Money to 9/11 Victims Based on Shaky Grounds?

Great Debates
1

Today, a federal judge granted more than $103 million to two persons, who alleged that bin Laden had been supported by Saddam’s government (thereby allowing the money to be withdrawn from frozen Iraqi assets, of which there is an estimated $1.7 billion).

The judge even concedes that the evidence is apparently slim, stating, “[the plaintiffs] have shown, albeit barely … that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and Al Qaeda.”

According to a Fox News article
here, the evidence the judge relied on included the refuted urban legend that Iraqi intelligence officials met with an al-Qaida agent in Prague. Furthermore, “The judge noted that the experts provided few actual facts that Iraq provided support to the terrorists.”

The judge also said, “[the experts] 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.”

Sufficient basis…draw inferenes…could lead to the conclusion…huh? Is it right that money which could be used to rebuild Iraq (I presume) is awarded to two people who have rather unconvincing (IMO) claims? Are they justified in receiving this much money, or even any money at all?

2

Perhaps if a defense had been presented, the outcome might have been different. Apparently, not much of a defense would have been needed in the first place, but without it, the judge didn’t have another side to consider.

3

You think the judge should need a defense to point out the obvious?

4

Well, in a way, yes.

Let’s say I sue you in court tomorrow. In my case, I claim that you came over to my house, and broke my Ming vase. You don’t reply to my charges. The judge may see that I’m dressed in a Donna Karan knockoff and have a hole in my shoe, and know that I culd never afford a Ming vase, but will probably rule in my favor because you didn’t defend yourself by proving that you were elsewhere.