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.


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

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+1 more 
posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:19 PM
Three years ago this week, Osama Bin Laden — the man our government holds responsible for 9/11 — was killed by U.S. Special Forces during a raid in Pakistan. Starting with today’s sure-to-be debated Book of the Month pick, the Governor launches a week-long investigation into the 9/11 attacks. What happened to the WTC towers? Who is ultimately responsible for that fateful day?In this exclusive clip, Jesse poses a question too few have been willing to ask: why wasn’t Osama Bin Laden indicted and charged with a crime if he was in fact responsible for the 9/11 attacks? The Governor wants to know your opinion on why.

You can watch Jesse's full episode on the Book of the month and the 9/11 attacks on Ora.TV

You can also find Jesse on Twitter

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:26 PM
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?

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:28 PM
According to the google machine, OBL was charged with a bunch of crimes and all were dismissed when he died.

The charges were formally dismissed Friday through a so-called nolle prosequi filing in a Manhattan federal court by the U.S. Department of Justice as a result of his death.

Bin Laden was killed in early May by U.S. Navy SEALs as they stormed a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

I am not making any statements about the death or anything else, just the question posed overall by the ops title.

That's what I get for skimming, just noticed its not in general but specifically about 9/11
Good question..gonna confirm that now...but your most likely right (did the research).

All that just to try and bring him in for questioning...heh
edit on 29-4-2014 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:33 PM
If Osama was charged with a crime, could our Government have still used our military to capture or execute him?
It is an interesting question with no answer. After 9/11, I don't think many American Citizens really cared either way as long as he ended up on a slab.
Could there be other reasons to not capture him to prevent him from speaking about his previous ties of working with our Government?

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:34 PM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

It was called a war on terror, Bin Laden was going to be killed as an enemy combatant, he was never going to see a trial. It sure helped the Obama campaign for re-election when he had him killed, that is, if he really was killed. There is no evidence available to the American public to review, just the word of our trustworthy government.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:38 PM
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.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:40 PM
Its cool they are doing a big focus on 911, just wish it was Dr.Woods.
I just can never get that one interview out of my head, she just seems to off guard and seems to have no recollection of her own work.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:51 PM
a reply to: LrdRedhawk

I will give you one further. OBL issued a statement that indicated, while he did endorse the attacks, he was not involved. Apparently that was good enough. Oj is jealous of his legal team. Not to mention we invaded every country except for the one that produced the terrorists.

To boost sagging ratings BHO issued his own fatwa and put a head on a pike, cremated, and scattered at sea.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:54 PM
Because he rubs shoulders with very powerful people.
And probably still does.


edit on 29/4/14 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:55 PM
Sorry sir, but you do not have clearance to access
to this highly sensitive top-secret information...

You should write your local congressman with any
further concerns.

We are going to need you to step into this civilian
waiting area and await representatives from
the NSA to de-brief and process you before we
can allow you to leave....this is for your own safety

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:56 PM

You cant just kidnap people how ever terroristy and just put them in court and if you were that sure they were so guilty wouldn't you just murder them during the arrest?

Well no probably not but whos court do you put them in from of an imaginary world court?

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:02 PM
He was a CIA agent in the 80's. He worked for the CIA against the Soviets during their invasion of Afghanistan. They also trained and funded al-Qaeda.

They still are, too.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:30 PM
A dead man cannot testify his innocence in court, therefore the US government has an open and shut case. It is not like he would have faced a jury of his peers anyways. He became the most hated man on Earth and was never able to speak for himself, other than the few insanely doctored tapes that magically appeared of him confessing his supposed involvement.

Let us all recap what terrorism actually is:

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

And ask yourself who gained politically when it came to the 9.11.01 attacks.

a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:45 PM
No one was going to any sort of proper, public court over this. If they had, those truly responsible would have been exposed to the greater public, even though they already have.

Apparently he died years ago, the tapes of him getting younger are suspicious. Then there are those who say he never existed. There’s no proof whatsoever that he was even killed three years ago, only the word of the government. Why wouldn’t Obama put the issue to bed and just reveal unquestionable evidence of his death? Not to mention the whole SEAL team is now dead.

Nothing adds up.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:59 PM
I used to ask myself that question too. I did however notice that he was used to focus the viewing public back to him time and time again when it looked like things were going to go in a different direction. Like why wouldn't Bush and Cheney testify under oath, or why they had to speak together, blah blah, refocus the message away from them and onto Bin Laden, who, the govt said was not the one behind the planning of that event. We were being played from the onset, and most of us know that.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:03 PM
I do believe that Tim Osman was just a scapegoat, for crimes he did not even commit. I feel that the administration of the day was fuly responsible for the Airline attacks. There has always been a need for a BoggyMan. The created Osama Bin Ladin fit the bill. Being Oil allies with Bush, etc., I don't believe he was assasinated. Merely a Propagandized event was made for the benefit to relieve some fears, again created by the Bush Admin, of the American/World Peoples.
Smoke and Mirrors again. Hell that's par for the course isn't it?

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: BlindBastards
"nothing Adds Up" Is totally Right! Your thoughts Mirror my Own! Later, Syx.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:19 PM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

Thats exactly it:

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."

The "Taliban" actually seemed willing to exercise due process...

On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.

The US rejected the offer.

On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems."

Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."

On the same day, Tony Blair, in his speech to the Labour party conference, ridiculed the idea that we could "look for a diplomatic solution".

All this time, we've been told that "you cant negotiate with terrorists" but the "Taliban" seemed more than willing to negotiate.

I think maybe we're labeling the wrong group as "terrorists"?

edit on 29-4-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:36 PM
a reply to: OFFTHEGRID

I know this one! Because they didn't have enough evidence.

And with that admittance, it is easy to deduce that our government
was blowing smoke, to mind f### the masses with accusations and
propaganda. Not to mention a ridiculous bounty, all of which at the
time served well enough to call attention away from the obvious.
Whereby filing charges, would of iluminated the truth to a
population who for the most part, wouldn't have faced it anyway.

And they still won't today. Because they just might actually be
able to feel the walls that are closing in on all of us. Waking up,
for lazy people, is a very huge task in and of itself. Add some
brain activity and fear to the mix? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Even pigs start screaming and fighting, well before their inside
the slaughter house doors. But most americans don't even know

I'm Randyvious Astrocometus and I approve this message.

edit on Rpm42914v542014u38 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:44 PM
Whats more interesting was what was happening economically in iraq and middle east before the attacks

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in