What exactly did Bin Laden do?

[llamasex]

I mean, he didn't fly the planes (duh) so what are we exactly accusing him of

Just giving terrorists support ($)?
Hatching the plan himself?
Training them on how to do such things?

We have not shown evidence of his guilt, what crimes have we accused him of?

[hightechburrito]

Mob Bosses probably never actually kill anyone, sell drugs, rob bank, or whatever the hell they do, but they are still the head of the organization and are ultimatley responsibe for all of the actions of the organization.

[Cisco]

He is the leader of the organization responsible for the attacks. I can't think of a good analogy so here's a bad one: if you spit on someone's cheeseburger while working at Burger World^TM, the guy might come back and kick your managers ass. Get it?


Oh and:

Just giving terrorists support ($)?
Hatching the plan himself?
Training them on how to do such things?

Pretty much all three of those too, but a little less emphasis on number two.

[llamasex]

This isn't a GD ?, I am not argueing his responsibility.
I am wondering exactly what the US is claiming he did. All I hear coming from people is vague loose words(people in power not the people above).

[llamasex]

Example: Bush or someone will say "Bin Laden is behind the attacks" well what does that mean, it is a very wide grey statement.

People complain no evidence has been presented, but they seem to skip a step, what are we actually charging him with.

[Broomstick]

Bin Laden desires and advocates the destruction of the United States and the deaths of all those living there.

Towards that end - he has formed and funded a cell-based network that provides training and support of all sorts to other men of like opinion. These operatives are taught to fight and kill, learn strategy, are provided with money and false documents as needed. Bin Laden did not, personally, kill thousands of people, but he did provide the support required to those who did the killing.

There is proof of bin Laden's guilt in various attacks - video-taped statements that say, esssentially, "I did it". The government claims to have further proof, which is not public at this time in order to protect the sources.

Even so, certain aspects of the 9/11 attacks have the bin Laden/al-Qaeda MO:

The attacks took years of planning

There were coordinated, multiple attacks

One of the targets was the World Trade Center (bin Laden's connection to the first WTC attack in '93 is known)

Just as a mob boss who orders a hit but does not actually pull the trigger is considered guilty of murder, bin Laden has not actually blown up a building but nonetheless bears responsibility in this matter. Should he be captured alive (unlikely) and tried, the charges would be many but among them would no doubt be 5000+ counts of first degree murder, or at least 5000+ counts of solicitation of murder.

[kanicbird]

He also lead the attack against one of our ships (IIRC USS Cult) and (again IIRC) helped plan the bombing of the WTC about 10 yrs ago.

In short he trained a group to kill our people and destroy our property - even ignoring the second WTC atrocity he should have been hunted down like a rabid dog and shot through the head.


just my humble O

[BF]

He also lead the attack against one of our ships (IIRC USS Cult) and (again IIRC) helped plan the bombing of the WTC about 10 yrs ago.

That would be the USS Cole, k2dave. In addition, OBL's organization was responsible for the Embassy bombings in Africa, which killed about 300 people, most of whom were locals.

[Bricker]

Originally posted by llamasex
I mean, he didn't fly the planes (duh) so what are we exactly accusing him of

Just giving terrorists support ($)?
Hatching the plan himself?
Training them on how to do such things?

We have not shown evidence of his guilt, what crimes have we accused him of?

The problem with showing evidence of his guilt has been that in order to do so, we must present evidence that would reveal its source. For example, if Ali bin Yezda, the trusted servant, is the star witness against bin Laden because he's been secretly funnelling information about bin Laden to us, we cannot (yet) reveal that... because bin Yezda's life would not be worth much following this revelation. We can confidently say, "We have evidence that bin Laden is behind the attacks," but we can't reveal the specifics until bin Laden is in custody - or possibly until his trial.

Fortunately, llamasex, in order to answer persons such as yourself, who apparently do not believe the simple statement of bin Laden's guilt, bin Laden's internal Al-Quida video, in which he admits masterminding the WTC and Pentagon attacks, has now been made public.

While would technically be hearsay in a court of law at bin Laden's trial, it is an admission against penal interest, and thus admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.

I hope that clears up the issue for you.

- Rick

[Johnny L.A.]

just a few thoughts...

Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime in this country. If a murder is committed, then all of the conspirators can be guilty of murder.

I think the mob boss analogy works.

Adolf Hitler did not, AFAIK, personally kill people in concentration camps; but the people were killed by his orders and/or as a result of his policy. Therefore, he was a murderer.

[Kilt-wearin' man]

Remember, just because it hasn't been made available to the general public, that doesn't mean there is no evidence or that it hasn't been shown to anybody. In fact, a substantial amount of evidence was made available to several governments, inside and outside NATO. It was enough not only for the Brits (who didn't particularly need evidence to decide they were with us on this one) but also the governments of Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey among others. In recent weeks, a video intended to be internally distributed within the Al-Qaida terrorist organization was found in which OBL basically brags about what a glorious operation A-Q operatives pulled off when they crashed those airliners.

Now, it's true that OBL didn't fly the planes. But he did provide the funds to build his own little private terrorist army which carried out the operation, and did everything he could to make these attacks - the World Trade Center, the embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole attack - a reality.

Please bear in mind that the military actions in Afghanistan are not aimed solely on capturing or killing one terrorist moneyman. The goal is to eradicate this terrorist organization and the fanatical fundamentalist militia that has sheltered him for the last few years while he carried out these atrocities. A wider goal has also been stated: the eradication of international terrorism. Here's hoping it happens in our lifetimes.

[SlickUSA]

to be exact, he was the demented genius behind 91101. nuff said?

[Phlosphr]

Llamasex

This isn't a GD ?, I am not argueing his responsibility.

Well good. Then if you are not arguing his responsibility, what exactly are you wondering? If you know he's responsible you must have some Idea of what he is responsible for...right??? Seems to me you are simply trying to be quasi-antagonistic. Sorry if I seem a bit cynical, but I am just remembering some of your colorful remarks in 'that' pit thread. You know the one, the one about the parents murdering thier kids... Nuff said.

The posters above have answered your OP nicely. He is a terrorist mastermind. And he has advocated the killing of thousands of Americans. This is not enough for you Mr.Llama.? Perhaps you'd like to fly to Afghanistan and ask him in a one on one interview. Don't forget your backpack full of Dari translated Bibles though. you'll need that. Oh and you can go by your screen name here, he'll love that, and possibly want to see a little demonstration.

*walks to the door* -> *Hands your hat to you*

[lucwarm]

I often see examples of institutional behaviour; From outside the organization, it is often difficult to say the exact role that higher-ups in the organization played.

This is especially so if the higher-ups wish to conceal their roles.

Even within an organization, it is often hard to tell who decided what, who planned what, and how high up the chain of command various decisions went.

Using common sense, I would guess that in an organization such as Al-Quaeda, Osama Bin Laden would have to be consulted about, and approve of, any major attack. So at the very least, I would guess that Osama Bin Laden was consulted about, and approved the idea of attacking the World Trade Center with hijacked airplanes.

[Cardinal]

To show another example, no one seems to have a problem with the fact that Charles Manson was sentenced to death (he's not dead because of that brief period when the death penalty was "unconstitutional" according to the USSC), despite the fact that he never went on the killing-spree trips.

I read Tex Watson's book, in which he admits pointedly to being guilty in the murders, and he says that Manson got everyone stoned, psuedo-brainwashed, and convinced them that high-society whites needed to be murdered to start the coming race war.

So Manson "only" thought up the murders, convinced the actual killers, and sent them specifically out on killing missions. Sounds a lot like OBL.

[DKW]

First off, we can't go after the actual perps because...well, they're already dead. So the next logical step is OBL. He almost certainly did plenty of nasty stuff before, but we're going after him now only because he directly targeted American soil. He's not the ONLY ringleader, of course, but by far the best-known one and, because of his wealth, probably the most dangerous.

It's uncertain if our forces will ever capture him, both because he's elusive and had lots of place to hide and because taking him alive isn't all that imperative, if you catch my drift. If they do nab him, because he's not an American citizen...thus not prosecutable under our laws...our government will probably just lock him up and throw away the key (a la Manuel Noriega). Of course, the "proper" thing to do is try him under international law, but c'mon, when our country is involved (as opposed to, oh, Bosnia), do you really think anyone on this side of the Atlantic will go for it?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by DKW
If they do nab him, because he's not an American citizen...thus not prosecutable under our laws...

Point of information: Non-citizens can be and are prosecuted under American laws. For example, there are many Mexican citizens sitting in jail in Arizona. Further, you don't necessarily have to physically enter U.S. territory to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

N.B. I am not saying that OBL should be charged and prosecuted in the U.S. Instead, I am saying that he could be, assuming that there is sufficient evidence to indict him.

[Cholo]

Not to hijack this thread (no pun intended) but Manson WAS at the second killing spree. According to Bugliosi, ol' Charlie himself tied the LaBiancas up then left the premises and told the others in the car waiting outside to do their thing.

[bibliophage]

Originally posted by llamasex
I mean, he didn't fly the planes (duh) so what are we exactly accusing him of
. . .
what crimes have we accused him of?

The questions seems pretty clear to me. There is no need to turn this thread into a Great Debate when the OP is asking a GQ.

The reason he is a officially a fugitive is that he was indicted for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder in 1998 in connection with the embassy bombings in East Africa. (Killing an American citizen outside the U.S. is against U.S. law.) He has been on the FBI's 10 most wanted list since 1999. There is no particular reason we need to indict him for the 9/11 attacks or any other crime before he is actually in American custody. No doubt he will be indicted on charges stemming from those attacks after he is in custody, if not before.

[Edited by bibliophage on 11-19-2001 at 08:42 PM]

[waterj2]

If they do nab him, because he's not an American citizen...thus not prosecutable under our laws...our government will probably just lock him up and throw away the key (a la Manuel Noriega). Of course, the "proper" thing to do is try him under international law, but c'mon, when our country is involved (as opposed to, oh, Bosnia), do you really think anyone on this side of the Atlantic will go for it?

Actually, Noriega was tried and convicted under US law, Case # 88-79-CR, US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, June 8, 1990. As for the US's jurisdiction, that same opinion states that:

Where a court is faced with the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the analysis to be applied is 1) whether the United States has the power to reach the conduct in question under traditional principles of international law; and 2) whether the statutes under which the defendant is charged are intended to have extraterritorial effect. As Noriega concedes, the United States has long possessed the ability to attach criminal consequences to acts occurring outside this country which produce effects within the United States. For example, the United States would unquestionably have authority to prosecute a person standing in Canada who fires a bullet across the border which strikes a second person standing in the United States. See Restatement (Third) @ 402, Comment d. "All the nations of the world recognize 'the principle that a man who outside of a country willfully puts in motion a force to take effect in it is answerable at the place where the evil is done. . .'"

By this line of reasoning, bin Laden could certainly be considered guilty of violating the laws of the US, and of several states. If he is caught, I see no reason for the US to not avail itself of its right to prosecute him, and I can't see any nation getting very far in pressing for granting bin Laden any favors.

The reason he is a officially a fugitive is that he was indicted for both murder and conspiracy to commit murder in 1998 in connection with the embassy bombings in East Africa. (Killing an American citizen outside the U.S. is against U.S. law.)

Although even that provision is unecessary, as a US embassy is US territory.

[Cardinal]

Not to hijack this thread (no pun intended) but Manson WAS at the second killing spree. According to Bugliosi, ol' Charlie himself tied the LaBiancas up then left the premises and told the others in the car waiting outside to do their thing.

Huh.

Ok, fine, have a better memory than me. See if I care.

But, B&E and kidnapping aren't capital crimes. It's the stuff I mentioned that got him the (un)chair.

[sailor]

>> Killing an American citizen outside the U.S. is against U.S. law

bibliophage, could you provide a cite of the statute which you are referring to? I find this sweeping statement very hard to believe. Surely if an American citizen is sentenced to death in China, the authorities and executioners could not be prosecuted in America.

What if an American is killed in the country of X where the penalty for murder is a fine of 125,000 penjings (aprox $8.52 at the current exchange rate)? Why would American jurisdiction extend there? In fact, murder is mostly a state, not a federal crime. The laws of what state would apply and why?

Reciprocally, if the governor of a certain southern state approves the execution of a citizen of the European Union, which does not admit the death penalty, could this unnamed gowernor be prosecuted for murder in Belgium?

I am not a lawyer nor do I know the first thing about lawyering but my understanding of very general principles of law is that American jurisdiction does not extend to other countries and only very exceptionally would a prosecution of a crime take place and for this it would be required that:

- Both the accused and the victim are American nationals
- The act was a crime according to the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place *and* to the laws of the jurisdiction where it is being prosecuted
- Local authorities who had primary jurisdiction failed to act in any way for no good reason

If two Americans are traveling abroad and one steals from the other and local authorities refuse to act, then I think an American court might assert jurisdiction. OTOH, if local authorities determine no crime was committed, you'd probably have a tougher time getting you local, friendly DA to prosecute.

If while you are in Graphicstan a man steals your wallet, I doubt you could prosecute him in the USA when he later visits Disneyworld with the money he stole from you.

Just imagine if the man who shot a Japanese student by mistake a few years back and was acquitted found himself indicted when he visited Tokyo later.

Any real lawyers want to chime in?

[Johnny L.A.]

In fact, murder is mostly a state, not a federal crime.

IANAL, but I think that what would make a murder a federal crime is if the crime was carried across state lines. I also think, but am not sure, that local authorities can call in the FBI. I do know that the FBI is very aggressive when it comes to kidnappings. If someone is kidnapped and killed I assume the FBI might get involved.

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by sailor
>> Killing an American citizen outside the U.S. is against U.S. law


Any real lawyers want to chime in?

Chime chime:

I think that bibliophage may have been referring to 18 U.S.C. 2332, which provides as follows:

(a) Homicide -- Whoever kills a national of the United States, while such national is outside the United States, Shall --

(1) if the killing is murder . . . be fined under this title, punished by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both . . .

Interestingly, it appears that whoever drafted Section 2332 was aware of the problem that sailor posed:

(d) Limitation on prosecution -- No prosecution for any offense described in this section shall be undertaken by the United States except on written certification of the Attorney General or the highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with responsibility for criminal prosecutions that, in the judgment of the certifying official, such offense was intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population.

(emphasis mine)

As far as whether murder is primarily a state concern, I would imagine that indeed most murder prosecutions in the U.S. take place at the state level. Nevertheless, there has been a trend in recent years to "federalize" crime. In any event, assuming that you want to prohibit the murder of U.S. citizens abroad, it would make sense for the federal government to do it.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that, as suggested by myself and other posters, you don't need any fancy statutes to prosecute OBL. For example, he could, in theory, be charged with murder in the State of New York and sit on Rikers Island awaiting trial.

(standard disclaimer about legal advice)

[sailor]

>> such offense was intended to coerce, intimidate, or retaliate against a government or a civilian population

Sounds like a pretty good definition of terrorism to me. So the statute does not punish any murder of a US national abroad, only those done with terrorist intention. In other words the statute seems more concerned with terrorism than with the crime of murder itself.

[Phlosphr]

Retired General 'A' says US marines are not Murderers and will take OBL as justly as possible. Then two minutes later Retired General 'B' says "Our guys are just, but this is war, and if OBL dies in a battle he dies in a battle. We'll Still bring him home. He'll just be in a pine box. and not walking in chains.!!!"

I will try and locate the script for that conversation on cnn. I could not believe my ears. I usually have cnn on in the backround while I am working. And if anything worth looking at happens I turn around a check it out. I watched that conversation last night, the generals were in the 'war room'.

Basically, when I read sailer and bibliophage
and lucwarmdiscussing the LAWS about trying someone who is not on American soil. I simply think that this is war. War changes EVERYTHING! I do not believe Retired General 'A' at all. I believe white flag or not OBL will be shot in Afghanistan. I don't think any Marine is going to 'sight-in' on him and not pull the trigger.



How can Llama question what his crimes are?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Phlosphr



How can Llama question what his crimes are?

Well, I'm taking the questions here at face value.

There is a difference between discussing how OBL should be treated, and discussing how OBL could be treated. The latter is an interesting legal question, IMHO. The former is an interesting question for Great Debates.

[Phlosphr]

I agree Luc.

[sailor]

>> this is war. War changes EVERYTHING

Sorry but NO! It does not change basic moral principles. It does not allow murder of those who are not a threat. It does not allow murdering those who have surrendered. Civilised nations recognised this long time ago. To advocate otherwise is to take leave of what western civilization stands for and fall precisely into what the people we are fighting are doing.

Today the Taliban murdered four western reporters because "this is war and in war anything goes". Sorry but NO. Totally unacceptable.

[llamasex]

My question is what exactly did he do.

People:He was behind the attacks.
me: ok, how was he behind the attacks
People: well he was the inovlved in funding and planning
Me: to what extent?
People: how can you even question his guilt!!


No one seems to know what part he had in things. I was asking maybe I missed it and they said, but it looks like everyone just KNOWS he was behind it in someways.

(yes I understand he admitted to the COlE ETC ETC, it has nothing to do with what I am asking. I was asking what his role in 9-11 was)

[waterj2]

Bin Laden is the head of a terrorist network with which the actual perpetrators of the events were affiliated. I'm not sure that any real evidence has been released that conclusively shows the attack was planned through bin Laden's organization, but those who have seen the evidence seem to all agree that it does indeed show that. I don't think any information specifying the exact level of bin Laden's involvement has been released.

He is known to have publicly incited people to kill Americans, and has encouraged it, funded it, trained others in it, set up an organization to organize it, and has admitted to giving orders to do it in the past. By my understanding of the law, one is guilty of murder if one purposely incites another to commit a murder. But at the very least, the evidence seems to show that bin Laden was part of a conspiracy behind the events of Sept. 11th.

[Phlosphr]

Well I have never been so blatently blunt but...It seems to be impossible to explain this to Llama. I would not even try anymore, to be completely honest. This cat has been antagonizing here for a while.

*Bows and exits* -> Begging your pardon Llama...

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by llamasex
My question is what exactly did he do.

I took your question at face value and speculated that, at a minimum, OBL was informed of and approved of the general concept of attacking the WTC with hijacked airplanes.

This is a reasonable inference for two reasons:

First, in most organizations, be they governments, companies, or universities, an operation of this magnitude and danger would have to be approved at the very highest levels - i.e. by CEO, president, or whatever.

Second, OBL is a wealthy man and no doubt uses large sums of money to his organization. The WTC attacks cost a lot of money in plane tickets, pilot training, other training, and other stuff. It is human nature to ask where your money is going.

Of course, this is all somewhat guesswork - it is possible that OBL told his top lieutenant: "Here's $1 million. Go hurt the Americans anyway you like. Don't bother me about it."

Now, OBL's culpability for the WTC attacks is a different question. There is little question that he is culpable. (certainly he is morally culpable, he is probably also legally culpable.)