Does anybody know?
From Wikipedia (no exact link):
The FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[63] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion, regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001 attacks.[64]
But so far, the U.S. Justice Department has not sought formal criminal
charges against bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks. This has provided what
some call "fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S.
government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings." [65]
Is it lack of evidence?
Considering the old maxim - a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich - what is the reasoning to NOT indict Bin Laden?
Any thoughts?
|
|
||||||||
|
This Month
Recent Articles
Integral Views
Month Archive
Recent Photos
RSS Newsfeeds
Main Page RSS
|
Completely not integral question: Why was there a grand jury indictment against Bin Laden for 1998 Embassy bombings, but not for 9/11?
Comments
Re: Completely not integral question: Why was there a grand jury indictment against Bin Laden for 1998 Embassy bombings, but not for 9/11?
by
Sean
on Tue 19 Jun 2007 11:19 PM PDT | Permanent Link
In 1988, he was considered a criminal. As rational dialog deteriorated after 9/11, suggestions that those responsible be treated as criminals was openly ridiculed. Trying Bin Laden, even in absentia, would give him dignity that many on the right did not believe he deserved.
The current treatment of "enemy combatants" (an invention of the administration) seems to bolster this opinion. Re: Re: Completely not integral question: Why was there a grand jury indictment against Bin Laden for 1998 Embassy bombings, but not for 9/11?
by
ebuddha
on Wed 20 Jun 2007 01:35 PM PDT | Profile | Permanent Link
That's a great point - thanks for the feedback!
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
Login
Search
Recent Comments
Integral Organizations and Information
Powered by BlogHarbor
 |
||||||
|
||||||||