Support 911Blogger


Osama Bin Laden never charged for 911 - Inside Job likely

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/140099/20110502/osama-bin-laden-never-charged-for-911-inside-job-likely-wtc7.htm#ixzz1LQs6...

Monday, May 2, 2011 1:56 AM EDT
Osama Bin Laden never charged for 911 - Inside Job likely

Osama Bin Laden's death is being celebrated, and everyone seems to repeat the old conspiracy theory that he was indeed the mastermind behind the terror attacks of 9/11. But that was never proven, and there is not even evidence hinting at such a connection according to the FBI. It is very well possible that completely different organizations than al-Qaeda were responsible for the planning and execution of 9/11, and that the latter was merely one of the involved parties.

Osama Bin Laden was never formally charged, because the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation didn't deliver the necessary evidence to the Department of Justice, which would be the required path in this matter. Another explanation for the lack of criminal charges was brought forward by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the time, who said that the 911 attack was an act of war and not a law enforcement matter. But this mere redefining of the attack doesn't explain why no evidence would be needed to proof who was behind the attacks, and how it was accomplished. Just for comparison, the airplanes that attacked Pearl Harbor were clearly Japanese, and they didn't come from nowhere, but were launched from aircraft carriers within range.

If anyone is surprised by this fact, which one could be excused for as it is very rarely mentioned by your friendly television pundit, read for yourself what Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publicity, stated in 2006 about the FBI's position:

“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.”

Now, in a constitutional state in which the exercise of governmental power is constrained by the rule of law - which usually assumes the innocence of an individual if not proven otherwise by a formal trial before appropriate courts - this lack of evidence to even bring forward charges and start a trial could have been a hindrance.

The U.S. government saw it differently and bombed Afghanistan just weeks after September 9, 2001, as usual without a formal declaration of war, with one of the top priorities "to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden". It doesn't even need mentioning that the waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay of various detainees rounded up without charges is beyond anything that a constitutional government could ever do. From the moment of ordering unconstitutional torture and wars, any government simply ceases to be constitutional.

And there is quite apparently continuity of the U.S. government in acting in these ways, unbound by the rule of law. The current U.S. President Barack Obama gave a live speech shortly after the death of Osama Bin Laden was announced, boasting about the success that he said was his personal priority order. Right at the beginning of the speech (Full-text), he repeated the unfounded myth, which can thus also be called a lie, that Bin Laden would be responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks. That may be former president Bush's and Obamas personal opinion - but it just goes against the clear assessment of the responsible government authority. Obama goes on to say: "And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."

What justice does Obama refer to, exactly? Osama Bin Laden was certainly responsible for many crimes, and maybe even 911 - but as there seems to be no formal evidence for the latter, it is wrong to make this the official reason for his execution. Now, probably few care about the death of Usama, who was a terrorist after all. But how about the 5 women and 4 children that were killed one week ago, on April 22 as reported by BBC, by a U.S. military drone in Pakistan, when missiles hit not just a building with suspected militants, but also a family house?

And this is not a single incident at all. In Obama's "war on al-Qaeda", as he proudly called it in his speech, over 700 innocent civilians were massacred by drones in Pakistan alone, so far. In March, 40 innocent people were killed in an attack on a tribal meeting, in February, 9 children, as young as 8 years old, were killed by U.S. helicopters, and so on.

The connection between Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks was made by the Bush-Cheney administration, at the morning of the attacks, before the first tower even collapsed. Nearly ten years later, after intensive investigation, a government commission, two wars and the interrogation under torture of some 750 people detained in Guantanamo Bay without charges, no hard evidence could be found that would confirm the initial allegation.

But something else is much more worrying than the missing link to Bin Laden - there are still many open questions of what really happened at the fateful day of 9/11/2001. The families of victims, and thousands of engineers, architects, politicians, professors and other citizens, demand a real investigation of the events and the responsible parties. According to their judgement, the official explanations, including blaming Bin Laden and Al Qaeda for everything, without proper evidence, are insufficient.

To just highlight the most obvious and easy to see discrepancy: At the World Trade Center site, three towers collapsed, but only two were hit by an airplane. The third tower, WTC7, was at a significant distance of the other two towers, more far from them then several other skyscrapers, with no other tower significantly damaged. WTC7 collapsed suddenly, very fast and evenly. The official explanation is that a fire in a few floors would have caused this. But no skyscraper ever collapsed due to a fire before 9/11, and none did after. The open question in this case is: was WTC7 the only tower in history that collapsed because of burning furniture - or are the engineers right who insist that the only realistic explanation is a controlled demolition with explosive charges expertly planted at the foundations of the tower?

None the less, the same unfounded 11 am allegation of the Bush-Cheney administration is repeated by countless people, in media and government, even today and it is still used to continue unconstitutional and ruinous wars, which claim the life's of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and leave the international reputation of the United States blood stained.