OBL or UBL???

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:30 AM
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Since his name is arabic, with all different letter characters, what you use will depend on how you pronounce his name. Spelling is optional.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:32 AM
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Thanks OpinionatedB, always wondered about the O and U difference...

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:39 AM
If we could find Saddam, in a a hole, fairly quickly and took out Ghadaffi fast. Why did it take so long to get Osama?
Did our Government purposely let him alive to keep the American Citizens supportive of the wars?

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 08:26 AM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
she just seems to off guard and seems to have no recollection of her own work.

Is it really that easy to cover up what happened on 9/11? All you need to do is discredit the only one presenting evidence and you’re home free! How about that. If it’s that easy to divert people away from the evidence, false flag events will continue to be on the increase.

Simply put, the World Trade Center was built by oil interests (Rockefeller) and destroyed by oil interests to protect oil interests. LENR technology threatens the fossil fuel and hot nuclear energy industry. This is why Dr. Wood must be discredited.

To keep a cover up in place people are herded into making false choices. Thermite is the lie behind door #2 for those who didn't like the lie behind door #1 (19 bad guys with box cutters). And if too many folks start hearing about the evidence Dr. Judy Wood presents, they show you the lie behind door #3 (nukes). When that fails to work anymore they bring out the lie from door #4 (micro-robots). Sheeple are kept choosing which lie is best so that they don't turn around and see the wide open field of evidence behind them. Example: If you don't like the story of Lee Harvey Oswald, you have "the grassy knoll." If you don't like the story of Osama Bin Laden and 19 bad guys with box cutters, you have "thermite", "mini-nukes", or "micro-robots." Meanwhile, there are folks in the arena to start fights and create the image of "infighting" so that the "infighting" side show becomes the central focus.

Industrial Heat Has Acquired Andrea Rossi's E-Cat Technology

Is Raleigh's Cherokee trying to cut an energy deal in China?

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 11:52 AM
a reply to: FlyersFan

Show us the charge in regards to 911 please

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in