Judge: Iran, Taliban, al Qaeda liable for 9/11
In some other countries, you have to work really hard to start a war.
When I read it’s a 100 billion dollar lawsuit I couldn’t but LOL for I saw Dr. Evil from Austin Powers movies. Next, I read that Saudi Arabia has been removed from the lawsuit and realized it’s really true.
Seriously, is it this easy?
What is your actual issue?
This was a 10 year old case, and while I doubt anyone expects to collect a dime it looks like it was a real, big boy legal case that had real, big boy lawyers and real big boy evidence and witness testimony.
I’m guessing since you’ve done 10 years worth of research into this and interviewed hundreds of witnesses and compiled mountains of physical and documentary evidence just like the parties in this case you are confident that this case is some huge joke and its conclusions a farce?
I’m a much more casual observer of 9/11 and its aftermath than all that, I don’t actually think it’s too outlandish to suggest that al-Qaeda and the Taliban would bear some legal responsibility for 9/11. Since al-Qaeda actually carried out the attacks and the Taliban without any controversy has been confirmed to have given al-Qaeda safe haven.
There was actual testimony at trial that Iran had developed plans for waging war against the United States which included flying planes into buildings. That the Ayatollah had fore knowledge of the attacks, and there is also evidence that Iran has provided support to al-Qaeda.
BTW, I’m absolutely not saying Iran (or even Saudi Arabia) is actually responsible for 9/11. But I am saying a lot of evidence was collected and presented in a 10 year long case, so I don’t know that I buy into the reaction you have which is basically that we should treat this as a farce.
I don’t believe anyone involved expects to collect money, but considering the woman who started the case lost a husband in the towers I think she’s not doing it to be farcical.
It is absolutely an utter farce to which you are a willing participant and enabler.
Hopefully, this makes it clear.
So you nothing to actually debate about this issue? What an interesting thread.
I am only interested to read how Americans (as I am not) rationalize and internalize this very innovative form of warmongering propaganda. Yours was brilliant.
Also, I admit GD may not be the best place for it so I leave it to Mods to handle it.
I find it hard to believe that Iran had anything to do with the al Qaeda since the latter is Sunni. The Taliban certainly has targeted Shi’ites. It wouldn’t make since for Iran to support al Qaeda. Of course, it also wouldn’t make sense for the USA to give Pakistan so much aid when Pakistan was funneling millions upon millions of support to the Taliban while the Taliban was supporting al Qaeda, but the USA still did it.
Everything I have read shows that Iran was giving money to the Northern Alliance and Massoud in Afghanistan leading up to September 11, 2001 so that they could fight against the Taliban and by extension al Qaeda. (Of course, Massoud was assassinated on September 9, 2001.)
Martin, what was the evidence that Iran aided al Qaeda?
There are exceptions - Iran has assisted Hamas, a Sunni organization, mainly through its proxy Hizballah (a Shiite organization). However, unlike AQ, Hamas is a “local” organization that doesn’t target Shiites, mainly because there are very few Shiites in the areas it operates.
Did you guys even read about the case? It’s based on testimony from former members of Iran’s security forces.
Like I said, I’m not necessarily buying into all the conclusions made in this trial. Hell, I wasn’t even aware this trial was going on. But they did actually have witnesses, evidence, etc behind their conclusions. I’m as willing as the next guy to disbelieve stories from Iranian defectors, potentially made to help themselves personally. But all I’m saying is on the face of it, based on the evidence I read about in the article, unless someone is actually wanted to debate the matter for real I don’t know that it’s necessarily correct to just start some weird OP that makes no argument and just seems to be making some joke about the trial. How is that even a debate?
Personally, people often talk about how Iran wouldn’t help such and such group because of ideological differences. However, at the same time if you look at the history of countries like Iran, Libya, North Korea, and back to the Cold War, the USSR, you will find instances where ideological enemies might support each other as part of larger geopolitical aims.
In addition to the trial itself, here’s a article talking about a State Department report that discusses Iran’s involvement with both al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I’ve never been under the impression Iran has much to do with either group, but I’ve heard enough rumblings about Iran providing low level aid to both groups that I don’t necessarily think it’s impossible they may have provided some level of aid even pre-9/11.
Without looking over all the details of a 10-year long trial, if the trial had evidence showing al-Qaeda actually carried out the attack, and the Taliban provided known safe haven and support to al-Qaeda allowing them a base of operations which allowed them to conduct the attack, and Iran provided some low level aid to the Taliban which allowed them to aid al-Qaeda…I can “see” how you might “attach” legal liability along that chain. I’m not saying any of that happened, just saying in a trial about legal liability it’s not impossible convincing evidence actually came about.
I’m also not sure how much of a fight the defendants put up in this case. I know that the Saudis apparently had a lawyer representing their interests who got them out of the case, it’s possible (likely?) the Taliban/al-Qaeda/Iran didn’t view the trial as legitimate and thus didn’t meaningfully contest it through legal representation. In which case it’s not really all that ludicrous a result as one might expect…
newcomer, please offer a debate topic or I’ll just close this.
I agree that its pretty stupid to pin 9/11 on Iran.
The article doesn’t say that. The OP got it wrong (what a shock!). Here’s what it says:
I’ve seen reports from the US government (Obama’s guys, too, not just Bush) that Iran has collaborated on occasion with al Qaeda.Link.
It was a default judgment, so none at all. A default is exactly what it sounds like: it means the (remaining) defendants didn’t appear for trial and didn’t defend themselves.
The only considerations the judge has to make are generally whether the court has jurisdiction, and whether the plaintiffs have stated a legally cognizable claim.
The 10 years of litigation were over the other defendants (including the Saudis), who did put in an appearance and who all won. This ruling, in essence, says “the plaintiffs have made the following claims, and nobody bothered to refute them so they are accepted as true.”
I think “pinning 9/11 on Iran” is a reasonable interpretation of “Daniels signed findings of fact saying the plaintiffs had established that the 2001 attacks were caused by the support the defendants provided to al Qaeda”. Iran was apparently a defendant and the findings said the defendants caused the attacks.
I’m kind of curious about the legality of suing someone who doesn’t (and in the case of Al-Queda or the Taliban, probably can’t) appear in their own defense, though. It seems kind of farcical to spend ten years just listening to one side argue the issue.
Ever since the Bay of Pigs debacle one would had thought that the USA would had learned the basic lesson that one should not rely on dissidents or defectors with intelligence or status of what is happening in the accused country when deciding what to do in war or in the courts. Obviously Iraq did not teach anything either (why hello Mr., I’m in bed with Iran, Chalabi!).
Post 12, people.
You’re right. The article does actually cite Iran. My bad. But, as noted, this is just one side being presented, so it pretty meaningless.
I don’t think Federal courts can just say “well back in the Bay of Pigs invasion in the early 1960s intelligence from dissidents/defectors got us in a lot of trouble so I’m throwing this case out, later!” I’m sure on a personal level the judge who heard this case probably is a smart guy and probably doesn’t necessarily think Iran is high on the list of “parties to blame for 9/11.” But here’s the thing, it’s a court and he’s a judge. It isn’t a place where politicians get to make policy decisions, as a judge, he has legal responsibilities to oversee any valid cases brought before him. Is it your contention that under the laws of the United States the case should have been dismissed by the court? On what legal grounds? If you were a lawyer do you think you would have been able to get the Iranian defectors testimony thrown out based on your argument that the Bay of Pigs some 50 years before was a fiasco? I seriously doubt that’s the case.
You do realize that this thing isn’t some decision that Bush or Obama made, right? A private citizen filed a suit in a Federal court, the manner in which they filed it complied with rules on filing such cases and several of the entities sued didn’t offer up any defense at all, resulting in a default judgment. I find it very strange you think this is an example of the United States getting “fooled” by defectors ala the Bay of Pigs. You realize this wasn’t United States v. Iran, it was a private citizen using the courts that she has a right to use. I find it very interesting everyone here feels their opinion on whether this case should or should not have happened seems to be not based on the law whatsoever. Are you guys arguing the Federal judge misinterpreted some of their responsibilities in allowing this case to proceed?
It seems like it, yes. Iran does not have any assets that can be held as judgement. This lawsuit is just as farcical as a counterpart lawsuit in Iranian court suing the US for defamation of character. Would we ever pay the judgement in such a suit? Of course not. Because this whole thing is a joke. The issue of paying for damages between countries is normally called reparations, and the only way to get such a process started is after a peace treaty is signed after a war. Allowing this farcical lawsuit to linger on for ten years taking resources away from legitimate lawsuits does nothing but hurt our country. Additionally, this type of judgement makes it difficult for the State Department to reestablish diplomatic ties with Iran.
Is the OP implying that this case was evidence of some kind of official drum beat to war?
It only seems like it if you don’t understand how the law works. It’s not the judge’s problem if the plaintiffs can’t collect; that’s the plaintiffs’ problem, and requires a separate proceeding anyway (and there are almost certainly Iranian assets in the US which can be garnished).
It’s also not the judge’s problem if the lawsuit impairs foreign relations, not that the State Department is actually trying to reestablish diplomatic ties. If it’s important to US foreign policy that Iran not be sued in US courts, it’s Congress’ job to say so, not the judge’s.