please link other examples of leaders who have committed acts of war against the united states who have been charged by the fbi for civilian crimes.
9e fell under the jurisdiction of the fbi so it wouldn't matter who did it.....that does not change the jurisdiction. Aren't you the genius that said you didn't know the truth movement was started by victims families and first responders? Now you want to delve into the legal arena of jurisdictions? Aha..slow down tyke and learn some basics before embarrassing yourself some more
aren't you the guy that dodges and weaves when asked questions? Why, yes you are! Its no surprise that you cannot link another person who has committed acts of war against the united states and has been charged by the fbi. Embarrassing yourself seems to be a constant for you.
The fact that 9/11 fall under the jurisdiction of the fbi does not mean bin laden is not responsible. The standards of proof and admissible evidence in a court of law are high, and much of the evidence linking bin laden to 9/11 comes through intelligence, much of which is not admissible in a court of law.
Acts of war against the united states are the purview of the legislative and executive branches. We may disagree with the bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror, but they viewed 9/11 as an act of war. The obama administration appears to think differently.
Also, as any prosecutor knows, it is far more difficult to prove a case against the guy at the top who directed or sponsored the crime than it is to prove a case against the guys who carried it out. Simply because bin laden has not been charged does not mean al-qaeda is not responsible. That is akin to saying that simply because a mob boss has not been charged, there is no proof of crimes by the mafia, or simply because the ceo of a corporation has not been charged, there is no proof of malfeasance by a corporation.