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?
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.
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[sup]TM[/sup], the guy might come back and kick your managers ass. Get it?
Oh and:
Pretty much all three of those too, but a little less emphasis on number two.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
to be exact, he was the demented genius behind 91101. nuff said?
Llamasex
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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]
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:
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.
Although even that provision is unecessary, as a US embassy is US territory.