Because in America, we don't convict people in absentia. Our Supreme Court believes it's a violation of an individuals right to due process. And in the event we have charged somebody in absentia, it's because they've fled in the middle of a trial. Bin Laden has been indicted on several occasions in the US, first by Clinton and not Bush, but he'll never been convicted of anything unless he steps into a U.S. courtroom. Which we all know will never happen. But lets say the U.S. has convicted him in absentia, you'd probably say it was a sham because he wasn't given the right to defend himself.
I shouldn't have used the word "convicted" in my previous post, because the issue isn't about Bin Laden not being CONVICTED for 9/11, it's about him not being INDICTED and CHARGED for 9/11. The US government still doesn't have enough evidence to formally charge him for 9/11. That's why there is no mention of the attacks on Bin Laden's official FBI page.
If it gets you off running around making statements like this, go ahead I guess. But it doesn't change one thing. Bad guys in history don't need to be found guilty in a court of law for people to know they've done bad things.
Again, there's no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. You call him guilty but his case isn't even solid enough for the department of Justice to present to a Federal grand jury and eventually charge him. Basically, if the US government was to bring his case to the department of Justice, it would be rejected. Plain and simple. Let alone him being indicted/charged and convicted.
Bin Laden hasn't been formally indicted and charged for 9/11, so how is he guilty for it?