FACT: Osama bin Laden has NOT been indicted for his involvement in 9/11
Ed Haas, Muckraker Report
August 20, 2006
While Democrats on the campaign trail attempt to convince voters that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are not interdependent or interconnected, the neo con Republicans are seizing every media opportunity to shout that any vote for a candidate seeking office in the U.S. Congress who isn’t lockstep with the neo con war-mongering agenda is an invitation for a terror attack in the United States. Just in case you haven’t noticed, the neo con controlled Republican Party talking points for this election cycle are the same talking points used in 2002 and 2004. The summary of these points is that the neo cons will protect America from terrorists and keep the people safe while the Democrats will put America at risk and potentially endanger American lives. It’s called fear mongering.
Yet talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, and at the end of the day the fact remains: the neo con leadership has yet to indict Osama bin Laden for his reported role in the tragic events of September 11, 2001. While the neo con is sure talking a great game, they seem to have grave difficultly finishing anything. Having not indicted Osama bin Laden for the crimes of 9/11 is a clear indication that the neo con is either incompetent or covering up information regarding what really happened on 9/11 – information that it fears could demolish any lingering public support for its policies and agendas.
For Americans that question the government’s account of 9/11, this lack of indictment is yet another awkward misfit stumbling among a crowd of government inconsistencies that makes maintaining even partial subscription to the neo con rhetoric regarding 9/11 happenings and the War on Terror, logically impossible. How can any critical-thinking American continue to believe the government lines on bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, terrorism, and terrorist plots when it has yet to legally produce the evidence required to gain a federal indictment of Osama bin Laden? After all, the evidence threshold for gaining a federal indictment is much lower than for gaining a conviction. Yet for reasons that remain obscure from the public record, the U.S. government, under full neo con control, has not gained such an indictment of Osama bin Laden. For rightful doubters of what the U.S. government and the mainstream media have been and continue to report about the bizarre War on Terror, this lack of indictment only fuels suspicion of the U.S. government.
Of course, there remains the blind neo con supporter running amuck in America. You can spot them out on our nation’s highways and byways. They are the bionic fools driving around with the “W” The President stickers on the rear windows and bumpers of their vehicles. Most do not even realize that Osama bin Laden has not been indicted for his alleged involvement in planning 9/11, and the truth is, few would dare to care. For them, its more comfortable to leave the barbed, neo con hook entrenched in their political throats rather than endure the pain of extraction. These Americans are the “trust the government” types. Had they lived in the thirteen colonies during the American Revolution, they would have had “G” The King branded on their horse’s ass. Without a doubt – they would have been Tories, King’s Men, Royalists, and Loyalists. Attempting to gain explanation from these people regarding why their fearless leaders have failed to bring charges against Osama bin Laden for his alleged role in 9/11 yet continue to run around America screaming, “The Terrorists are Coming, The Terrorist are Coming” is to attempt to repeatedly force a square peg in a round hole – not recommended if you hope to maintain sanity.
This lack of indictment is simply inexcusable and unacceptable, yet the media continues to allow the neo con to shrill without holding it accountable for its peculiar detachment from the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda. It just does not add up.
Stranger yet is the fact the United States Department of Justice is obviously avoiding answering the direct question, why hasn’t Osama bin Laden been indicted for his involvement in 9/11, while the neo con talking heads continue to revamp and ramp up their Election 2006 rhetoric as if the case on Osama bin Laden was already closed. Not buying the hype though, the Muckraker Report has made many attempts via e-mail, phone conversations, and direct mail to get the DOJ Public Affairs Office to go on the record and explain why Osama bin Laden has not been indicted for 9/11. It is obvious that by its lack of response to what should be a fairly easy question to answer, the DOJ Public Affairs Office is withholding information that clearly should be in the public domain – particularly since so much of the neo con agenda hinges on Americans believing the entire 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda story.
On June 14, 2006 the Muckraker Report spoke with Arthur Schwartz, Staff Assistant with the DOJ Public Affairs Office. Schwartz fielded these questions over the phone:
1. Is the DOJ currently seeking an indictment by a federal grand jury of Osama bin Laden in connection with the events of September 11, 2001?
2. According to the FBI, Osama bin Laden is wanted by the U.S. government in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. Why, as of June 14, 2006, is Osama bin Laden not wanted by the U.S. government in connection with the events of September 11, 2001?
3. Why doesn’t the FBI or DOJ have enough hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11? Does the DOJ not want Osama bin Laden in connection with the events of 9/11?
4. On December 13, 2001, the Department of Defense released what has now become known as the “Osama bin Laden 9/11 confession video” within the mainstream media. How is it that this video isn’t sufficient “evidence” to gain an indictment by a federal grand jury – connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11?
5. Does the DOJ have reason to believe that the so-called “confession video” is authentic?
6. Does the DOJ have reason to believe that the “confession video” is a fake?
7. Does the DOJ have any hard evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11?
After reading these questions to Schwartz during our phone conversation, Schwartz asked that the Muckraker Report e-mail the questions to Arthur.Schwartz@usdoj.gov, which is exactly what the Muckraker Report did at 2:21:17 PM on June 14, 2006. Since that time, the Muckraker Report has sent e-mail and called Schwartz on numerous occasions seeking answers to these valid and important questions. I have personally spoken with Schwartz on at least three different occasions since June 14, 2006, seeking status of the DOJ answers. Schwartz contends that he passed the questions onto “others” but refuses to give contact information that identifies exactly who these “others” are and when they might get around to doing their jobs by answering these questions – after all, they’re Public Affairs! Once Schwartz refused to divulge the name[s] of the government employee[s] that are reportedly working on finding answers to the questions asked by the Muckraker Report, it became clear that the United States Department of Justice is unwilling to voluntarily answer these questions.
Not to be deterred, on August 15, 2006, the Muckraker Report called the DOJ Public Affairs to start anew, but this time, I decided to only ask one question, “Why has Osama bin Laden not been indicted by a federal grand jury in connection with his alleged masterminding of 9/11?” I spoke to a government employee that identified himself as Matt Lebaron. I asked if he could get back to me as soon as possible because I have been waiting over 60 days for an answer, from his office, to this simple question.
Five days have passed, and still no call from Matt Lebaron.
It’s time for the people to get some answers or suffer the consequences. Time is running out. We either return the power to the people or suffer under the emerging totalitarianism that is spreading across our nation and being accepted by people that are no longer fit to be called Americans. If totalitarianism is the only government-provided antidote to terrorism, give me the risk of terrorism and let me live free from totalitarian intrusions and oppression.