One of the Dumber Arguments the Deniers Use
We see this one all the time: The US government hasn't indicted Osama Bin Laden for 9-11. Ergo, it must not have enough evidence to convict him. PDoherty uses the argument over at the Looser Forums:
What evidence? You havent even got enough to indict osama. You have zero
So come on, give me 3 things that would prove the official story in a court.
In fact one would do
This is a variation on the "sacred lists" that I talked about awhile ago. The notion is that the government pulled off this horrific crime against its own people, using brilliant planning and a masterful coverup, but somehow neglected something obvious that a bunch of people with room temperature IQs were able to discover online. For example, the claim that none of the hijackers appeared on any of the four flight manifests. It's like the government was happy to kill 3,000 of its own people, but when it came to something like tampering with a flight manifest, they balked.
Of course, the flight manifest claim is a bunch of hooey as we have discussed in the past. What the Deniers have seized upon is a list of victims aboard the four planes. Since, by definition, the hijackers are not victims, they don't appear on the list. But the prosecution at the Moussaoui trial showed flight manifests that included the hijackers. Despite this, the Deniers still use this ridiculous claim.
Did I say Moussaoui trial? This is another thing the Deniers conveniently forget when talking about the lack of an indictment of Osama. They pretend as PDoh does above, that the "official" story cannot be proven in a court of law, even though it has already done so and resulted in the conviction of one of the co-conspirators.
As for why Osama's not been indicted, the answer's pretty simple. He's already wanted on charges related to the embassy bombings in Africa in 1998. There's no sense in going through the drill of indicting him for 9-11 until we get him in custody, which isn't likely to happen. I'm sure he intends on committing suicide if we ever get close to nabbing him.
posted by Pat @ 2:17 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
Here are the facts:
Soon after 9/11, Colin Powell publicly promised that a dossier would be prepared and presented to substantiate the charges against OBL.
Somewhere along the way, this was abandoned.
Nothing that the 9/11 Commission provided followed up on what Powell promised.
Three years ago, I would accept an argument like secrecy to protect on-going prosecutions as dubious, but not to be rejected out of hand as the reason of the lack of evidence being presented.
At this point in history, it's clear the evidence is simply not available.
Bull. Osama is neither a US citizen, nor is he currently on US soil. As such, the US criminal system has no authority over him. IF he were to take up residence in a nation which has an extradition treaty with the US, theoretically it might make sense to form a legal case against him so he could be extradited. However, that's pretty unlikely to happen. When international acts of terrorism occur, you don't send your cops to find the people responsible - you send your spies and your special operations units. In the (very) unlikely event that Osama is captured instead of killed, THEN the US gov. can worry about forming a legal case against him. Until then it's just a waste of time and money.
Osama is captured instead of killed,
I don't think I could ever be happier than having him captured alive.
Hasn't a German court also convicted one of the 9-11 conspirators for his involvement in supporting the hijackers?
It's not just Moussaui's trial which shows there is a case. And it's not just the US.
Alex, Shawn, sfc_b,
Your choice to ignore my unassailable arguments based on facts and your offering of your meaningless words is beyond silliness. It is unconsciable.
Alex, help me understand how what you are saying squares with reality.
Here, it is documented that bin Laden has been indicted for bombing of US Embassies. According to you, this was out-of-bounds. Is that what you are saying? What changed between this indictment and an indictment for attacks on 9/11? Your argument is trash.
Your blindness (or worse) supports the murder of innocents in Afghanistan, in Iraq, at Gitmo and US tortune centers in other counties.
Your choice to ignore my unassailable arguments
I think you misspelled "asinine".
Here, it is documented that bin Laden has been indicted for bombing of US Embassies. According to you, this was out-of-bounds.
That was also back when he was jet-setting around the world, instead of hiding in a cave somewhere in the mountains. Initially there was reason to hope that another country would apprehend him and turn him over. That hasn't been a realistic expectation in at least a decade.
Your blindness (or worse) supports the murder of innocents in Afghanistan, in Iraq, at Gitmo and US tortune centers in other counties.
You really are an idiot. What do you do for an encore? Call me a baby-killer?
The conspiracy liars love to ignore the Bush administration's correct decision to treat the jihadist attacks of 9/11 as a military action by a stateless foreign enemy, not a law enforcement matter. We do not seek Osama's indictment.
Soon after 9/11, Colin Powell publicly promised that a dossier would be prepared and presented to substantiate the charges against OBL.
show me a link (not a prisonplanet or AFP link either) detailing this, or I consider it unsubstantiated crap.
Somewhere along the way, this was abandoned.
abandoned means they have given up collecting proof for the dossier. Once again, show me prove they have given up collecting proof on OBL.
Nothing that the 9/11 Commission provided followed up on what Powell promised.
The 9/11 commission goes into great detail with regards to Al-Qaeda's (OBL is head of this group) involvement in the 9/11 attacks, so you are false in this claim... or have you not read the first 200 pages of the report, as I have.
Three years ago, I would accept an argument like secrecy to protect on-going prosecutions as dubious, but not to be rejected out of hand as the reason of the lack of evidence being presented.
Once again, as Pat/James mention, have you gone to the Moussaoui Trial exhibits and looked at the evidence. There is a tonne of evidence connecting OBL to the attacks. As a matter of fact, even though the FBI has not said at present if he is "officially" wanted for 9/11, they have stated in writing, that the door is open to charge him with these crimes at any date in the future (once again, actually go to the FBi site and read).
At this point in history, it's clear the evidence is simply not available.
there is plenty of evidence available, they likely just want to make sure they have enough, and as Pomeroo has said, there are factions of the USG who could care less about the CAPTURE of OBL, as they would rather see his decapitated head.
TAM
From the article:
"The administration did not specify when the evidence would be made public"
So you can blow me, coverup boy.
Oh, no, wait....you can PULL me!
lol...yes I noted that part of the article as well....seems, as usual, the truthers are hung up on a key phrase that they feel has not come true, namely the "Document" that Powell etc... were suppose to be putting together...
oh now, did the poor cry babies not get the document they wanted...jeez louise.
There has been a plethora of evidence linking OBL to AL-Qaeda, as its leader, and a tonne of evidence proving Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, ergo, lots of evidence OBL was be hind 9/11...EOS.
TAM
Please explain why you
re such a douche-bag.
Do you not know how to have a proper conversation? Did your parents lock you in their basement until you were 30? What exactly happened?
Last I checked I wasnt a mind reader, are you PD?
If you are asking me for my "Speculative" opinion on the matter, than we are heading into CT territory.
my "speculative" opinion, is that BUSH said it because they were having trouble getting OBL, and so minimized the importance of his capture to minimize how bad he and his people would look on the lack of his capture.
Your turn.
TAM
Here's something the Left and the Troothers won't like when it comes to "indicting Osama":
In the indictment, dated Nov 4 1988 (and done by Mary Jo White and the Clinton Justice Department), the following fact is laid out as part of the criminal finding:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Bin_Laden_Atef_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html
Holy freaking shit! This means that BILL CLINTON admitted in a COURT FILING that Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein were COOPERATING!
This destroys the Left's entire argument against the Iraq war!
Ooops...here is the entire link for that story:
http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive_Index/Bin_Laden_Atef_Indicted_in_U.S._Federal_Court_for_African_Bombings.html
I hope this one comes out. If not, here is another:
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html
Posting on the Loose Change forum is pointless, anytime you say something they don't like they ban you.
Post a Comment
<< Home