Osama Bin Laden Tried in Court In absentia Trial – Guilty or Not Guilty?

The Dutch television show “Devil’s Advocate”, tried Usama Bin Laden in front of a jury, with Dutch Master of Law, Gerard Spong defending. Amongst the prosecutions star witnesses were American correspondent Charles Groenhuijsen and terrorism expert Glenn Schoen.

Long before The Akh started up Hotter Than A Pile Of Curry, he would write and submit articles to a whole host of outlets, this particular one was picked up by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee back in April 2009.

I read an article on the Guardian’s CiF section which asked the question “What if Bin Laden had stood trial?” The Akh shook his head and thought Shiiii he’d covered this years ago – of course the expert white man media rules, but read on and perhaps you’ll understand why they had to “kill” of Bin Laden rather then let him face trial…if you believe he wasn’t already dead years ago;

The inabsentia trial of the most wanted man on this Earth has recently concluded, with a jury finding Usama Bin Laden NOT GUILTY of masterminding, planning, financing and heading the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001.

The jury were instructed to decide if the acts of terror committed on 9/11 can be rightly attributed to Usama Bin Laden.

The three indictments read out in court were:

Indictment 1 – Usama Bin Laden gave the order for the attacks of September 11 2001.

Indictment 2 – Usama Bin Laden is the leader of Al-Qaeda.

Indictment 3 – Usama Bin Laden is a terrorist.

The Verdicts?

On the first indictment, the jury decided that too little hard, indisputable evidence had been produced to show that Usama Bin Laden was responsible for the September 11 attacks. NOT GUILTY

On the second indictment, the jury considered it a fact that Al-Qaeda exists, but whether Usama Bin Laden is the undisputed leader of the organisation is something the jury has doubts over. NOT GUILTY.

On the third indictment, the jury almost unanimously decided that Usama Bin Laden to be a terrorist. GUILTY.

Spong was able to convince the jury that bin Laden’s connection to Sept. 11 was a product of “Western propaganda.” The jury also ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove bin Laden was the real head of terrorist network al-Qaida. However, the jury did rule that bin Laden is a “terrorist who has misused Islam.”

Spong was able to convince the jury that bin Laden’s connection to Sept. 11 was a product of “Western propaganda.” The jury also ruled there was insufficient evidence to prove bin Laden was the real head of terrorist network al-Qaida. However, the jury did rule that bin Laden is a “terrorist who has misused Islam.”

Although this is only a television programme, it caused somewhat of an uproar when it was aired earlier this month in the Netherlands. I remember hearing Colin Powell saying “in the near future we will be able to put out a document that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking Bin Laden to this attack.”

This evidence was never produced.

In a court of law, it falls onto the accusing party to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Yet the only result we have seen was not only the war in Afghanistan, but also under a cloud of lies, the war in Iraq.

Muslims are often accused of having conspiracy theories, but there wasn’t a single Muslim in the jury that tried Bin Laden on Devil’s Advocate.

The truth about what happened on September 11 2001, is not in the public domain.

Perhaps one day all will become clear, but I don’t think we will like what we find out.

I will be writing one final piece on this subject tomorrow Insh’Allah, looking at the legacy left by Osama Bin Laden.

About these ads

5 Comments

Filed under 4GW, Creating The Terror Threat, Foreign Policy, Pakistan, Terrorism, Western Hypocrisy

5 responses to “Osama Bin Laden Tried in Court In absentia Trial – Guilty or Not Guilty?

  1. DevoutofLondon

    The man himself Bin Laden may not have pulled the trigger – but he is as guilty as any mass murderer in history. This man incited violence and mayhem on a scale not seen since Pearl Harbor. Just as did the Japanese in 1941 – Bin Ladens “people” made an unprovoked attack against thousands of people. The difference between these acts of WAR was that Japan hit a MILITARY target. By contrast, Bin Laden’s people hit innocent CIVILIAN targets in two tower blocks, in the trains of London and Madrid and in the streets of Nairobi and Bali. Attacking civilian targets in order to start a war can NEVER be justified by any appeal to the scriptures. Let people live and follow God in their way. It is for God to take life, not for Bin Laden or his people. Let him die by the sword who lives by it. Truth stands clear from error, and Bin Ladens’ error was clear. Justice has been done.

    • Akh The Angry Academic Activist

      The true test is justice, if you truly believe in the justice system then you would have him face a fit and proper trial, show your evidence and prosecute him, it can’t be that difficult can it, after all the Americans must have stacks of evidence to prove his guilt.

      Otherwise it’s satisfying a bloodlust and a case of revenge, like the cowboys of old, wondering into town all guns blazing.

      You mention Pearl Harbour – so you should also know the revenge that the US army took on Hiroshima & Nagasaki that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians instantly while hundreds of thousand others suffered a far more painful and tortured death over the coming months.

      Depending upon where you are reading from, the facts are that an unarmed man was executed at point blank range.

      I always adopt the “man in the street” test.

      If the police “double tapped” – one bullet in the head & one in the heart – an unarmed man in the street, then what would be the response?

      You may not like what I have to say, but just think it through.

  2. Pingback: A Selective Approach to Western Justice As Butcher of Bosnia Ratko Mladic Goes to The Hague |

  3. DevoutofLondon

    This is nonsense. You have not addressed the point I make about attacking INNOCENT CIVILIAN TARGETS. Any person dangerous enough, crazy enough to attack or incite the attack on innocent civilians with the express intention of starting a war – such a person must be a Devil. To me – this is a self evident truth. In a war people get killed. Of the 60 Million plus people who died in World War 2 only 26 went to trial. The rest were simply killed. Ben Laden started a war – he got killed. This is the man who tried to destroy the peace settlement of 1945 – peace for which 60 million died. Why should so many people die only for ONE person to re-start a world conflagration? In a war people die – the question of a proper trial does nor arise, they simply get killed. That is what has happened here – Bin Laden has been killed, in a war which HE started. Justice is served.

  4. Richard Nixon

    The truth about 9-11 will come out. Just like the truth about John Kennedy has come out. The problem is the US media machine is so strong not many will know, believe, or care. Even though nothing was ever proven and by all standards the case against Bin Laden was weak, every mainstream news agency always refers to Bin Laden as the man responsible for the attacks on the towers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s