Iraqi 9/11 connection validated in court case

bulldog

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
163
0
16
Finally, I found it. I knew I had read this before. It's pretty long, but I always felt this was the case. Irag and 9/11 are connected.

What the Judge Said In light of Thursday's Wall Street Journal report detailing new evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks, it's worth noting that the only time the question of an Iraq-9/11 connection has been legally tested, the verdict was affirmative. In a woefully underreported decision on May 8, 2003, Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer ruled in favor of two 9/11 victim families who had sued Iraq and others claiming they were culpable in the attacks. The court awarded plaintiffs $104 million based on the Baer's findings.The ruling by Judge Baer - a Carter appointee, by the way - was quite detailed. In fact, we suspect that the reason for the media's near-blackout on the case is because most Americans would consider his findings to be very persuasive.Here, in part, is what Judge Baer had to say about the Iraq-9/11 connection:

"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.

"Judge Baer continued:"[Former CIA] Director [James] Woolsey reviewed several facts that tended in his view to show Iraq's involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in general and likely in the events of September 11 specifically.

"First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway."The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.

"Second, Director Woolsey mentioned a meeting that allegedly occurred in Prague in April 2001 between Mohammad Atta, the apparent leader of the hijackings, and a high-level Iraqi intelligence agent. According to James Woolsey, the evidence indicates that this was an 'operational meeting' because Atta flew to the Czech Republic and then returned to the United States shortly afterwards. The Minister of Interior of the Czech Republic, Stanislav Gross, stated on October 26, 2001:"'In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Muhammad Atta in the Czech republic there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi Intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status . . .

'"Third, Director Woolsey noted that his conclusion was also based on 'contacts,' which refer to interactions between Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/al Qaeda that are described in a letter from George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to Senator Bob Graham on October 7, 2002. Director Tenet's carefully worded letter included in substance the same allegations, but with less detail, that Secretary of State Colin Powell made before the U.N. Security Counsel on Feb. 5, 2003, in his remarks about 'the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network. . . .'"Both Director Tenet and Secretary Powell mentioned 'senior level contacts' between Iraq and al Qaeda going back to the early 1990s [although both acknowledged that part of the interactions in the early to mid-1990s pertained to achieving a mutual non-aggression understanding]; both mentioned that al Qaeda sought to acquire poison gas and training in its use from Iraq; both mentioned that al Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, after September 2001. . . .

"Finally, plaintiffs also place considerable weight on an article that appeared in a regional Iraqi newspaper in July 2001, two months before the disaster of September 11. This article, a paean to bin Laden, mentions that bin Laden 1] 'will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House,' 2] 'is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,' and 3] 'will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.' See Exs. 16-18, Naeem Abd Muhalhal, America, An Obsession Called Osama Bin Ladin, Al-Nasiriya, July 21, 2001 [original, translation, and certificate of accuracy of translation]."Because, according to Director Woolsey, 'all publications in Iraq really appear at the sufferance of and with a full vetting by the Iraqi regime,' see Tr. 158, and because of the coincidences and the fact that '[t]here is a certain propensity, I think, on bin Laden's part and on Saddam's part ... to try to communicate in somewhat vague terms,' Director Woolsey concluded that there is a probability of a vague foreknowledge of what was contemplated. See Tr. 159." [End of Excerpt]

http://helloiraq.blogspot.com/2005/07/iraqi-911-connection-validated-in.html

Bull Dog
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
You know...this has some pretty damn far-reaching implications, and I would think that mainstream media would be spurting in their pants trying to cover this story...so why is it only covered in some dude's blog?

Don't you know that blogs are only for stuff that the government doesn't want you to know about?
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Don't you read other peoples post Bulldog :? Bush and his gang are getting stinking rich because of this bullshit war they started don't you find that odd?This is total bullshit and you can keep your head in the sand but the FACT IS THEY LIED THERE WAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION :x This whole war is about them getting rich at yours and the rest of your countrys expense
 

bulldog

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
163
0
16
Vanni Fucci said:
You know...this has some pretty damn far-reaching implications, and I would think that mainstream media would be spurting in their pants trying to cover this story...so why is it only covered in some dude's blog?

Don't you know that blogs are only for stuff that the government doesn't want you to know about?

I know this is a blog, but it is a excerpt from an article I read some time ago. Try and find something specific on the internet when your key word is "Iraq." I'll try to find the original document. I felt lucky I found it anywhere. Maybe Mog could help - he is pretty good with research. What say, Mog? Or, ITN?

Bull Dog
 

bulldog

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
163
0
16
mrmom2 said:
Don't you read other peoples post Bulldog :? Bush and his gang are getting stinking rich because of this bullshit war they started don't you find that odd?This is total bullshit and you can keep your head in the sand but the FACT IS THEY LIED THERE WAS NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION :x This whole war is about them getting rich at yours and the rest of your countrys expense

I find a legal case with a large settlement that supports what I believe, and you are mad at me? Hey, mommy, point that pistol at the right possum.

Bull Dog
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Hey dog keep your head in the sand :p Your bullshit story isn't going to change the fact your goverment is morally bankrupt.And stealing your taxes ,bankrupting your country :wink:
 

bulldog

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
163
0
16
bulldog said:
Vanni Fucci said:
You know...this has some pretty damn far-reaching implications, and I would think that mainstream media would be spurting in their pants trying to cover this story...so why is it only covered in some dude's blog?

Don't you know that blogs are only for stuff that the government doesn't want you to know about?

I know this is a blog, but it is a excerpt from an article I read some time ago. Try and find something specific on the internet when your key word is "Iraq." I'll try to find the original document. I felt lucky I found it anywhere. Maybe Mog could help - he is pretty good with research. What say, Mog? Or, ITN?

Bull Dog

OK - I found the court ruling. Here it is:

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/01CV10132.pdf

Bull Dog
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Bulldog,

Thank you for finding the link...but it proves nothing.

This judgement was delivered at a time when the US Government was spewing off on every air-wave in the world about Iraq/al Qaeda collusion...but that has since been shown to be false and based upon either bad intelligence, or bold faced lies...
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
That is a civil suit. Civil suits can find someone guilty without the restriction of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'll remind you of the OJ Simpson trial. Not guilty for the crime. But guilty on the civil suits.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
I think not said:
That is a civil suit. Civil suits can find someone guilty without the restriction of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I'll remind you of the OJ Simpson trial. Not guilty for the crime. But guilty on the civil suits.

I was not arguing whether the judgement was valid in the context of civil litigation though.

I was arguing that the fact that this judgement was delivered does not alone provide evidence that the position that the US administration took towards the Iraq/al Qaeda collusion was true.

...and as there is no other evidence to draw from, the fact that this judgement exists is moot.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Vanni Fucci said:
I was not arguing whether the judgement was valid in the context of civil litigation though.

I was arguing that the fact that this judgement was delivered does not alone provide evidence that the position that the US administration took towards the Iraq/al Qaeda collusion was true.

...and as there is no other evidence to draw from, the fact that this judgement exists is moot.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make Vanni. In a civil suit, you do not have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented. Hence it does not constitute any hard proof of the accusations made.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
I think not said:
Vanni Fucci said:
I was not arguing whether the judgement was valid in the context of civil litigation though.

I was arguing that the fact that this judgement was delivered does not alone provide evidence that the position that the US administration took towards the Iraq/al Qaeda collusion was true.

...and as there is no other evidence to draw from, the fact that this judgement exists is moot.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make Vanni. In a civil suit, you do not have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented. Hence it does not constitute any hard proof of the accusations made.

Alright then ITN...my mistake.

I'm not used to being on the same side of an argument as you... :wink:
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Cool my mother inlaw just showed up so I'm off tomorrow too 8) I'm sucking back my 4 cool one as we type :p Hey wheres the Rev I'll bet he's having a cool one too :lol:
 

bulldog

Electoral Member
Jun 16, 2005
163
0
16
I think not said:
Vanni Fucci said:
I was not arguing whether the judgement was valid in the context of civil litigation though.

I was arguing that the fact that this judgement was delivered does not alone provide evidence that the position that the US administration took towards the Iraq/al Qaeda collusion was true.

...and as there is no other evidence to draw from, the fact that this judgement exists is moot.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make Vanni. In a civil suit, you do not have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt on the evidence presented. Hence it does not constitute any hard proof of the accusations made.

But it does not make the decision null and void. It does prove something. This judge made a ruling, and it can be used as a precedent in future cases, if there are any. Can you not concede that there are many facts you do not know about this case? Isn't it possible that the judge is right?

Bull Dog