Well, I may get back in the good graces of the vast right-wing conspiracy with this post. It becomes a little more obvious why the fraudulent 9-11 "Truth" Movement thinks that Uncle Noam should have been on their side all along:
In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”
Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.
Nothing serious? What about the videos of Osama meeting with some of the hijackers?
And the idea that he should have been treated as a "suspect" is ludicrous. If we had tried to go through legal channels, does he really think that Pakistan would not have warned Osama?