Osama bin Laden, among the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted Fugitives": Why was he never indicted for his alleged role in 9/11?

A little history on this blunder.  They'll no doubt sew up this loose end soon since its been getting a lot of press, take advantage of it while you can: 


Osama is classified among among The FBI's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.

However, on the Usama bin Laden page on the FBI website, there is no explicit statement to the effect that he might be wanted in connection to the September 11, 2001 attacks. 

Photograph of Usama Bin Laden

He is wanted in relation to the 1998 African Embassy bombings. 


On first reading the web page seems to be out of date, a pre-9/11 page, which the FBI forgot to update.

The FBI, like most organizations, updates its website periodically, when new information, concerning a "wanted fugitive" becomes available. 

On closer examination, the original posting, which dates to June 1999, was updated: in November 2001, at least three weeks after the US invaded Afghanistan. (Click here to go to FBI Usama page)

The decision to go to war was taken without a indictment by the US Justice department and corroborating statements by the FBI to the effect that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda was behind the attacks. It was taken without an indictment issued by the Justice Department. 

At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation conducted by the FBI..

The FBI confirmed in a recent statement (July 2006) that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on the Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (See the Muckracker Report, See also Enver Masud,  FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11? The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11', Wisdom Fund, June 2006). Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy stated in this regard that

“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops

The war on Afghanistan started on October 7, 2001, less than a month after 9/11. 

On September 20th, the Taliban government had offered, "to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington." (George Mombiot, The Guardian, 11 Nov 2003). This offer which was repeated by the Taliban government on October 1, 2001, six days before the beginning of the bombing: 

"We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time." (Ibid)

To this date, the Justice department has not formally indicted and charged Osama bin Laden for the 911 attacks: 

The FBI maintains a separate "Most Wanted Terrorists" list, which includes bin Laden and 25 others who have been indicted in U.S. federal courts in connection with terror plots. But this second bin Laden listing also makes no mention of Sept. 11.

"The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice," the FBI says in a note accompanying the terrorist list on its Web site. "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001." (Washington Post, 28 August 2006)


Osama smiling

OBL is standing out like a joke on the FBI most wanted website: All the other ones are good old, domestic criminals, looking really, really bad. But on top of the list is Osama smiling. Hard to believe this is the bigger criminal.

No Hard Evidence

Yes, in fact the FBI has admitted that there is no "hard evidence" linking UBL to 9/11. Bush has admitted that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Where does that leave people who believe in Bush's story? It means they believe the story is true essentially because... Bush says it is.

So why doesn't the 9/11 truth movement take more advantage of this?

They don't take more

They don't take more advantage because your average person out there believes in the chunkier Osama confession video. The easier path is to point out stuff like the FBI agents who have come forward. Osama could have been involved on some level and parts of the government could have been also. It is not an either/or situation.


is an ISI protected stooge. As long as he is useful to the CIA or the ISI, he will remain 'missing'. I doubt he planned the actual attack, but I figure he did discuss similar tactics, enough to build the case and set the stage. So if that's culpability, so be it. Whatever the case, it doesn't serve the FBI well enough to cite.

You think theyde keep the

You think theyde keep the "boogeyman" alive?...I think hes dead. If he was really getting treatment at a military installation in 2001 that makes him the perfect scapegoat.
I mean if you know your bad guy is going to die whats the point of "relentless pursuit"? If we were to catch him, would we not have to rethink every policy the administration has forced down the peoples throat?
Just an opinion.

As someone already pointed

As someone already pointed out, i too think its not an either or situation.
Many people speak of the BinLaden - CIA connections, and then go on how the Bin Laden videos are all fake.
Which doesnt go togehter very well i think.
Unless hes dead. But for some reason i doubt this. So i just dont spend any time thinking about it.

Osama's Unwanted Poster

I was in Washington D.C. two weeks ago as a tourist with my husband and 16-year-old son. One of the museums we went to was the American History museum. It has a 9/11 display which includes a big hunk of structural steels purported to be from the WTCs (I wanted to swab it and send the swab to Steven Jones) and wallet IDs and other memorialia. On the wall was a wanted poster of Osama Bin Laden. Now, one would think that the top historians in the country would insist on historical accuracy in putting together its historical displays, wouldn't you It WAS the official poster - seeking OBL for the 98 bombing, not for the WTCs. But the implication of the display was obvious.

I made a point of loudly discussing the non sequitor of having a wanted poster for another event in the 9/11 display and the lack of a charge against OBL for the WTC attacks.