It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Feds Drop Charges Against Osama Bin Laden!!

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
If Osama Bin Laden was actually guilty of anything they would have indicted him and held a trial/put evidence before a JUDGE. Said Judge would rule guilty if he was guilty.
The FBI says they had proof, but it was classified.

US: We'd like to charge Bin Laden with murder.
Judge: On what evidence?
US: We can't show you, but it's really, really good.
Judge: Well, okay.

The US doesn't normally indict or charge people in absentia.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
If Osama Bin Laden was actually guilty of anything they would have indicted him and held a trial/put evidence before a JUDGE.



Have you ever read the Patriot Act? If you have you would know why Osama going to trial NEVER would have happened.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
If Osama Bin Laden was actually guilty of anything they would have indicted him and held a trial/put evidence before a JUDGE. Said Judge would rule guilty if he was guilty.

This would give the United States legal authority to seize any property, money, assets held or created by the Al Quaeda network around the world.


By not doing this legal technicality....The United States has no legal recourse to submit something in the Pakistani Courts to seize Bin Laden's house.

Any other assets found in any other country therefor we couldn't lay legal claim to to get it from the other country.


Thank you so much for this post. You put my feeling into words. C'mon now people!! Open your eyes and use your brain!!



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by Pervius
If Osama Bin Laden was actually guilty of anything they would have indicted him and held a trial/put evidence before a JUDGE. Said Judge would rule guilty if he was guilty.
The FBI says they had proof, but it was classified.

US: We'd like to charge Bin Laden with murder.
Judge: On what evidence?
US: We can't show you, but it's really, really good.
Judge: Well, okay.

The US doesn't normally indict or charge people in absentia.


Did you just make that up?
When has the FBI ever said they had proof, but it was classified?

Fact is..the FBI could find no direct connection to Bin Laden and 9/11, therefore he was never wanted for 911.
AND...either Cheney or Rummy...(dont remember which) has even gone on record stating that Bin Laden couldnt be tied to 9/11.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtmFact is..the FBI could find no direct connection to Bin Laden and 9/11, therefore he was never wanted for 911.

Wrong. He was formally indicted for the African embassy bombings, but he was also wanted "in relation to other terrorist attacks". 9/11 was never excluded.


AND...either Cheney or Rummy...(dont remember which) has even gone on record stating that Bin Laden couldnt be tied to 9/11.

Quote mining at its absolute finest:

Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization

Looking at the question he was asked and the numerous references to Iraq, it should be obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense that he meant Saddam Hussein.
edit on 19-6-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by DIDtmFact is..the FBI could find no direct connection to Bin Laden and 9/11, therefore he was never wanted for 911.

Wrong. He was formally indicted for the African embassy bombings, but he was also wanted "in relation to other terrorist attacks". 9/11 was never excluded.


WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When and where did I ever mention the African Embassy bombings?
Surely not in the post you quoted me above.
In fact...Im pretty sure I have NEVER mentioned them in any thread here on ATS.
How about this.


When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."


or this


FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002, said: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot."



Quote mining at its absolute finest:


Q I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization


Looking at the question he was asked and the numerous references to Iraq, it should be obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense that he meant Saddam Hussein.
edit on 19-6-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)


Im not quote mining...you are assuming I am talking about something else. Why dont you pay attention and try to keep up.


On March 29, 2006, on The Tony Snow Show, Vice President Dick Cheney stated: "We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."

Google it if you wish.....
But they are all together at this simple WEBPAGE.

What was that about common sense again?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProphecyPhD
Osama Bin Laden was never indicted for 9/11 but he was indicted thirteen years ago for blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa. Now it appears the charges in that case have been dropped. Is it fair for "the most wanted man in the world" to get off on all charges against him? He will go down in history as not being convicted of ANYTHING!! No charges, no body, no nothing?? Oh i forgot, we have your "word".



Using a legal tool called "nolle prosequi" - ironically meaning "unwilling to pursue" the once most pursued man on the face of the planet - Judge Lewis Kaplan finally put an end to the case.

"Upon the foregoing recommendation, I hereby direct, with the leave of the court, that an order of nolle prosequi be filed as to defendant Osama bin Laden," U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara wrote on Thursday.

"So ordered," Kaplan wrote back Friday.


www.nydailynews.com...



The charges were not "dropped". OBL was already indicted, never convicted. The Feds simply told the court that they would no longer be pursuing the case. Why? Because in order to show the court that the suspect was dead and therefore the case was moot, then it would require the persons who witnessed the death to testify in open court - not going to happen. So it was simpler and cleaner to simply tell the court that the prosecution was no longer interested. Their perogative. Good idea, now the issue, along with OBL, is dead as a door nail.




top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join