No honest magistrate would issue a warrant on Blair's publically presented evidence. I don't say OBL didn't plan the attacks of 9/11, but on what Blair said, we haven't probable cause to think that he did. --jks
>
>The evidence is detailed at: http://www.pm.gov.uk/
>
>
>I would be interested in people's response. There is not too much that is
>new. A lot of the evidence has nothing specific to do with the attacks on
>Sept 11 but relate to earlier attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and
>Tanzania and the USS Cole. A considerable amount of background is also
>provided including bin Laden's declaration of Jihad against the US. The
>general strategy is to simply point out that bin Ladn is head of a large
>terrorist group, that is committed to a jihad against the US that includes
>terrorist attacks, and that he and the group are prime suspects in several
>other attacks. There is a final note that there is even more compelling
>evidence that is too sensitive to share..
>
>
>Just a few specific remarks and questions:
>
>The evidence states specifically that bin Laden claimed responsibility for
>attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole. I was under
>the impression that while he applauded them and claimed that they were in
>accordance with the jihad against the US that he was not responsible for
>them. Is this incorrect?
>
>Part of the evidence is that bin Laden made a phone call that says that an
>attack would take place
>in two days. This evidence was discovered AFTER the attacks. This makes
>absolutely no sense to me. I posted a source earlier that said that a call
>to bin Laden's mother had been intercepted in which he said that there
>would
>be an attack in two days. Surely this makes more sense. The call was
>intercepted at the time that it was made. It would be known then wouldn;t
>it. What gives?
>
>The picture the evidence gives is that bin Laden is something like the CEO
>of a terrorist organisation and as such of course he is involved in
>planning
>major attacks. But if he is how is it that intelligence sources are unable
>to to know what is going on? Furthermore one of the hijackers is said to
>have been involved both in the USS Cole attack in some way and in one of
>the
>embassy bombings. Surely you would think that intelligence sources would be
>keeping good track of this guy. How could he come to the US and take part
>in a hijacking undetected? The evidence does not make intellligence
>services
>look even minimally competent.
>
>Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp