SAVE THE WHALE!
I did express concerns to the commitee of the possibility of being imposed with fines for toxic waste dumping in the boston harbor. Turns out they do have permission from the city.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by El Blanco
1) Technically, the video and audio confessions only are admissable in a US court if they can get someone who was there to confirm
|
Sounds like youre saying there's no convincing evidence of bin Laden's guilt.
Dont forget that KSM, the plotter of the bojinka plot that was foiled in 1995, was magically captured and confessed everything while in gitmo in 2003, just in time for the 9/11 commission's panel hearings that was about to begin. So what's taking so long for them to put him on trial? They never had cover story showing bin Laden's guilt prior to his capture. What about moussaoui? Didn't say he say bin laden was the plotter and the financier of the attack? We have enough people and their say to implicate and indict osama.
Colin Powell promised he would present a case to the public proving bin Laden's guilt, saying the evidence would be very obvious to the world. Yet he never did and they went on to bomb afghanistan the following month, anyway. The evidence of the videotape of osama praising the 9/11 attack was released in december 2001. The timeline seems odd and a bit out of order, do you not think? Read this article and read between the lines...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...5_main24.shtml
Quote:
|
2) The embassy bombings are considered crimes on US soil under US law. The 9/11 attacks are considered acts of war, so they are out of the FBIs hands. It would be like wondering why the Feds never indicted Yamomato.
|
So the 9/11 attack was justified on osama's part? How is murdering 3000 innocent civilians on US soil not considered a crime?
Quote:
|
3) He already had so much shit on his wanted poster, the rest would just be beating a dead horse.
|
whatever happened to technicality?
Quote:
|
2) If this is some big scam to make him a scapegoat, don't you think they would have endicted him? Kind of a big loose end there, dontcha think?
|
FBI, who were not 'in on it' had no convincing evidence to present a case to the US dept of justice, who were also not 'in on it'.
In fact we have a video of bush doing absolutely nothing after being told of the 2nd attack. There are also 2 videos of him claiming to have seen the first impact in NYC on tv that morning. Do you not think there are enough evidence thats worthy for bush to publicly testify before the panel while under oath instead of the opposite, behind closed doors while holding cheney's hand?
*My homo color is purple*
Linear Mode
