Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10361

Bits and pieces from here: http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/885217.html


The United States has obtained a videotape of Osama bin Laden describing the damage to the World Trade Center as being much greater than he had expected, according to senior U.S. officials.

On the tape, obtained in Afghanistan during the search of a home in Jalalabad, Bin Laden praised Allah for success far greater than he expected, using language that indicated he was familiar with the planning of the attacks, according to one of the officials.

...

Senior Bush administration officials are debating whether and how to release the videotape, which some officials hope could ease concern in the Muslim world that Washington has unjustly accused Bin Laden.

"It is very clear that Bin Laden not only had advance knowledge [of the Sept. 11 attacks], but [the video] is proof he was responsible for planning," said one senior official who has seen a transcript of the videotape.

...

According to another official who has heard a description of the tape's contents, Bin Laden said he was at a dinner when first word came that a plane had crashed into a World Trade Center tower. Bin Laden said that he told the others present and that they cheered. He then indicated that more destruction would be coming, according to the official.

Bin Laden used his outstretched hands to explain that he expected only the top of the towers to collapse, down to the level where the airliners struck. The eventual total collapse of both towers, the Al-Qaida leader said, was unexpected.



I'm anticipating the release of this tape... it'll definately shut up alot of people who believe or claim bin laden is innocent and [insert foe here] is the real culprit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: May 2001
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1037

Sad thing is, the US is going to kill him regardless, if they find him.

If they don't release the tape, its probably because it proves his innocence.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

ok, well I will wait to see it. I find it intersting the article says this:

'using language that indicated he was familiar with the planning of the attacks, according to one of the officials.'

and then this:

It is very clear that Bin Laden not only had advance knowledge [of the Sept. 11 attacks], but [the video] is proof he was responsible for planning,"

Prior knowledge, and involvement in planning are two very different things. Obviously both are not good, but they both imply different things about the incident and the apportionment of blame.

Lets wait and see.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Essex, England
Posts: 4523

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skeet
Sad thing is, the US is going to kill him regardless, if they find him.

If they don't release the tape, its probably because it proves his innocence.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky



Prior knowledge, and involvement in planning are two very different things. Obviously both are not good, but they both imply different things about the incident and the apportionment of blame.

---

Why are they two very different things? Someone involved would have to have prior knowledge right?
I think they are just expressing a double whammy.
Of course, feel free to make of it what you want...you always do.

And skeet seems overly eager for some big conspiracy to be going on

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35779

The only point I would add to this is that if everything implied by the merkins about the video is true, it proves that he said that he knew about the attack. I doubt that it will be sufficient evidence on its own. Rather like evidence referring to prisoners on remand who claim to have comitted crimes to get cred in the prison, then it is revealed in court. Although people have been convicted in the UK on evidence like that, some have had convictions overturned on appeal (a lawyer told me this) and you need more proof in any case than a claim.

I am not speaking about whether he did it or not but rather what effect on a court case a video like this (allegedly of very low quality) would have in a fair trial. It would seem to me, from the reports, to be strong evidence but he would probably just say that he was bragging in private.

I am more interested in whether he can get a fair trial at all. The trial of the two libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing resulted in only one being found guilty and some impartial observers said that the evidence was shit and should have resulted in the aquitall of both, and all this in a trial where enormous efforts were made to construct the whole thing fairly.

Convicting people at the top of terrorist organisations is very hard. I have always felt that the practice of allowing reduced sentences for informers who were themselves involved in the same crimes in return for testimony is also pretty suspect, although I can see the practical reasons for which it is done. I just don't see how the testimony can be trustworthy. But without evidence from co-conspirators, how to prove anything at all?

I particularly find it interesting in cases where you waive death penalty in return for evidence; you are effectively saying 'if you don't testify for us, we will kill you'. Regardless of guilt, most reasonable people would take that wager.

This is tangential to the thread topic I think but I find it interesting nevertheless. I would guess that Bin Laden is involved in it somehow, if I had to guess at all, but I think that getting him for the embassy bombings might be easier than for the WTC attack.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

My point was that one can have prior knoweldge of a crime about to be committed, and not be responsible for the organisation of that crime.

Hypothetical example:

I decide to commit robbery. I plan the robbery down to the last detail. In passing I tell my partner I plan to do the robbery and that is all.

Legally speaking she becomes an accessory to the crime but cannot be charged with the crimes organisation.

So my point is that in one breath the video is said to contain bin Ladsen discussing the atrocity in a tense which implies he had prior knowelkdge of its existance. In the next case we are told that this prior knoweldge proves he organised it. Which legally speaking it does'nt.

Either way there is an apportinoment of blame of bin laden, I am merely pointing out that on the basis of what has been said about this video thus far there appears to be two versions. One links him to the crime in terms of prior knoweldge, and the other, whic thus far has not provided any evidence (although I admit this is because they are still decdiing whether to release the video) of how one can make the leap from, proir knoweldge, to total orchestration.

Finally, and crucially, my point is that in criminal law, those found guilty of accessory charges are usually dealt with in a different way in term of penality as those that actual commit and plan the crime.

Note here aswell, that I am not saying that he is innocent, or that he is guilty, just that on the basis of what I just seen on Sky News, and this article, there is still a missing gap in the causal link betwen having proior knoweldge and being the sole mastermind.

edit: you never know, it may turn out that he does make a direct admission to planned involvement, this will make it all the more better to convict him wherever that may be. But I want to make a point clear, not one of the questioners in the past few months about the evidence has sais he was innocent. Everyone knows he is probably guilty, they just want to see the proof before committing themselves.

Last edited by Spooky on 12-12-2001 at 12:21 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

On another note, I am intersted to know the language the conversation was in, because if it is not english, then the translation will inevitably be brought into question.

Again, I'm not saying that a translation will be wrong by defintion, but the nuances between say english and arabic are no doubt huge, and these nuaces could play a key role in any form of defense formed in a court or in the history books.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

Smug Git, it wouldn’t matter if he did a full confession in a way would show any certainty, people who don’t want to believe it wont.
Anyway, hopefully the pig fucker will be dead when its all said and done. If not by his body guard which he has said to order to kill him if it looks as if he is going to be caught or sealed up in a mountain to die slowly.
If we catch him we will see what happens then.


And spooky from what I have heard about the tapes was him expressing pleasure from the fact the most of the hijackers didn’t even know they were on a suicide mission (how would he know that?) and how happy he is that it caused much more damage than he had planned. He had figured the structure would only collapse above the point of impact.


Anyway, they are being pretty cautious to do it in a way that gives the people who are going to pushing conspiracies and questioning its authenticity and interpreting it how they choose less ammo. That makes me think its pretty damning to ole bin, but we wont know till we see it; I think that will be later today from how they are talking.

Last edited by euphorbia on 12-12-2001 at 01:00 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

"On another note, I am intersted to know the language the conversation was in, because if it is not english, then the translation will inevitably be brought into question"


They are way ahead of you and have brought up this point themselves. They are getting it done in such a way, by people with no interest to twist it that it cannot be questioned from what I understand.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
And spooky from what I have heard about the tapes was him expressing pleasure from the fact the most of the hijackers didn’t even know they were on a suicide mission (how would he know that?)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
They are way ahead of you and have brought up this point themselves. They are getting it done in such a way, by people with no interest to twist it that it cannot be questioned from what I understand.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky


If he said that he must stupid. Did the pilots think they were going to survive? I think not.

I brought this point up a while ago and was ignored...the only people who had to know they were going to die is the pilots.
The rest could have been clueless.



The words I heard used was not 'planned' but 'expected' (see above). That does not prove planning that prove prior knoweldge....and the rest of post

Well, lets argue about semantics after we see it; eh? And if want your opinion to be credible after we know what it says don’t be too eager to discredit it before you even see it.


.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

I'm not discrediting it. I am questioning what each of the many political faces in the US are saying, because they are so strikingly different thats all.

I know it sounds like semantics, and you can see it that way. But lawyers play semantics, and if he is caught and tried (which again I hope he is) then the semantics willbe criucial to the decison making process about his level of culpabilty in terms of guilt. After all, everyone knew that OJ was guilty didn't they?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky
I'm not discrediting it. I am questioning what each of the many political faces in the US are saying, because they are so strikingly different thats all.

I know it sounds like semantics, and you can see it that way. But lawyers play semantics, and if he is caught and tried (which again I hope he is) then the semantics willbe criucial to the decison making process about his level of culpabilty in terms of guilt. After all, everyone knew that OJ was guilty didn't they?

---

They are only “strikingly different” because you’re putting a lot of effort into making them be. Why abandon common sense for hypotheticals?
Spooky, if this guy winds up in court he will be convicted on what he has admitted to doing already on video in other terrorist activity.
And he wont have a jury full of sympathizers determining his fate. (like oj)
So he wont be going to court and let go because of lack of evidence, he might during a hostage negotiation though (ya court is a great idea )

Last edited by euphorbia on 12-12-2001 at 01:17 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

whatever u4b. I apologise for not simply regurgitating what I am told to believe. I will try harder next time not to think about what I see and instead simply digest it as truth out of hand.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky
whatever u4b. I apologise for not simply regurgitating what I am told to believe. I will try harder next time not to think about what I see and instead simply difest it as truth out of hand.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

ok first off the telling piont in my sarcasm was that can you imagine what boring place this would be if a thread was filled with lots of people saying I agree with you, I agree with you too.

Second, what do you mean unrealistic exactly? How is bringing up the extremely relevant point about the possible language and words used in this video unrealistic?

You seem to think that I am discrediting the videos validty for some reason can you explain that, and also explain how its unrealistic?

Thirdly, on the point about courts, I would certainly hope that a jury would not be filled with sympathisers, just in the same way as I hope a jury would not be filled with people who had already made their midn up about the level of guilt of a man.

I am bemused though how suddenly I am being unrealistic. If the video truns out to have bin laden on it saying 'I planned this, and it was better than expected' then all the better. Realistically this would be a good thing because it will help solidify nearly non-existance support in the arab and muslim world against him. However, if it does come down to semantics it could end up being no better for the issue in the scheme of things, even more so if he is killed in the current continuing violence in Afghanistan.

Am I being unrealistic to contemplate the knock on effect of bin laden's death if the video tunrs out to have questionable intepratations or am I being cautious in terms of forward thinking?

Last edited by Spooky on 12-12-2001 at 03:41 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

umm...yes?

Boy was that ever a loop.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: deep in the heart of...
Posts: 515

any takers that the tape will not be released publically?

and for the record, Spooky's concern regarding the nuances in the translation of the videotape is quite realistic.

i will reserve any further speculation until the tape is released.

it would not be shocking to one day discover the extent to which the government has kept information from the public eye or has so carefully doctored its content as to serve their own interests. disheartening perhaps, but not shocking.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16790

quote:

---

Originally posted by lady sianna


and for the record, Spooky's concern regarding the nuances in the translation of the videotape is quite realistic.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged