Power Of Attorney Indian Embassy Washington Dc: Fill & Download for Free

Indian children are not being targeted but immigrant families are often unaware of the laws protecting children from corporeal punishment. Such laws may not make sense to them but spanking children is illegal in Norway. This is happening to many other families and is sparking international debate and controversy.This has given rise to conspiracy theories about the agency’s intentions and charges of children being manipulated into false statements. There have been successful lawsuits for damages.Many parents lose their children to the Barnevernet [Child Services] in Norway due to baseless accusations, which also affected Turkish citizens. While the situation causes uproar worldwide, authorities' motives remain unclear. Norwegian human rights attorney Reikaras has asked PM Davutoğlu to help a Turkish citizen with this issue. Children legally kidnapped from families in NorwayHere is a description of a recent case:Norwegian officials have kicked up an international controversy by taking custody of the children of an evangelical Christian family, whose defenders say they are being targeted for their religion.The scandal involving Ruth and Marius Bodnariu and their five kids isn't the first to hit Norway's child protection system, the Barnevernet. Others have also charged Barnevernet bureaucrats with wrongly seizing children and discriminating against foreigners.But the Bodnarius' case, which involves five children, is especially striking.Last November, Barnevernet officials came to their house in Naustdal, a remote Norwegian valley, twice without notice, according to the BBC. First, the officials took the couple's eight and ten-year-old daughters and two sons, aged two and five, and ordered the mother to come to their office for interrogation. The next day, they returned and took the couple's then-three-month old baby boy.While Ruth is a native Norwegian, Marius is Romanian. The two met when Ruth was on a religious mission to Romania, said Cristian Ionescu, a family friend who is a reverend at the Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church in Chicago."You can imagine how tragic this is for them," Ionescu told VICE News. "They are crying all the time. They have lost weight. They have been desperate at times. God and family and friends all over the world give them prayers and encouragement."Ionescu and others have planned demonstrations in front of the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, DC and other locations around the world on Saturday. In the US alone, they've garnered more than 60,000 signatures for a petition calling on Norway to return to the kids to their parents.Norwegian officials said that they couldn't discuss the details of the case because of privacy rules. But reports said that a school principal first raised concerns about the family, and Ruth admitted to the Barnevernet officials that that she would spank the children, which is illegal under Norwegian law."Not every time when they do something bad, more occasionally," she told the BBC, referring to how often she resorted to spanking. Officials, she added, "didn't find any physical marks or anything like that when they had medical examination on them, they were, are, all fine."Though he was unaware of the details of the case because of confidentiality rules, Jon-Åge Øyslebø, the minister counselor for culture, communication, and education at the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, said that it's not a trifling matter to remove children from parental custody in his country."Children rights are very strong in Norway," Øyslebø told VICE News. "It's forbidden by law to apply any kind of corporal punishment."The family was allowed to meet together in February for the first time since the children were taken. Last week, after the family took the Barnevernet to court, a Norwegian judge gave the Bodnarius custody of their baby and allowed them to see the two boys twice a week for two hours at a time, according to the family's website. It's not clear what the court determined regarding the two girls.The court verdict is private, said Øyslebø. But he speculated that the court must have agreed with the Barnevernet officials if the judge didn't let all the kids go home."The verdict indicates that there were reasons to intervene in this family," he said. "The decision to place them in temporary energy shelter homes was based on circumstances in the home and related to the children's upbringing."The children are now in emergency custody. A county panel in Norway is now scheduled next month to decide whether the children should be placed in foster care or returned to their parents.A protest supporting the Bodnariu family against the Barnevernet took place in February in Oslo.Ionescu suggested that Barnevernet officials didn't approve of the role of religion in the Bodnariu's home. The couple complained that investigators asked them extensively about their faith, whether it affects how they raise their children and other questions that Americans would find offensive, he said."It's a pretty secular country," said the reverend. "They have a new translation of the Bible that erased all the verses that talk about disciplining your children."Øyslebø disputed that thought. The Leader Council of the Pentecostal Movement of Norway also issued a statement saying that it doesn't believe Barnevernet officials were discriminating against the faithful."We have no reason to suspect that we are being treated differently than others in our country, due to our faith," the statement said.But Norwegian childcare experts have raised red flags about the Barnevernet. Last year, before officials took the Bodnarius' children, 170 psychologists, social workers, and other professionals signed a public letter to officials saying the system needs reform."Children are removed from the home on very weak evidence characterized by speculative interpretations," the letter said. "Too often we see that biological parents, who do not have all the world's resources behind them, stand no chance against a big and powerful public apparatus. We see a tendency for decisions based on incomplete observation basis and tendentious interpretations."A "lack of parenting skills" is the reason most often cited by Barnevernet officials who are taking children, according to the BBC, which reported that foreign mothers in Norway are four times more likely to lose their children to the system.Accordingly, examples abound of angry foreigners damning the Barnevernet.Last year, Czech President Miloš Zeman compared the Norwegian child protection service to the Lebensborn program in Nazi Germany, which aimed to give the children of unmarried women to Aryan parents.Zeman was discussing a 2011 case where Barnevernet officials took two boys into custody because they told their nursery school teacher their father groped inside their pajamas. Police never brought charges against the father, but the parents still don't have custody of their children and the Barnevernet put one up for adoption last year. Norway has since agreed to notify Prague when it investigates parents who are Czech citizens.Lithuanian talk radio has also mocked the Barnevernet, saying officials seize foreign children to reduce inbreeding in Norway. Brazilian Vitoria Alves Jesumary fled for sanctuary in her country's embassy in Oslo three years ago after Barnevernet official raised questions about her daughter's eating habits. And Polish private investigator Krysztof Rutkowski has twice abducted children in the Barnevernet's care and spirited them out of Norway to their parents in Poland and Russia.Julie Gilbert Rosicky, executive director of the American branch of the International Social Service, a global child protection organization, said it was peculiar for officials to take children away from their parents unless the home was truly dangerous to their welfare. Norwegian officials might have otherwise explained what the Bodnarius were doing wrong before they simply grabbed their kids, she suggested."The bent of child protection is: do everything you can to keep the kid with their family," Rosicky said. "I hope and pray Norway has some legitimate safety concerns."Norwegian officials have kicked up an international controversy by taking custody of the children of an evangelical Christian family, whose defenders say they are being targeted for their religion.The scandal involving Ruth and Marius Bodnariu and their five kids isn't the first to hit Norway's child protection system, the Barnevernet. Others have also charged Barnevernet bureaucrats with wrongly seizing children and discriminating against foreigners.But the Bodnarius' case, which involves five children, is especially striking.Last November, Barnevernet officials came to their house in Naustdal, a remote Norwegian valley, twice without notice, according to the BBC. First, the officials took the couple's eight and ten-year-old daughters and two sons, aged two and five, and ordered the mother to come to their office for interrogation. The next day, they returned and took the couple's then-three-month old baby boy.While Ruth is a native Norwegian, Marius is Romanian. The two met when Ruth was on a religious mission to Romania, said Cristian Ionescu, a family friend who is a reverend at the Elim Romanian Pentecostal Church in Chicago."You can imagine how tragic this is for them," Ionescu told VICE News. "They are crying all the time. They have lost weight. They have been desperate at times. God and family and friends all over the world give them prayers and encouragement."Ionescu and others have planned demonstrations in front of the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, DC and other locations around the world on Saturday. In the US alone, they've garnered more than 60,000 signatures for a petition calling on Norway to return to the kids to their parents.Norwegian officials said that they couldn't discuss the details of the case because of privacy rules. But reports said that a school principal first raised concerns about the family, and Ruth admitted to the Barnevernet officials that that she would spank the children, which is illegal under Norwegian law."Not every time when they do something bad, more occasionally," she told the BBC, referring to how often she resorted to spanking. Officials, she added, "didn't find any physical marks or anything like that when they had medical examination on them, they were, are, all fine."An undated photo of the Bodnariu family. (Photo via Flickr)Though he was unaware of the details of the case because of confidentiality rules, Jon-Åge Øyslebø, the minister counselor for culture, communication, and education at the Norwegian Embassy in Washington, said that it's not a trifling matter to remove children from parental custody in his country."Children rights are very strong in Norway," Øyslebø told VICE News. "It's forbidden by law to apply any kind of corporal punishment."The family was allowed to meet together in February for the first time since the children were taken. Last week, after the family took the Barnevernet to court, a Norwegian judge gave the Bodnarius custody of their baby and allowed them to see the two boys twice a week for two hours at a time, according to the family's website. It's not clear what the court determined regarding the two girls.Related: Boko Haram Is Using More Children to Carry Out Suicide BombingsThe court verdict is private, said Øyslebø. But he speculated that the court must have agreed with the Barnevernet officials if the judge didn't let all the kids go home."The verdict indicates that there were reasons to intervene in this family," he said. "The decision to place them in temporary energy shelter homes was based on circumstances in the home and related to the children's upbringing."The children are now in emergency custody. A county panel in Norway is now scheduled next month to decide whether the children should be placed in foster care or returned to their parents.A protest supporting the Bodnariu family against the Barnevernet took place in February in Oslo.Ionescu suggested that Barnevernet officials didn't approve of the role of religion in the Bodnariu's home. The couple complained that investigators asked them extensively about their faith, whether it affects how they raise their children and other questions that Americans would find offensive, he said."It's a pretty secular country," said the reverend. "They have a new translation of the Bible that erased all the verses that talk about disciplining your children."Øyslebø disputed that thought. The Leader Council of the Pentecostal Movement of Norway also issued a statement saying that it doesn't believe Barnevernet officials were discriminating against the faithful."We have no reason to suspect that we are being treated differently than others in our country, due to our faith," the statement said.But Norwegian childcare experts have raised red flags about the Barnevernet. Last year, before officials took the Bodnarius' children, 170 psychologists, social workers, and other professionals signed a public letter to officials saying the system needs reform."Children are removed from the home on very weak evidence characterized by speculative interpretations," the letter said. "Too often we see that biological parents, who do not have all the world's resources behind them, stand no chance against a big and powerful public apparatus. We see a tendency for decisions based on incomplete observation basis and tendentious interpretations."Related: Warzones Risk Creating a Lost Generation of Children in the Middle East and North AfricaA "lack of parenting skills" is the reason most often cited by Barnevernet officials who are taking children, according to the BBC, which reported that foreign mothers in Norway are four times more likely to lose their children to the system.Accordingly, examples abound of angry foreigners damning the Barnevernet.Last year, Czech President Miloš Zeman compared the Norwegian child protection service to the Lebensborn program in Nazi Germany, which aimed to give the children of unmarried women to Aryan parents.Zeman was discussing a 2011 case where Barnevernet officials took two boys into custody because they told their nursery school teacher their father groped inside their pajamas. Police never brought charges against the father, but the parents still don't have custody of their children and the Barnevernet put one up for adoption last year. Norway has since agreed to notify Prague when it investigates parents who are Czech citizens.Lithuanian talk radio has also mocked the Barnevernet, saying officials seize foreign children to reduce inbreeding in Norway. Brazilian Vitoria Alves Jesumary fled for sanctuary in her country's embassy in Oslo three years ago after Barnevernet official raised questions about her daughter's eating habits. And Polish private investigator Krysztof Rutkowski has twice abducted children in the Barnevernet's care and spirited them out of Norway to their parents in Poland and Russia.Julie Gilbert Rosicky, executive director of the American branch of the International Social Service, a global child protection organization, said it was peculiar for officials to take children away from their parents unless the home was truly dangerous to their welfare. Norwegian officials might have otherwise explained what the Bodnarius were doing wrong before they simply grabbed their kids, she suggested."The bent of child protection is: do everything you can to keep the kid with their family," Rosicky said. "I hope and pray Norway has some legitimate safety concerns."Norway Is Taking Children From Their Parents and Sparking an Outcry | VICE NewsPeople are concerned about what seems to be a heavy handed application of the law.The Norwegian Child Welfare Services - WikipediaNorway accused of unfairly taking away immigrant childrenNorway's Barnevernet: They took our four children… then the baby - BBC NewsNorway’s Stolen Children?Tensions peak as Norway takes Lithuanian childrenChildren legally kidnapped from families in Norway

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Wikipedia has a good article summarizing the evidence linking bin Laden and al Qaeda to 9/11.Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - WikipediaExcerpts from this article are below:Two weeks after the September 11 attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation connected the hijackers to al-Qaeda, a global, decentralized terrorist network. In a number of video, audio, interview and printed statements, senior members of al-Qaeda have also asserted responsibility for organizing the September 11 attacks.It is believed that Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, andMohammed Atef were the ones who plotted the attacks after meeting together in 1999. It is also believed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the one who planned the attacks and that Atef was the one who organized the hijackers.Identifying the hijackersFurther information: Hijackers in the September 11 attacksThe FBI investigation into the attacks, codenamed operation PENTTBOM, was able to identify the 19 hijackers within days, as they made little effort to conceal their names on flight, credit card, and other records.By checking flight manifests and comparing them with other information, like watch lists, customs officials were able to find the names of all 19 hijackers quickly.Passengers and crew aboard the flights provided information about the hijackers while the hijacking was in progress. Two flight attendants on American Airlines Flight 11, Betty Ong and Madeline Amy Sweeney, contacted airline personnel on the ground. Sweeney provided the seat numbers of the hijackers, and descriptions of the men, identifying Mohamed Atta as one of the hijackers.A flight attendant on United Airlines Flight 175 called a United Airlines mechanic and reported that hijackers had killed the crew.While the hijacking was in progress on American Airlines Flight 77, several passengers, including a flight attendant, Renee May, contacted and reported details of the hijacking to persons on the ground.Sales clerks identified two individuals to whom they sold tickets on Flight 77 as the hijackers Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed.During the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 93, Jeremy Glick identified the hijackers as Arabic-looking and carrying box-cutters.Mohamed Atta's luggage did not make the connection from his Portland flight to American Airlines Flight 11. In his suitcase, authorities found a handwritten letter in Arabic. As well, a handwritten letter was found at the crash site of United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and another in Hazmi's vehicle.When examining Mohamed Atta's left-behind luggage, the FBI found important clues about the hijackers and their plans. Atta's luggage contained instructional videotapes for flying large aircraft, a fuel consumption calculator, and a flight plan, along with a copy of the Quran.His luggage also contained papers that revealed the identity of all 19 hijackers, along with a copy of Atta's last will and testament.The passport of hijacker Abdulaziz Alomari was also found in Mohamed Atta’s left-behind luggage.Various items of evidence were found in vehicles left behind at the airports, in luggage that did not make it onto the flights, and at the crash scenes. A rental car belonging to the hijackers was found at Boston's Logan International Airport, which contained an Arabic language flight manual and documents from Huffman Aviation in Florida. There, investigators were able to find Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi's previous address in Hamburg, Germany.Nawaf al-Hazmi's 1988 blue Toyota Corolla was found on September 12 in Dulles International Airport's hourly parking lot. Inside the vehicle, authorities found a letter written by Mohamed Atta, maps of Washington, D.C., and New York City, a cashier's check made out to a Phoenix flight school, four drawings of a Boeing 757 cockpit, a box cutter-type knife, and a page with notes and phone numbers.In New York City, a passport belonging to Satam al-Suqami was found by a passerby before the towers collapsed, and given to a NYPD detective.The passports of two of the hijackers of Flight 93 were also found intact at the crash site.On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the 19 hijackers, along with information about the possible nationalities and aliases of many.Assigning responsibilityFor several months after the 9/11 attacks, no one, nor any group, claimed responsibility for the attacks, so the primary responsibility fell solely upon the hijackers, all of whom were killed and all of whom left no message or any claim of responsibility, explaining why they had carried out the attacks. As the media covered the 9/11 attacks unfolding, many quickly speculated that bin Laden was behind the attacks.On the day of the attacks, the National Security Agency intercepted communications that pointed to bin Laden, as did German intelligence agencies.This helped rule out other immediate suspects, such as Croatian nationalists, who had bombed Grand Central Terminal on September 11, 1976.Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate inAfghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, also by accessing material in their intelligence agency files. The New York Times reported on September 12 that: "Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams, and began tracing the recent movements of the men." FBI agents in Florida investigating the hijackers quickly "descended on flight schools, neighborhoods and restaurants in pursuit of leads." At one flight school, "students said investigators were there within hours of Tuesday’s attacks."The Washington Postlater reported that "In the hours after Tuesday’s bombings, investigators searched their files on [Satam] al-Suqami and [Ahmed] al-Ghamdi, noted the pair’s ties to [Nabil] al-Marabh and launched a hunt for him."Based on the evidence, authorities in the United States quickly asserted that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization were solely responsible for the attacks, and other suspects were ruled out. TheGovernment of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion.Although he denied the attacks at first, Osama bin Laden had since claimed full responsibility.Author Laurie Mylroie, writing in the conservative political magazine The American Spectator in 2006, argued that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his family are the primary architects of 9/11 and similar attacks, that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's association with Osama bin Laden is secondary, and that Al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the attack is after the fact and opportunistic.In an opposing point of view, former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing in Time magazine in 2007, asserted that George W. Bush Administration's publicizing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's claims of responsibility for 9/11 and numerous other acts was a mendacious attempt to claim that all of the significant actors in 9/11 had been caught.Al-Qaeda and Osama bin LadenAftermath of the bomb detonation on the World Trade Center in 1993September 17, 2001 – A small portion of the scene where the World Trade Center collapsed following the September 11 attacks.September 14, 2001– "The Pile", ManhattanSee also: Hijackers in the September 11 attacksIntelligence experts speak of a "short list" of prime suspects—groups that possess both the means and the motive to carry out the crime. Two of the passengers had been identified as al-Qaeda members and were on the FBI's terrorist-alert list prior to 9/11: Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi[1][2]. It appears certain that all hijackers had Arab origins, and none were Afghan; moreover, both in their immense scale, careful planning and refraining from claiming responsibility, the attacks are reminiscent of al-Qaeda's previous attacks such as the 1998 US embassy bombings that killed over 200 people.World Trade Center bombing of 1993Main article: World Trade Center 1993 bombingsIn the World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Arab Islamist terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500 lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device killed six and injured over a thousand people.It was intended to devastate the foundation of the North Tower, causing it to collapse onto its twin.The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef,Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Ahmad Ajaj, and Abdul Rahman Yasin.They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle, who would later allegedly admit to planning the September 11 attacks.Statements of motives prior to September 11, 2001[edit]Main articles: Motivations of the September 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden Fatwa, Videos of Osama bin Laden, and Wikisource:Osama bin Laden's Declaration of WarStarting in 1996, Osama bin Laden stated in public proclamations (fatwas) and in interviews with journalists his common list of grievances which he cited as the reason for his declaration of war against the United States.In 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri (a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad) co-signed a fatwa (binding religious edict) in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, declaring:[t]he ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Makka) from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah".In an interview with journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai published in TIME Magazine on January 11, 1999, Osama bin Laden was quoted as saying:The International Islamic Front for Jihad against the US and Israel has issued a crystal-clear fatwa calling on the Islamic nation to carry on jihad aimed at liberating holy sites. The nation of Muhammad has responded to this appeal. If the instigation for jihad against the Jews and the Americans in order to liberate Al-Aksa Mosque and the Holy Ka'aba Islamic shrines in the Middle East is considered a crime, then let history be a witness that I am a criminal.Planning the 9/11 attacksAccording to interviews by Al-Jazeera as well as United States interrogations of al-Qaeda members Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in 2002 and 2003 respectively), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the instigator and prime organizer of the attacks. Bin al-Shibh may have been picked as a hijacker but he failed to get into the United States.Khalid Mohammed had provided funding to his nephew Ramzi Yousef for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. In addition, he collaborated on Oplan Bojinka which called for ten or more airliners to be bombed in mid-air or hijacked for use as missiles.Planning for Oplan Bojinka began in 1994, and was funded in part by Osama bin Laden, but was thwarted by an accidental fire in 1995.In mid-1996, Khalid Mohammed presented a new plan to the leadership of al-Qaeda that called for several airplanes on both east and west coasts to be hijacked and flown into targets.According to the bin al-Shibh and Khalid Mohammed, six of the hijackers played active parts in the planning, including the four who became the pilots. The other two were Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.CIA operatives reportedly monitored the movements of these two known militants when they visited the US but did not notify the FBI or gain an inkling of what the hijackers were planning. However, during a 2006 Moussaoui trial cross-examination, FBI agents stated that the bureau was aware, years before the attacks in 2001, that al-Qaeda planned to use planes to destroy important buildings. Philippine Chief Superintendent Avelino Razon had noted such plans during the 1995 investigation of Oplan Bojinka, of which Razon saidI didn't imagine that they would ram a 757 aircraft into the World Trade Center. I thought the suicide mission [would involve] a Cessna light aircraft loaded with several kilos of explosives, like a Japanese Kamikaze World War II pilot diving into a target.The targets ultimately chosen were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the United States Capitol. Flight 93 was apparently meant to crash into the Capitol. The White House was considered as a target; initially dismissed as being too difficult to locate from the air, it was later included in the plans.In the communications that developed as the scheme took form, the Pentagon's code name was theFaculty of Arts, Capitol Hill was the Faculty of Law, and the World Trade Center was coded as the Faculty of Town Planning.Al-Qaeda statements after 9/11Al-Qaeda's spokesman, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, said in a video sent to al Jazeera and broadcast in October 2001 the following:The Americans should know that the storm of plane attacks will not abate, with God's permission. There are thousands of the Islamic nations' youths who are eager to die just as the Americans are eager to live.Osama bin Laden statements after 9/11Prior to his death on May 2, 2011, the FBI listed bin Laden as one of the "10 Most Wanted" in connection with several incidents including the USS Cole bombing and the 1998 United States embassy bombings in East Africa. The FBI's "FBI Most Wanted Terrorists" poster does not specifically hang responsibility for 9/11 on bin Laden, instead it only states "Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."FBI spokesman Rex Tomb said, however: "There's no mystery here. They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. … There is a logic to it", namely, the long-standing practice of only putting criminal charges on the notice. Bin Laden was charged with the 1998 embassy bombings, not 9/11. David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who dealt with terrorism-related cases at the time of bin Laden's indictment for the 1998 bombings, explained that, "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view. If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."Immediately after September 11, 2001, bin Laden praised the attacks, but denied responsibility for them.On September 16, 2001, an Al Jazeera news presenter read a message purportedly signed by Osama bin Laden, in which the following words were stated: "I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation."In an interview with bin Laden, published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat Karachi on September 28, 2001, he stated: "I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act."There was reportedly no way to prove the e-mail published in Pakistan came from bin Laden. The Taliban denied he had access to any communications.In late October 2001, Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Allouni conducted an interview with Osama bin Laden which was videotaped. Al-Jazeera refused to broadcast it and terminated its affiliation agreement with CNN due to CNN's broadcasting of the interview on January 31, 2002.In the interview, bin Laden addressed the September 11 attacks, saying:If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists ... We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God before that occurs.In November 2001, US forces recovered a videotape from a bombed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed a man purported to be Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape, bin Laden talks of planning the attacks. Translations from the tape include the following lines:...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad [Atta] from the Egyptian family [meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group], was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.In May 2002, FBI Director Robert Mueller noted that his organization had not uncovered a single piece of paper, "either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere", that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot.In late November 2002, a letter attributed to bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's "letter to America". It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. Itemizing a list of perceived Western wrongdoings, the letter concludes that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression" and hinted at further attacks. Also included are a list of demands, advice, and a statement of grievances against the American government and its people.On February 11, 2003, Al Jazeera broadcast an audio tape purportedly from bin Laden.Shortly before the US presidential election in 2004, in a taped statement, bin Laden publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the US, and claimed a direct link to the attacks. He said that the attacks were carried out because "we are a free people who do not accept injustice, and we want to regain the freedom of our nation."In an audio message that surfaced on the Internet in May 2006, the speaker, who is alleged to be Osama bin Laden, defends Zacarias Moussaoui, who was undergoing a trial for his participation in the September 11 attacks. The voice in the audio message saysI begin by talking about the honorable brother Zacarias Moussaoui. The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of September 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers—Allah have mercy upon them—with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission.Other suspects within al-QaedaAs of 2004, several people—including Mohammed, bin al-Shibh, and Mohammed al Qahtani, the 20th hijacker—were being held by the US as illegal combatants; however, the United States had no one on trial for the attacks. In Germany, Mounir El Motassadeq was convicted of over 3000 counts of accessory to murder for helping finance the hijackers but the verdict was put aside and a new trial scheduled.Abdelghani Mzoudi was acquitted in Germany on the same charges.Anwar al-AwlakiImam Anwar al-Awlaki has been linked to Al-Qaeda and persons involved in the attacks, though he denied any connections. In 1998 and 1999, he served as Vice President for the Charitable Society for Social Welfare (CSSW) in San Diego, founded by Abdul Majeed al-Zindani of Yemen, who has since been placed on many terrorism lists.During a terrorism trial, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Brian Murphy testified that CSSW was a “front organization to funnel money to terrorists,” and US federal prosecutors have described it as being used to support Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.The FBI investigated al-Awlaki beginning in June 1999 through March 2000 for possible fundraising for Hamas, links to al-Qaeda, and a visit in early 2000 by a close associate of "the blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman (now in prison for his role in the1993 World Trade Center attack). The FBI's interest was also triggered by the fact that he had been contacted by a possible "procurement agent" for bin Laden, Ziyad Khaleel, who helped purchase a satellite phone to call his Yemen communications hub that was used in planning the attacks.But the FBI was unable to unearth sufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution.While al-Awlaki was an imam in San Diego, witnesses told the FBI he had a close relationship with two of the hijackers in the September 11 attacks (Nawaf Al-Hazmi andKhalid Almihdhar) in 2000, and served as their spiritual advisor.The 9/11 Commission Report indicated that the hijackers also "reportedly respected [him] as a religious figure."ties say the two hijackers regularly attended the mosque he led in San Diego, and al-Awlaki had many closed-door meetings with them, which led investigators to believe al-Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.He left San Diego in mid-2000, traveling to "various countries".In January 2001, he headed east and served as Imam at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area.Esam Omeish hired al-Awlaki to be the mosque's imam.Fluent in English, known for giving eloquent talks on Islam, and with a mandate to attract young non-Arabic speakers, al-Awlaki "was the magic bullet", according to mosque spokesmanJohari Abdul-Malik; "he had everything all in a box.""He had an allure. He was charming."Shortly after this, his sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers (Al-Hazmi again, and Hani Hanjour; which the 9/11 Commission Report concluded "may not have been coincidental"), and by Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan.Furthermore, when police raided the Hamburg, Germany, apartment of Ramzi bin al-Shibh (the "20th hijacker") while investigating the 9/11 attacks, his telephone number was found among bin al-Shibh's personal contact information."In my view, he is more than a coincidental figure," said House Intelligence Committee member Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA).Writing on the IslamOnline.net website six days after the 9/11 attacks, he suggested that Israeli intelligence agents might have been responsible for the attacks, and that the FBI "went into the roster of the airplanes and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default."On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was arrested with a group of five Yemenis by Yemeni authorities. He claims it was with regard to a "secret police investigation" over "tribal issues", but it has been reported to relate to charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.Al-Awlaki blames the U.S. for pressuring the Yemeni authorities to arrest him, and says that in approximately September 2007 he was interviewed by FBI agents with regard to the 9/11 attacks and other subjects. Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert, noted that his name was on a list of 100 prisoners whose release was sought by al-Qaida-linked militants in Yemen.Although al-Awlaki was covered as relatively minor figure in the 9/11 attacks, his involvement was noted again in 2009 after the Fort Hood shooting where the suspect had been found to be communicating by e-mail to Awlaki in Yemen, he was later linked to several terror plots and attacks in the US, Canada and UK, including the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 attack by his former student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.TalibanOn October 4, 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair released information compiled by Western intelligence agencies connecting Osama bin Laden to the Afghanistan's Taliban leadership as well as being the leader of the al-Qaeda organization.The Taliban government gave safe haven to Osama bin Laden in the years leading up to the attack, and his al-Qaeda network may have had a close relationship with the Taliban army and police.On the day of 9/11, the Taliban foreign minister told the Arab television network Al Jazeera: "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."The United States requested the Taliban to shut down all al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, open them to inspection and turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban refused all these requests. Instead they offered to extradite Osama bin Laden to an Islamic country, for trial under Islamic law, if the United States presented evidence of his guilt.The Taliban had previously refused to extradite bin Laden to the United States, or prosecute him, after he was indicted by the US federal courts for involvement in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.The Taliban deemed eyewitness testimony and satellite phone call recordings entered in the public record in February 2001 during a trial as insufficient grounds to extradite bin Laden for his involvement in the bombings.[citation needed]Invoking the Bush Doctrine, which stated "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them", the United States and Britain invaded and overthrew the Taliban regime in 2001, using air power, special forces and the Northern Alliance as a land army.On November 29, 2007, a videotape was released that The Central Intelligence Agency says is likely to be from bin Laden. In it the speaker claims sole responsibility for the attacks and specifically denies any prior knowledge of them by The Taliban or the Afghan people.Financing the attacksAccording to the 9/11 Commission Report, the 9/11 plotters spent between $400,000 and $500,000 to plan and conduct the attack:al-Qaeda funded the plotters. KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammad] provided his operatives with nearly all the money they needed to travel to the United States, train, and live... The US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.CNN and other news outlets reported in September and October 2001 that $100,000 was wired from the United Arab Emirates to lead hijacker Mohamed Atta prior to the attacks, by Ahmed Omar Saeed (Syed) Sheikh, a long time Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence asset.The report, which was later confirmed by CNN, stated that "Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida... In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars – believed to be excess funds from the operation – back to Syed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. Syed also is described as a key figure in the funding operation of al-Qaeda"The day after this report was published, the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, was fired from his position.Indian news outlets reported the FBI was investigating the possibility that Gen. Mahmood Ahmed ordered Saeed Sheikh to send the $100,000 to Atta, while most Western media outlets only reported his connections to the Taliban as the reason for his departure.The Wall Street Journal was one of the few Western news organizations to follow up on the story, citing the Times of India: "US authorities sought [Gen. Mahmood Ahmed's] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 [was] wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of General Mahmood."The 9/11 Commission Report concludes: "we have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding."The difficulty in tracking the funding is due to the traditional means of zakat, a Muslim form of charitable giving essential to proper following of the faith and hawala, another ancient system of transferring funds based on trust and connections, including family, clan, and regional affiliations.