Skeptic Project

Muertos, I made a comment on the blog, but I'll ask my question again here: why doesn't Bin Laden have 9/11 tied to his FBI listing?

Yes, there is evidence tying him to it. The reason he's not on the FBI's list for 9/11 is because in order to do so he must be indicted, and in order to indict him, they have to provide witness and evidence which they believe may compromise their hunt for him and other Al-Qaeda operatives.

Muertos, I made a comment on the blog, but I'll ask my question again here: why doesn't Bin Laden have 9/11 tied to his FBI listing?

Good question, Aaron. I posted a comment answering it, as well as a source that discusses the issue. It's a good illustration of a CT'er fallacy that is referred to (by the folks over at Screw Loose Change, among others) as "the Sacred List," the ridiculous idea that conspirators who committed some horrible act and framed innocent people for it would somehow hesitate at forging one or another official document to implicate their patsy for the crime.

@ Falkner: I disagree. Why should Bush (or any US government official) have legitimized the Taliban--a government that was known to have harbored Bin Laden for years--by publicly acquiesing to any demand they made? I would have given the Taliban the finger too, and told them to have Bin Laden trussed up on the Kabul airport runway and ready for us to take away, or the bombs start falling at 12:00 sharp. Whatever evidence we provided they would have mocked anyway. I recall on September 12 the official Taliban spokesman scoffed at the idea of the attacks having originated from Afghanistan because, according to him, there were no airplanes in Afghanistan on which the hijackers could have trained.

I also disagree with the hypothesis that Bin Laden is dead. I don't recall when his last tape was, but I think if he croaked (God willing!) we would have gotten some word of it.

It may be true that his subordinates had more do to with the planning than he did, but that doesn't change his legal or moral culpability. The way I understand how Al Qaida works, it's sort of like a foundation for terrorism that individual terrorists (or groups of terrorists) apply to for funding, the way scholars apply for research grants from a foundation in this country. When whoever dreamed up the idea of 9/11--Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, probably--came to Osama with the idea, he obviously creamed in his jeans (or his robes, or whatever) and coughed up the cash and technical help for the job. That's more than enough to put Osama on an execution block for murder under virtually any legal standard in the world.

There's also the issue that many in the government viewed the attacks an act of war, and not even Adolf Hitler or Emperor Hirohito were on the FBI's most wanted list.

Ed, the excellent 9/11 debunker, posted something on TZM forums a few months back in this regard. I'll post a small quote from the otherwise long post.

-------------
-------------
Source: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php/components/com_kunena/template/default_ex/images/english/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=155670&limit=10&limitstart=50#157647

First we again have to believe that these conspirators are just too darn stupid to update the FBI page. Just think about it for a moment. What reason do you think they didn't add 911 there? If they are going to be deceitful enough to lie to the worlds media and public you'd think they could at least add a sentence about 911 on their most wanted page, don't you think?

No, that's clearly a stupid explanation. What the real reason for 911 not being on Bin Ladens FBI page is that the Bush considered 911 to be an act of war and handed the responsibility for prosecution over to the State Department. For the first time he made it legal for a miltitary tribunal to try accused terrorists.

This is why 911 IS listed on Bin Laden's page in the State Department.

http://www.rewardsforjustice.net/index.cfm?page=Bin_Laden&language=english /> http://www.nctc.gov/site/profiles/bin_ladin.html</p>

How is it reasonable to believe that the State department believes Bin Laden had a hand in 911 while the FBI does not?

By the way that quote you're referring to comes from a suspect source and doesn't fit with any other statements the FBI have made. For example, Rex Tomb, the same FBI agent who was quoted in the Mukraker report said this to the Washington Post:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
Washington Post

Annoyingly for you it contrasts with your quote, so it is more likely to be more of an “interpretation” of what he said, rather than the exact statement. This seems to make sense considering what else the FBI have said. For crimes to be listed on the FBI's most wanted poster they have to be officially indited for them, it makes perfect sense from a legal standpoint.

"David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html</p>

Lets go back to the FBI's page again. Maybe you can come up with an answer for why a $2,000,000 reward is offered on that page by the Airline Pilots Association when only one of his accused crimes (911) involved planes.

Don't forget Al Capone killed many people and had many people killed but was never convicted for the crimes the organisation he headed committed.
---------------------------
----------------

Constitutionally, I think that Bush should have asked Congress for a declaration of war against Al-Qaeda as a group and also on Osama bin Laden personally. Although the US has never declared war on anything other than another sovereign government (and even then not since 1941), it could have solved a lot of problems for him that he later botched regarding Guantanamo, military commissions, authority to take out Bin Laden, etc. and we wouldn't have had the "why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9/11" crap. But of course Bush wasn't smart enough to think of that.