Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought
provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to
the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil
Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted
Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page
for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t
Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the
events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings
of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi,
Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI
concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin
Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters,
(202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not
indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker
Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.
When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web
page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin
Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence
connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing
statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden
has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does
that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is
gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department
of Justice than 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 connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements
start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the
way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very
powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S.
government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to
9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan
to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have
invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the
talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the
American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and
responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001.
Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence
connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S.
government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It
was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with
delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The
Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in
which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of
bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape
was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin
Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession
video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S.
government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11
attacks.

In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release,
President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because
he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he
also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt.
“Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t
matter to me.”

In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military
campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.”
Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing
people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in
the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they
can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby,
apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the
taped confession, so why are you?

The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S.
government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail.
However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress,
along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic.
So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After
all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it
discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a
successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would
be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the
video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as
sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the
Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?

Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity
Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to
9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader
is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the
government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion,
prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S.
media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored
9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to
say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those
few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why
has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather
than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the
government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly
content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable
information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer
mouse?

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the
U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11,
2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard
evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001,
while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for
five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is
responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and
the demise of United Flight 93?
No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

Freelance writer / author, Ed Haas, is the editor and columnist for the
Muckraker Report. Get smart. Read the Muckraker Report.
http://teamliberty.net

NOTES
[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin
Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May
31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases
Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001,
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b12132001_bt630-01.html,
[Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter
Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed
June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December
14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/ret.bin.laden.videotape,
[Accessed June 5, 2006]

_____________________________

Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of 
articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. 
 If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this 
message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, 
send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you 
can visit:
http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news  Go to that same 
web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe.

E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few 
days will become disabled or deleted from this list.

FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the 
information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have 
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes.  I am making such material available in an effort to advance 
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, 
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair 
use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.

Reply via email to