Not so fast. Bin Laden also has zero reason to tell the truth in this matter. If Moussaoui is indeed innocent, then Bin Laden gets a jolt of positive press for revealing that. If Moussaoui is a conspirator, then Bin Laden gets his man freed. Since the latter does more good than the former for Bin Laden (although both are positive outcomes for him), plus it's in his best interests to portray the US as big, bad and incompetent and unjust, he's virtually 100% guaranteed to say that Moussaoui is innocent -- regardless of the truth of that.
Credibility tends to be a function of whether someone is (a) credible, (b) they have a reputation for truth-telling, (c) whether they've taken an oath or have some other overarching reason to be truthful and/or (d) whether they have something to lose if they tell the truth. It's easy for people to say things in their own best interests. It's a lot harder -- so people tend to be believed a lot more -- if they say things that are against self-interest. Saying that Moussaoui is innocent and should be freed is 100% in Bin Laden's self-interest, even regardless of whether the statement is factual. Bin Laden also offers zero proof, is not under oath and has neither a reputation for credibility than for truth-telling. The statement is hearsay and means as much in court as, well, nothing. Sorry.
lucky guy... although he is a big threat to american security
A jury heard the evidence in a way none of us did. I am satisfied with the verdict, unless hard proof is offered they made a mistake.
jespah wrote:Not so fast. Bin Laden also has zero reason to tell the truth in this matter. If Moussaoui is indeed innocent, then Bin Laden gets a jolt of positive press for revealing that.
Wait a second: Are you telling me that Bin Laden, just because he organized the murder of 3000 people, wouldn't draw a line at telling a lie?
