This is pure willful ignorance, I’m afraid. And there’s very little excuse since this has all been very, very clearly documented in the 9/11 Commission Report
[
](http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf)
[
Congrats! I will never take seriously the phrase, “real, big boy,” again. Not that I was inclined to take it seriously before.
To be candid that was said in the same spirit of the OP, basically a meaningless post that made no argument and was basically acting like this was some act of willful stupidity without actually supporting it through any supporting argument.
That’s sort of what I was thinking, unless something in the Federal statutes or precedent would cause the judge to throw such a suit out of court out of hand, I don’t believe judges can just decide they don’t want to listen to a case just because some people on the internet might think it is “farcical.”
What I still don’t get is the “Iraq? I mean Iran!” tag line in the OP, I can guess a few different arguments the OP might be trying to make, but since they never actually made any I’m still not sure what his problem with the case was.
It’s also worth seconding that our court system isn’t responsible for maintaining proper foreign relations. It’s no different than a coroner’s inquest in the UK concluding something that might hurt Anglo-American relations. That isn’t the concern of the inquest, nor are such concerns relevant to how a Federal judge has to rule on cases.
I think the OP is referring to now-refuted claims that the Iraqis assisted the 9/11 bombers, and taking the ruling to mean that the Iranians are now being blamed for it.
Iranqistan is an ally. Iranqistan has always been an ally. We have always been at war with Syrlibia.
Thread title joke suggests that 9/11 is a never-ending source for steering & managing public support for Middle East re-shaping that is happening in the last 10 years.
What I’m perceiving is that media is channeling the State (CIA, FBI, State Dept, WH, Congress, Senate, various think-tanks, “leaks” etc.) originated “news” in a co-ordinated and inter-related form with Iran as a topic that increased in frequency and significance (i.e. seriousness of event).
Three points are important w.r.t. this Federal Judge default judgement.
1st, it has been 10 years of “big boi” lawyers working at it - despite everyone probably knowing from the start that they wont see a buck from targeted 100 billion - so I wonder who is funding all this? How do you get “big boi’s” law firms to toil at it their best guys with payout as certain as last year snow?
2nd thing is, my worry is that months from today this “judgement” will be used the same way Bush used the story of Niger uranium for Iraq story. In other words, many will simply forget or ignore farcical elements of this lawsuit and it will be used as just another piece in the mosaic of building a case for war with Iran.
3rd: if these “big boi” lawyers made such a great argument what’s State Dept waiting for? The case is proven - beyond “reasonable doubt” of course - why not act on it? Iran did it - go get 'em! No?
BTW - I had no idea that I can file a lawsuit against some poor guy in Australia and win it b/c he’s for sue not going to show up. All I need is to spend some money on getting it going and sustain it knowing full well he wont show up. And then… well, nothing. Some system, eh?
Incidentally Martin Hide, I was going ahead into the future and I was commenting on what some groups in the USA will use this judgement for. In essence, I’m agreeing with newcomer’s 2nd point here.
My comment was essentially to say, “Well done Judge! Now watch us ignore that judgement for that and other reasons.”
None of those points are important.
-
If they knew they wouldn’t see a buck, they wouldn’t have bothered. A US court can seize Iranian (or theoretically, al Quaeda) assets in the US such as Iranian government investments.
-
It’s a default judgment. Congress is mostly made up of lawyers. If there’s one thing they understand, it’s civil procedure. I suppose some rube might see this as convincing evidence of something, but that’s about it.
-
They didn’t have to “make a great argument”, which you would know if you read the thread. They made an argument, with some amount of evidence behind it, which the court must accept because no evidence was presented to refute it.
You can’t file a lawsuit against some guy in Australia. The reach of a court is limited by personal jurisdiction. You can file a lawsuit against “some guy in Australia” if he has in some way consented to the jurisdiction of US courts (ie., by owning property here, visiting frequently, conducting business with American customers, or otherwise connecting himself to the US in some way).
In any event, as a sovereign state, Iran would generally be immune from suit in foreign courts. If had bothered to defend itself, it would immediately have been dismissed as a party.
This is not a new phenomenon. The family of Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish-American tourist murdered by the PLO, sued the cruise line and the PLO in US court. You can read about it here.
No, it’s not “pure willful ignorance.” It’s ignorance at worst, but feel free to continue being needlessly abrasive.
[ol]
[li]I legitimately asked about the evidence.[/li][li]I also said it would not make sense but pointed out that a lot of nonsensical things happened for decades leading up to 9/11 with my reference to the USA essentially funding al Qaeda indirectly through Pakistan. (The USA also was wishy-washy about the Taliban and totally misread their willingness to respond to diplomacy regarding al Qaeda and turning over bin Laden.)[/li][li]The second paragraph you quote in particular is full of weasel words. I accept the overall quality of the 9/11 Commission Report, but on this issue I think there may be a tendency to see what they wanted to see.[/li][li]It has been “very, very clearly documented” that the CIA believed that Iran gave aid based on interrogation of KSM and others. Isn’t one of the big criticisms of the report the failure to delve more deeply into the reliability of information from interrogations and over-reliance on that information?[/li][/ol]
That said, I definitely concede that Iran aided them in some shape and form before 9/11. I said I found it hard to believe, not impossible.
For lawyers, would the confessions be admissible in court if the people making the statements were not directly involved in what they were confessing? (Hearsay?)
I mean if it was not a default judgement and there was an actual defense.
Depends what you mean by “directly involved”.
“Tom told me he killed Steve” is hearsay. “I saw Tom kill Steve” is not.
Ok. Can anybody cite the law establishing the fact that the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or Iran are under the jurisdiction of US court system? Let’s start with the basics here.
The government may have made some wild allegations, especially the government of George W. Bush. However this court case was filed by a private citizen and the only agent of the government involved was a federal judge who is bound by statute, precedent, and rules of procedure as to how he must act. So I don’t really see how you link “managing public support” for our activities in the Middle East with a court case that no element of the executive branch of the U.S. government was involved in whatsoever.
Um, what’s your point here?
I’m sorry do you actually know anything about the lawyers or law firms involved? We can’t make any assumptions about what their motives were, maybe they specialized in doing pro bono work or a maybe some major firm that makes hundreds of millions a year assigned a few attorneys to work on this to generate good will or etc.
That has nothing to do with the case or the judge or the court that heard it. Are you saying the U.S. court system shouldn’t properly handle legal matters because of a fear about how a hypothetical President years form now may use the public’s perception of the judgment?
The case made no specific allegations we hadn’t heard before, nor did it make known information that wasn’t known before, realistically. I’m assuming the State Dept is waiting to be told what the fuck to do because the State Department, even when it’s ran by Bill Clinton’s wife, doesn’t get to make decisions like “it’s time to go get Iran.” Unless this case had literally revealed a smoking gun showing that Iran outright planned 9/11 you can bet no President is going to start a war over this, and without the President deciding to go to war, the State Department is going to basically not do anything.
Are you familiar with how the United States operates? By the way? When was the last time you were familiar with the State Department unilaterally “going and get 'em”? That’s not even in the State Department’s job description.
Yeah, because it’s stupid to let Americans sue say, multinational oil conglomerates that are based in other countries but who dump billions of barrels of oil onto American shores. Sure is some system, I wish any foreign entity operating in the United States or operating in the United States or having asset sin the United States could commit unlimited civil torts against American citizens and be immune from civil suit. That’d be a great system. Man, newcomer you’ve made me realize how stupid our system is, I wish we could change it to your proposed system, it sounds a lot better than what we have now.
Maybe newcomer could fill us in, I’m sure before opening a debate criticizingthe existence of a court case he did a lot of research on how it was filed and under what legal principles/precedent it was sustained for a decade.
I hear this kind of logic all the time - does it explain the cozy relationship between Syria (Sunni) and Iran (Shia)?
Maybe the onus is on you if you decide to support the legitimacy of this lawsuit. What precedent is there in suing terrorist organizations that our government has vowed to destroy, a former government that was destroyed (for all intents and purposes), and a government we have no diplomatic ties with?
Bad example - the Syrian ruling class are Alawites, who, while not Shiites, are also considered a minority sect.
That’s not how it works. I have on my side that at least one Federal judge didn’t see reason to dismiss the suit. I’m curious under what legal statute, precedent, or procedure people think a judge should have dismissed this case.
All I keep hearing are people that don’t seem to know anything about the U.S. legal system saying “but it’s ridiculous!”
Hell, if we’re just wanting to call random legal cases ridiculous I can think of ones more ridiculous than this. However, if you actually think it’s legally improper I think the onus is on you to actually demonstrate that.
I also don’t get how the OP links this to deliberate U.S. foreign policy. This went down in the U.S. court system, and was totally outside the influence or control of U.S. policymakers. Further, his claim that “years from now it’ll be used to justify something bad!” is vague and unpersuasive, and still doesn’t do anything to link it to U.S. policy makers or previous claims made by the Bush administration in regard to Iraq, yellow cake, hostess cakes, or anything else.
Al Quaeda are certainly under US jurisdiction, having sent operatives here. Read the Wikipedia link I posted above about personal jurisdiction, and the Klinghoffer case if you’re feeling ambitious.
As have already stated, Iran would have been dismissed immediately had they bothered to defend themselves. The same likely goes for the Taliban.