Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, the most senior al-Qaeda member to be tried in a U.S. civilian court, was convicted of aiding the group after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by helping bring in new recruits and serving as a spokesman in fiery speeches broadcast around the globe.
Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law willingly agreed on Sept. 11, 2001, to speak on behalf of al- Qaeda in statements and videos to help attract new recruits and suicide bombers, a prosecutor told a federal jury in New York.
Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law told a federal jury that he didn’t have any role in terrorist plots and instead, at the behest of the al-Qaeda leader, preached to recruits at an Afghanistan training camp in 2001 to have “merciful hearts.”
A U.K. man who admitted he plotted to bomb passenger jets with explosives hidden in his shoes told a Manhattan federal jury he “brainstormed” with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Prosecutors in the case of Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law can show jurors an image of him seated next to the al-Qaeda leader from a video taken the day after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a judge ruled.
On the afternoon of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Osama bin Laden summoned his son-in- law, Sulaiman Abu Ghayth, seeking help to recruit others to join the mission to attack Americans, a prosecutor said.
It’s clear the Barack Obama administration needs to answer for failing to secure the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where four Americans died in a September terrorist attack. Yet the accountability debate is getting in the way of the more important discussion the Benghazi attack should provoke.