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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:10 AM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
So again, why did we not charge him in this open and shut case??

Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't. The 10 page list of charges isn't out and about anymore. If you find the dismissed 10 pages of charges, then you'll know for sure if he was or wasn't.

America isn't in the habit of charging every person who aims a gun at it in war time.
And 9/11 was an act of war.

edit on 5/1/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:15 AM

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
With all due respect... are we going by the title on these things or are we going by the short video commentary pieces linked from the OPs, which give full context to what is being asked?.

The other poster was speaking to the video and commentary. I was speaking to the question posed by the title of the thread. We were both addressing what the OP asked. It's no big deal. We both answered the OP just fine.

The answer .. yes he was charged with crimes, and in the case of 9/11 we don't know for sure because none of us can find that full 10 pages of charges against him. So at this point we don't know about 9/11 ... but we know about the other murders and terrorist acts being charged.

That answers the OPs question.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 12:16 PM
a reply to: FlyersFan

It was me and I was speaking to the video, I may not have made that clear enough, but I figured you had already watched the video when you commented.

The op is asking why he was not charged with the 911 crime, you need to watch the video to put that together but that is the point of this thread.
Not if he was charged with a crime ever in his life...

IMO "we don't know" = No, he was not charged.
Seems like that would have been big news

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 12:59 PM

originally posted by: semperfortis

Ted Bundy was never charged with all the murders he ADMITTED to committing, yet I see no one arguing his guilt or innocence...

Whether or not OBL was charged with 911 or not is moot..

He was charged, found and resolved..


posted on May, 1 2014 @ 01:25 PM
He was not charged with 9/11 because they could not tie him to it, they had more evidence against rumsfeld for that matter. You can be sure they would have aired all they had on tim osman had he been a real "enemy".

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:18 AM
I am beginning to get really concerned with Jesse's stuff on 9/11 is is awash with ignorance that I am starting to believe may be deliberate.

He says they were told "off the record" that they did not have enough evidence to indite Bin Laden over 9/11, if you believe that you will believe anything this man says without evidence and that sets a dangerous precedent for this relationship between Offthegrid and ATS.

Besides the FBI has actually been quite open about the fact that they could not tie Bin Laden to 9/11, there is no need for jesse to say he was told this "off the record".

The FBI and the 9/11 commission both reached the conclusion that the "Architect" behind 9/11 was KSM, if you read his indictment Bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida are named on several occasions as providing him with support. The hijackers for example where trained in camps run by Al-Qa'ida, KSM told Bin Laden of his plans and consulted him on them and so on.

Another important aspect to remember that is often a big problem when it comes to crimes of terrorism is that there is a big difference between what you can prove in a intelligence case and what you can prove in a criminal case.

KSM was the guy who was behind the attacks of 9/11 (if you can pin it on one individual that is) with the support of Al-Qa'ida and by extension Bin Laden. This information can be found in the inditment of KSM.

And lets not forget Bin Laden was also wanted for several other crimes of terrorism so the whole things is kind of mute i think.

edit on 2-5-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2014 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:20 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Who or what is KSM?

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 07:27 AM

originally posted by: DarknStormy
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Who or what is KSM?

I find it quite astounding that I have seen you in this thread and in other threads making comments about 9/11 demanding proof of this or making statements about how Bin Laden had nothing to do with it and so on.

Yet you do not know who KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) actually is.

This might help

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Charging him with a crime gives him the right to confront his accusers. Those in power can't have that.

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:56 PM
Osama Bin Laden really CIA operative Tim Ossman known referred to by agency as OBL. (see other reply as 9/11 inside job)

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 07:00 PM
The names you need to know

Ted Gunderson (FBI/DD Ops)
John Taylor Scott (stinger sales)

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:03 PM
No body, no confirmation of the kill.
This whole disposal at sea nonsense reeks. Always did.
He's probably adorning a cell in some ultra-black detention center. (if he isn't one of our operatives, that is)

edit on 12-2-2015 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 05:42 PM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

When I was a child I was told that everyone was presumed innocent until tried in a court of law and convicted, through the provision of evidence and valid testimony, in a court of law. I have always be lived that it was EVERY ONES right to have there day in court and offer a defence to the prosecution charges, and then if found guilty suffer the penalties ascribed by law.

He may have been guilty of the crimes attributed, but the charges were never processed through any legal system and so no defence of the charges occurred. He was killed when he could have been captured and so nullified any chance of due process and contradicting the evidence against him.

When governments resort to 'executions' without trial they take on the mantel of terrorists themselves, killing those who, not convicted by law but deemed guilty by those shrouded in darkness (intelligence community). When we accept that elected officials have the right to pass a death sentence on those that they stated have transgressed their laws we will have given up all hope on humanity. Killing a enemy in war is not the same as the deliberate killing of an individual who could and should have been tried in a court of law.

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 05:56 PM
a reply to: thepitpony

Osama Bin Laden was not a United States citizen and therefore not granted the right to a trial. Osama Bin Laden was an enemy combatant of the US and allegedly engaged members of the United States military. They're not going to let you shoot first, and try to capture you, so that you may see a trial. As an enemy combatant, Osama was fair game 24/7, 365. Further, he was marked for death as soon as he touched that AK.

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 06:41 PM
a reply to: EternalSolace

As I am not U.S citizen does that mean I can be killed without trial by your government? (Not trying to troll, just responding to your statement). Whilst you may state he was an enemy combatant he wasn't in a war zone he was in the sovereign state of Pakistan and there is some doubt of what happened that night as apparently navy seals NEVER revel to the press what ops they undergo. d-three-bullets-terror-mastermind-s-head.html

I am not saying that if those navy seals conducting operations thought there lives were in danger should have not opened fire (I am ex forces and shooting him if they thought he was endangering their lives does fall under the terms of engagement so I will concede that point) , what I am suggesting is if they knew his location then maybe there was maybe another way of apprehending him so he could face trial and maybe give the families of 9/11 some answers, were all avenues of his capture explored ? our was his death the only way ?

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:15 PM
a reply to: govmule

precisely. And they were in such a rush to fed him to the fish, which was a first time ever (given the CIRCumstances), like the towers falling due to fire. How convenient ...

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
I remember looking at the fbi most wanted list a few years ago and he was wanted for questioning overr a few things but there was no mention of 9/11.

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:43 PM
I heard a news blurb in 2002 that he died from kidney disease.

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:50 PM

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Good question.

Also, why wasn't there a fatwa issued against him by moderate Muslims who claim that terrorists like him give islam a bad name?

Their was actually , and many since!!

posted on May, 17 2015 @ 04:58 PM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

I for one am really glad the Navy SEALS found him and killed him. And since he was dead, that was that.

Pretty simple.

But, as typical, most of you 911 truthers will see a conspiracy in that too.


new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in