Reply #35: I'm not saying the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks

[gratuitous]

And indeed, the fact that they were so successful would mitigate against that. Har de har har. The Bush administration certainly took every political advantage it could from the attacks, but an ability to take advantage of a situation isn't evidence of complicity. I recall, however, that the Bush administration also promised a white paper laying out the case against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda shortly after the attacks, but the white paper never did quite see the light of day.

I'm aware that bin Laden, as was his wont, voiced approval or endorsement of the 9/11 attacks, but I am unaware that he ever claimed any responsibility or credit for them. Likewise, bin Laden's ability to take advantage of the various results of 9/11 (fear, confusion and anger in the United States, fear or jubilation in other quarters, etc.) isn't evidence of complicity, either.

We have a perfectly serviceable mechanism in place for working through such conundrums, and it's the American legal system. With its rules governing evidence and procedure, admission of evidence and testimony, availability of cross-examination and the right of the accused to confront witnesses, it's a system that works pretty well. It would also demonstrate to our own people and the world that we really do believe in all that Constitutional mumbo jumbo, even at the risk of failing to convict someone as notorious as Osama bin Laden. But that surely wouldn't be a problem, would it?