Where is the evidence OBL was responsible for 9/11?

[nebula]

has he or anyone connected to 9/11 ever been tried in a court of law?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I thought you had it.

Guys, what happened to the evidence Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11? I had it in the back with those boxes...

Ah, crap. Those are the boxes that went to the Salvation Army. Crud.

No, seriously. Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower won a Pulitzer for its methodical and well-written account of how al-Qaeda came to be and came to carry out the 9/11 attacks. No better place to start.

And since Bush wanted to make sure that the trials happened during an election year, no, not yet. However, it looks like they might not happen at all this year. We'll have to stay tuned.

Oh, well, unless you want to count Moussaoui. The extent of his connection to the 9/11 attacks might be slim, but he was definitely in contact with those guys.

[rschop]

7. RE: Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" and the Pulitzer Prize

From a prior post: "Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower" won a Pulitzer for its methodical and well-written account of how al-Qaeda came to be and came to carry out the 9/11 attacks. No better place to start."


But what exactly did the book that won a Pulitzer, the "Looming Tower", leave out.

First the account in this book of FBI Agent Ali Soufan and the events prior to 9/11 were based on input from Steve Bongardt, FBI Special Agent on the Cole bombing, in effect in charge of the Cole investigation in the US since his boss, FBI Agent Ali Soufan, and lead investigator of the Cole bombing, was out of the country from November 2000 to 9/11 investigating this bombing in Yemen. All of this information had then been vetted by John Miller FBI Information Officer at the FBI HQ. But what information did Wright and even Bongardt not know at the time of this book?


Lawrence Wright, and correspondingly, Steve Bongardt, never knew when FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi told Bongardt on August 28, 2001 that he had to destroy the information that he had on Mihdhar and that he and his team would not be allowed to take part in this investigation and search for Mihdhar, that Corsi already was aware that the CIA had a photograph of Khallad Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew they had been hiding this photograph from the FBI, knew this photograph connected Mihdhar and Hazmi directly to Khallad and the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at Kuala Lumpur, and even knew that this meant the investigation of Mihdhar should have gone to Bongardt and his team of Cole investigators! Had Corsi and the CIA officer she had been working with Tom Wilshire not conspired to hide this photograph, it would have been impossible for Corsi to force the investigation of Mihdhar away from the Cole investigating team and they most likely could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. What is horrific is at this time Wilshire and the CIA knew by hiding this photograph the FBI would be unable to amount an effective search for Mihdhar and that as a result thousands of Americans would perish in the huge al Qaeda attack the CIA and Wilshire already were aware of.

Wright, and correspondingly, Bongardt, never knew that when Margaret Gillespie found out on August 22, 2001 from the INS that Mihdhar and Hazmi were both inside of the US and took this information to Dina Corsi and Wilshire on that same day, that Wilshire knew immediately that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were long time al Qaeda terrorists in the US in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been getting numerous warnings about. Wilshire's emails in July to his CTC managers stated just exactly that.

Wright describes in his book that Soufan had asked the FBI Director Freeh to contact CIA director Tenet in November 2000 and ask Tenet if the CIA knew about any al Qaeda meeting at Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, and if the CIA had any information of Khallad Bin Attash. Freeh told Soufan that the CIA had no information on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Khallad Bin Attash, known at this time to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing. But Wright, and correspondingly, Bongardt, never knew that Freeh was well aware of this meeting in Kuala Lumpur and even aware that Khalid al-Mihdhar had attended this meeting. This information that Freeh had this information is found on page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report and on page 248 of the FBI IG report. Neither Wright nor Bongardt ever knew that Freeh had criminally obstructed Bongardt and Soufan's FBI investigation of the Cole bombing!

Wright and correspondingly, Bongardt, never knew that the meeting held in New York on June 11, 2001 between the CIA and the FBI had been set up by the CIA because of Soufan's request in April 2001 to the CIA HQ asking if the CIA knew about any al Qaeda meeting at Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, and if the CIA had any information on Khallad Bin Attash. He correctly describes that at this meeting CIA officer Clark Shannon asked Bongardt and the other Cole, investigators of they could identify anyone in the Kuala Lumpur photos of Mihdhar, one photo had only Mihdhar and Hazmi in it. But Wright and Bongardt were complete unaware that this meeting had been a CIA sting of the FBI, set up only to find out if the FBI Cole investigators had uncovered the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi that the CIA had been keeping secret for the last 19 months.

Wright never knew that identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photos in January 2001 had been initiated by Soufan's request to the Yemen station in November 2000, and that this identification was known by the Yemen station, the CIA Bin Laden unit and the CIA handler for the CIA/FBI Joint source and that all of these units were all committing criminal obstruction of the FBI Cole investigation by not providing FBI Agent Soufan, even after his direct request, information that there had been an al Qaeda planning meeting at Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 and that Khallad bin Attash had been photographed and identified right at that meeting with Mihdhar and Hazmi, directly connecting both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing.

None of this information was know by Wright in spite of him having spent many hours interviewing Bongardt. What is so tragic is that at any one of the times mentioned above had the CIA and the FBI HQ agents the CIA had recruited to obstruct criminal FBI investigations, not block this information from going to the FBI Cole investigators, the attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented and the 3000 people killed on that day would still be alive.

HOW SAD!

How could Wright have been so wrong and his book so flawed!!!

It turns out in spite of literally having almost all the final pieces to the 9/11 puzzle, Wright never went back to re-read either the FBI IG report or even the 9/11 Commission final report. He had all of the information needed, along with publicly available information, in order to put the entire story of 9/11 together and completely failed in the end to do this.

Yet he still got a Pulitzer prize for this obviously fatally and tragically flawed effort.

GO FIGURE!

The book "Prior Knowledge of 9/11", has all of the information in it missed by Wright and now finally has the complete picture of what actually happened prior to 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to occur!

This book can be found at www.eventson911.com. DU bloggers can also put this entire story of 9/11 together themselves, the site "http://eventson911.com" lists all of the material needed to do this, which should take not much more than a few short years of effort to do.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Why do you repeatedly leave out the fact that...

"Prior Knowledge of 9/11" is YOUR book? At the very least, this is quite disingenuous. I'm beginning to question whether your presence here is for any purpose other than to plug your book.

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. Do you think he should have to post the info with every post?

He's already identified himself in other threads, and it's on his profile, if anyone cares to look.... and *you* seem to know who he is by your own admission: "I'm beginning to question whether your presence here is for any purpose other than to plug your book."

Now, aside from trying to attack his posting methods, do you have anything to refute any of his material? Stick to the content, please.

Thanks

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

10. Make me, Ghost

Don't you think it's kinda odd that he refers to his own book without disclosing that he is the author? In other words, he's essentially citing his own book as proof of his claims. Doesn't that strike you as disengenuous? What would be wrong with providing that disclaimer?

[Ghost in the Machine]

11. Again, he already *has* disclaimed that he's the author... *and* it's in his profile...

*That's* the way the internet works. Seriously. I wouldn't kid you about that...

Does it strike as disingenuous? Not in the least. I actually like someone who can cite their own work, in their own words, without having to copy-n-paste someone *else's* opinions and/or theories. I like to hear from people who actually *know* what they're talking about. I think they have much more credibilty than parrots.

"What would be wrong with providing that disclaimer?"

Absolutely nothing... and he has done so, check his profile...


PEACE!

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

12. You're assuming that the casual reader has....

read his previous posts and realizes that he is the author or has taken the time to read his profile. Do you have the time to read the profile of every poster? I don't. As I stated earlier, I think it is isingenuous to cite your own book as proof of your claim...it's a form of "begging the question".

[Ghost in the Machine]

13. I started as a casual reader..

... and I know exactly what you are saying, believe me. Both sides are just as guilty, too... if you want to call it that. I had to go google to see who everyone was... Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, ... hell, you name them, I had to look them up if it didn't give a clue who they were in the post they were mentioned in.

The big thing is, I *wanted* to know, so I took the initiative to search. Everyone has a search engine available. If you want to know something you have two choices:

1.) Make a post and ask a question, or

2.) Go look it up yourself... and yes, sometimes that includes looking at profiles because profiles have, like, information on them.... and stuff...

I don't see anything wrong with referencing your own material from your own 'investigation' to make your point. How is it any different from someone at NIST or FEMA citing one of their own reports, or a prosecutor presenting the evidence that *they* collected to make a case? If your evidence is truthful & factual there's no reason *not* to cite it.

Which statement below would you accept without question?

A.) A really bad storm came through last week and the wind blew a tree branch down on my truck.

or

B.) God was mad at me so he came by and smashed my truck up with a tree branch!

One sounds much more credible to be to the point of unquestionable, doesn't it?

[SDuderstadt]

17. Both you and Rschop are completely missing the point

Yes, the reader COULD go to the website OR they could read what Rschop has written, see how he references "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" and assume his post is more meaningful as a result, never realizing, in the process, that he is referencing himself. You can certainly fault the reader for not being more inquisitive but I think Rschop has an even higher duty to make it clear EVERY time it's HIS book.

More importantly, I find major pieces of what he has to say highly implausible. If I remember correctly, he claims to have discovered the plot prior to it being carried out, down to the specific airports that would be used and down to a range of 4 days in which the plot would take place. He even states that he went to one of the airports in question several days before the attacks to see if he could see any of the highjackers testing airport security in advance of the attacks.

In addition to the obvious credibility problem one should expect when one claims they figured the plot out in advance of its execution but chose not to make it public (therefore, there is almost no way to verify the claim), there's one even bigger problem. If he really knew that Logan was one of the targets for the hijackers and he figured out the day it would happen within 4 days, why not go to the airport on those days, await the arrival of the hijackers, then alert security as to the weapons (4 inch knives and boxcutters) they were carrying? Wouldn't that make sense? I seriously doubt that airport security would not have checked Rschop's info out.

I repeat what I said before. I find his story more than implausible and I openly wonder whether his real purpose here is merely to flog his book. BTW, I don't find his website particularly impressive either.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. Well please enlighten us with what you find implausible, and why...

so we can be straightened out on it, ok?

Which part do you find implausible?

Thanks

Ghost

[SDuderstadt]

19. Read my post carefully and I stated EXPLICITLY...

what I found implausible.

[Ghost in the Machine]

20. So that's it? Nothing more?

Would *you* go sit at an airport for 4 days straight trying to indentify someone? If you did, what if they came in while you were on a bathroom break and you missed them?

Go tell the FBI or airport security?? Why? So they can spend the next month grilling *your* ass about what you may or may not know? Not to mention looking like a kook if nothing happened..

Again, where can I see some of *your* work on the subject of 9-11?

[SDuderstadt]

21. Why would going to the airport during those days be any more...

implausible than Rschop's claim he went there prior to 9/11 to see if he could see the hijackers testing airport security? What if he DID see them testing security? Are you saying he would have done something unlike what I suggested he might have done if he went there during the 4 days window the plot was supposed to take place within? Why would that be? If trying to confront them as they were actually carrying it out would be to no avail, why go there to see of you saw them testing airport security? Are you saying that makes sense?

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. Are you understanding the difference between "going there *one time* to see" and

*spending 4 days straight there* trying to identify them? You know, you go once just to kill that itch of curiosity. For all you know, you could just be dead wrong, ya know? Yes, you might have it all figured out in your head, but could still be in denial that anything like this could *really* take place... (self doubt is a bitch).... what are you gonna do? You still have a life to live, a job to do, maybe a family to take care of... you can't spend *all* your time obsessing about something that is just a well reasoned and thought out *hunch* to you..

The biggest question is this: Why did the Bush Misadministration ignore all the warnings *they* had?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Let me make sure I get this straight

You are certain that you know the day of the plot within four days and you wouldn't do anything interrupt it? In that case, why go there even earlier to see if you can spot the hijackers testing security? What would be the point?

[rschop]

16. RE: "Prior Knowledge of 9/11" is YOUR book?

My profile clearly points this out for anyone who would want to know and wanted to take the time to look!

Please read the profile or go to the listed web site, this information is clearly listed right in the post, and is clearly explained on this site.

I don't think it takes much to figure out the blog name is an abbreviated form of my name and that I am the author of this book, it is listed right on this web site! The web site also clearly states why I wrote this book in the first place.

All of the information in the first part of this book has been given to the FBI on at least 8 separate sit down interviews, to the investigators for the Joint Inquiry Committee, Michael Jacobson and Rick Cinguegranna, and to several of the 9/11 Commissioners, to Robert Kerrey, Tim Roemer and Richard Bin Vinesti.

This book is posted in this blog because it appears that there is still not a clear understanding by many people of what actually took place prior to the attack on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place.

The information in the book comes from the following sources:

The Joint Inquiry Committee Report, the 9/11 Commission report, the FBI IG report, the CIA IG report, the trail of Moussaoui, the account of FBI Agent Ali Soufan from information given to Lawrence Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and vetted by John Miller, information officer at the FBI.

Since this information on Soufan was vetted by the FBI, this account of FBI Agent Soufan can be considered the official FBI account of this information. In addition information from Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial was added to describe the emergency meetings right at the White House on July 10, 2001 and July 17, 2001 between Tenet and Black and Rice, Clarke, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld where these administration officials were clearly told a huge al Qaeda attack was coming to the US that would kill thousands of Americans. While Woodward's book is not an official government document this information was corroborated by Rice herself a week after this book came out when she could no longer deny the truth of this account.

The pages numbers of each source is listed right in the book, this same source information and links can also be found on the internet, one very good site to use is Paul Thompson's time line site with links to all of the sources, just press the links listed in his time line.


This book can be considered to be in fact the official government account of what had occurred prior to 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place. All of the above information from the above listed sources was put together in detailed time lines combining all of this information in order to see the complete picture.

SINCE THIS BOOK USED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ALL OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT SOURCES, THIS BOOK CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE THE US OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAD OCCURRED PRIOR TO 9/11 THAT HAD ALLOWED THESE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE!

By building time lines from this information, it was possible to see the entire picture and find out exactly what had happened prior to 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place. Notice this account differs significantly from the official 9/11 Commissions report.

The account from the 9/11 Commission report had many gaps that could be filled in with the information in the FBI IG report. The FBI IG report in fact was a much detailed account of what had actually occurred prior to 9/11.

The account of Ali Soufan filled in in information that had been left out of the FBI IG report, in fact Soufan himself, the lead FBI investigator on the Cole bombing was almost entirely stripped out of both the 9/11 Commissions report and the FBI IG report. Why the 9/11 Commission or the FBI IG investigators did not know the significance of Soufan, the FBI lead investigator of the Cole bombing, is a real mystery. The planning for these two al Qaeda attacks came together at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur that took pace in January 5-8, 2000.

After the entire account was put together it was then possible to go back and in fact see how the 9/11 Commission report appeared to have been deliberately obfuscated to cover over the information that later was found in the FBI IG report and the account of Soufan. In fact it was even possible to see where the FBI IG report had left out significant details to cover over what appears to be criminal actions at both the FBI and the FBI HQ. I will list just some examples from the scores of examples listed in the book:

November 2000, FBI Agent Ali Soufan, (from the account of Soufan) who had been assigned lead FBI investigator on the Cole bombing by John O'Neill, after traveling over to Yemen to investigate this bombing, sent a request to the CIA Yemen station asking for any information that the CIA had on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000 and on any information the CIA had on Khallad Bin Attash, who was thought by the FBI at this point to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing. He was told that the CIA had no information even though the Yemen station already knew about this meeting and even knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi and even Khallad had been at this meeting.

In December 2000, (according to the FBI IG report) the CIA Yemen station sent the photo of Khallad Bin Attash attached to Soufan's request to the Joint FBI/CIA source, who identified Khallad immediately as a high level al Qaeda terrorist. The CIA Yemen station then sent this photo to the CIA Bin Laden unit and requested the photos of Khallad and Mihdhar taken at Kuala Lumpur so these could be shown to the FBI/CIA Joint source.

These were shown to the FBI/CIA Joint source in January 2001, and Khallad identified in the Kuala Lumpur photos. While the CIA Bin Laden unit, the Yemen station and even the CIA handler for the FBI/CIA Joint source at this point all knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting with Khallad bin Attash planning the Cole bombing, this information is kept completely secret from the FBI and from FBI Agent Ali Soufan, in spite of his direct request to the CIA Yemen station, in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy at the CIA. They were all aware at this time by not giving this information to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing they were committing criminal obstruction of an on going FBI investigation, a major felony!

However, the 9/11 Commission staff statement Number 10, released on April 13, 2004 says that: "In December (2000), based on some analysis of information associated with Khalid al-Mihdhar the CIA Bin Laden station speculated that Khallad and Khalid al-Mihdhar might be one and the same. So the CIA asked that a Kuala Lumpur surveillance photo of Mihdhar be shown to the joint source who had already identified an official photo of Khallad."

But the passport photo of Khallad that Soufan sent to the Yemen station in November 2000, was sent to the Bin Laden unit at the exact same time the CIA Yemen station had requested the photos of Khallad and Mihdhar. And the Bin Laden unit had already positively identified Mihdhar at Kuala Lumpur, from the surveillance photos from Kuala Lumpur and from his passport photo the CIA had obtained when he had passed through Dubai on his way to Kuala Lumpur from Sanna, Yemen.

Since the CIA Bin Laden unit already had a photo of Khallad from Kuala Lumpur, and even his passport photo, there was no possible way that the CIA Bin Laden unit could ever have though Khallad and Mihdhar were one and same person in December 2000.

This statement in this 9/11 Commission staff statement that the CIA thought they were the one and the same appears to have been added only in order to justify why the photos from Kuala Lumpur were shown to the Joint source. Since the information that the photo of Khallad had been shown to the CIA/FBI Joint source, and Khallad had been identified at the Kuala Lumpur planning meeting was clearly going to come out in public, this statement appears to have been added to the staff report to prove to the American people that the CIA had not deliberately committed criminal actions by hiding this identification of Khallad from the Kuala Lumpur photos from the FBI and Ali Soufan. Just this statement alone renders the entire 9/11 Commission investigation and report a total and complete fraud.

When the CIA handler for the FBI/CIA Joint source did not tell Soufan or the FBI that Khallad had been identified in the Kuala Lumpur photos, the 9/11 Commission statement goes on to say:

"This is an example of how day-to-day gaps in information sharing can emerge even in a situation of good will on all sides."

But they clearly leaves out the fact that both the Yemen CIA station and the Bin Laden unit knew Khallad had been identified from the Kuala Lumpur photo, and they also did not tell the FBI or Soufan of this identification. The Yemen station had been directly requested this information by FBI Agent Soufan himself. This identification clearly connected Khallad and also Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at Kuala Lumpur. And yet this horrific fact was kept secret fro the FBI criminal investigators. Had this fact not been hidden from the FBI Cole investigators, the attacks on 9/11 would have been prevented!

This is yet another example of how the 9/11 Commission report is a total fraud. Today with much new information available it is easy to see how this fraud is now exposed as an attempt by the 9/11 Commission to hide CIA culpability in obstructing the criminal investigation in the Cole bombing, an investigation that had it not been deliberately obstructed could have prevented the attacks on 9/11.

The account of Ali Soufan go on to say on pages 69-70:

November 2000, after being told the Yemen station has none of the information Soufan is looking for, Soufan sends this same request to FBI Director Louis Freeh asking Freeh to request this information from CIA Director Tenet. Freeh tells Soufan that the CIA has no information on any meeting in Kuala Lumpur or on Khallad Bin Attash. But Freeh himself knew about this meeting and even knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at that meeting, this fact is described right on page 248 of the FBI IG report and again on page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report!

The FBI IG report says on page 248:

"In the midst of the Millennium period concerns in late 1999, the NSA analyzed communications associated with a suspected terrorist facility in the Middle East linked to Al Qaeda activities directed against U.S. interests. The communications indicated that several members of an "operational cadre" were planning to travel to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in early January 2000. Analysis of the communications revealed that persons named Nawaf, Khalid and Salem were involved. At the FBI, this information appeared in the daily threat update to the Director on January 4, 2000."

The 9/11 Commission report says on page 181; "the Counter terrorism center had briefed the CIA leadership on the gathering in Kuala Lumpur and the information had been passed on ... to the Director Freeh and others at the FBI..."

By combining the account of Ali Soufan with the these reports, you can finally not only see the whole picture, but you can see why the 9/11 Commission report and even the FBI IG report had left out any mention of Soufan, his account proves a criminal obstruction by the Director of the FBI himself in obstructing the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing!

It is clear that Freeh knew about the meeting in Kuala Lumpur at the very time of Soufan's request in November 2000 and then had criminally obstructed his own FBI investigation of the Cole bombing, an investigation that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. It is also clear that the account of FBI Agent Soufan had been stripped out of both the 9/11 Commission report and the FBI IG report, and in order to see the whole picture you had to put these reports together and build times lines in order to see the whole picture.


But the time lines go on to show that this obstruction extended to include the CIA hierarchy including Tenet, Black, virtually the entire CIA Bin Laden unit, the CIA Station in Yemen, the FBI ITOS unit, the FBI Bin Laden (ITOS) unit and the FBI RFU(ITOS) unit.

This information is now all in the public domain in public available sources. If you want to find this yourself, google the dates and names as listed above and you will find the source for this information in seconds!

Why MSM has not found and printed this information is now the big mystery.

GO FIGURE!!





.

[seemslikeadream]

2. I think they tried to torture some out of the 20th highjacker

down at Guantanamo but it kinda didn't work I guess and now bush and company will be impeached or attend an international crime court proceeding

[nebula]

3. They claimed Moussaui to be the 20th hijacker

...and just a few days ago all charges against the other 20th hijacker (a Saudi) were dropped.

just how many 20th hijackers are there?

and why didn't the 9/11 commission ever look into or examine the 'evidence,' if any, concerning the alleged guilt of OBL? what a farce!

[seemslikeadream]

4. This is where the international lawyer Philippe Sands started his book

US drops charges against 9/11 suspect detained at Guantánamo
Posted by seemslikeadream on Wed May-14-08 02:44 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/14/usa.guantanamo

Mr al-Qahtani never made a single statement that was not extracted through torture or the threat of torture," the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represented al-Qahtani, said.

"The unconscionable techniques used on him are well-documented and were authorised directly by the White House."

The Saudi-born al-Qahtani was brutally interrogated for 48 straight days at Guantánamo in 2002 using a plan approved by former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Charges against him were dismissed "without prejudice", but the Pentagon claims the right to reinstate them at any time and to keep holding him at Guantánamo.

Bush administration lawyers who gave legal approval for the torture of al-Qahtani have exposed themselves to possible war crimes charges, according to UK human rights lawyer Philippe Sands, whose findings were first reported in the Guardian last month.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=204181&mesg_id=204181


Tribunals are continuing for the other five suspects accused of aiding the 9/11 attacks, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the CIA interrogated using the simulated drowning tactic known as waterboarding.

The dismissed charges against al-Qahtani raise the spectre of more legal setbacks for the Bush administration in the five remaining 9/11 cases. Mohammed's lawyers have said they will challenge evidence against him that was extracted using torturous methods.

[nebula]

5. What war crimes?

Impeachment is off the table, everything swept under the rug, all forgiven and forgotten, etc. Bushco has nothing to fear from this complicit Dem congress, the same one that voted to confirm Bush extremists Roberts and Alioto on the Supreme Court.

[seemslikeadream]

6. all forgiven and forgotten?

Not by the international community, listen to Sands, it's in my link

[canetoad]

14. Better still

Pretend you are a highly placed (and paid) prosecutor. Osama has been captured and, after being treated with the fairness that we have come to expect from the USA, charged with perpetrating the attacks of 911.

In a succinctly phrased essay or a summary in point form, please outline the prosecution's case. You are welcome to elaborate as you see fit.

[nebula]

24. The problem is

the government doesn't even have enough evidence to charge OBL with anything in regard to 9/11.

to date, no charges have been brought against him for 9/11.

[leftofthedial]

15. there isn't any

he isn't even wanted for that crime