Iraq was found to be liable for attacks on 9/11

[hroos]

I just listened to the interview of Dr. Ron Paul by Michael Smerconish Morning Show in his Philidephia morning show (you can find it here (http://thebigtalker1210.com/pages/24858.php)). It went well. I wanted to know more about Michael Smerconish and I found out that his mentor was the venerable Jim Beasley who successfully argued the case of Iraq's liability in the attacks on 9/11 in the New York Federal Court. I read more about on the USA Today's webpage (here it is (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm)).

From the above mentioned USA Today article (dated 5/7/2003)

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer marked the first time that a court had pinned some blame for the attacks on Iraq.

Does anyone recall this event? And does anyone have a rebuttal against those who think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

[SeekLiberty]

I just listened to the interview of Dr. Ron Paul by Michael Smerconish Morning Show in his Philidephia morning show (you can find it here (http://thebigtalker1210.com/pages/24858.php)). It went well. I wanted to know more about Michael Smerconish and I found out that his mentor was the venerable Jim Beasley who successfully argued the case of Iraq's liability in the attacks on 9/11 in the New York Federal Court. I read more about on the USA Today's webpage (here it is (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-05-07-911-judge-awards_x.htm)).

From the above mentioned USA Today article (dated 5/7/2003)

Does anyone recall this event? And does anyone have a rebuttal against those who think Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

IMO, the heading seems a bit misleading especially if one does not dig to read this post or go to the article to find it was not a CRIMINAL prosecution but a civil lawsuit which has much lower standards for conviction (besides it not being a Jury Trial).

The headline of the article reads "Lawsuit ruling finds Iraq partly responsible for 9/11"

The article says ...

"On March 20, about $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen since 1990 were transferred (read STOLEN from THE IRAQI PEOPLE) by President Bush to the U.S. Treasury to be used as a down payment on re-building postwar Iraq.

Wow. Sounds pretty damning to the liar and thief we have for a President!

He also cited Colin Powell's speech (read lies) to the United Nations on Feb. 5 in which the secretary of State linked Iraq to Islamist terrorism.

Wow. The attorney relied on LIES for evidence. Simply amazing!

Even the attorney admitted ...

The testimony, Baer wrote, "barely" established a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq but offered enough proof to persuade a "reasonable jury." (Read an IGNORANT Jury if there was a Jury trial)

Hmmm ... "now for the REST of the story."

Just think, this wasn't even a "Trial by the Country." It was a trial by the Government, and a single Lawyer wearing a long black dress made the ruling. What a surprise for him to blame Iraq. :rolleyes: It's comforting to know that all Federal Judges are honest and impecable in their rulings. :rolleyes:

Of course, civil lawsuits rules of evidence aren't as strict (for lying witnesses) and civil law doesn't have the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for conviction either.

If I was on a Jury for something like this, I'd need to see a lot more proof than the lies by Colon Powow. As it now stands, I'd vote Iraq is "NOT GUILTY" of the September 11th massacre.

- SL

[Rabbit]

I don't recall this event..

I looked into it a little and from what I can tell it's not based on anything substantial.. The Judge admits his conclusion is based on multiple layers of hearsay.. There's no direct evidence, only a bunch of legalese that allows opinion to determine if something is a fact..

"The opinion testimony of the plaintiffs' experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist acts of September 11. . .

"Their opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue, provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's criminal acts."

Utter mumbo-jumbo if you ask me, which is why the story never went anywhere..

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/03-04142.PDF

[Kregener]

Would it not be easier for someone to post the "evidence" that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

You would think...if such "evidence" existed.

It doesn't.

Judges do all sorts of whacky and funny things.

Refer to the 2nd Amendment for all you need to know...

[ChooseLiberty]

It would have been funny if OBL had shown up to defend himself in the case.

This decision was seems to be 5/03 when people were still believing all the crap the government had dished out about Iraq. The "expert" testimony is crap, but since there doesn't seem to be anyone to contest it, the judge admitted it.

Just more propaganda.