Posted on 05/28/2004 11:47:03 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
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]
Judge Baer also found the testimony of terrorism expert Dr. Laurie Mylroie persuasive, writing:
"Dr. Mylroie described Iraq's covert involvement in acts of terrorism against the United States in the past, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Dr. Mylroie testified to at least four events that served as the basis for her conclusion that Iraq played a role in the September 11 tragedy:
"First, she claimed that Iraq provided and continues to provide support to two of the main perpetrators of the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Specifically, Abdul Rahman Yasin returned to Baghdad after the bombing and Iraq has provided him safe haven ever since. See Tr. 175-76. Also, Ramsey Yusef arrived in the United States on an Iraqi passport in his own name but left on false documentation - a passport of a Pakistani who was living in Kuwait and whom the Kuwaiti government kept a file on at the time that Iraq invaded Kuwait. See Tr. 174.
"Second, she noted bin Laden's fatwah against the United States, which was motivated by the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia to fight the Gulf War against Iraq. See Tr. 177.
"Third, she noted that threats by bin Laden in late 1997 and early 1998 which led up to the bombing of the U.S. embassies [on August 7, 1998] were 'in lockstep' with Hussein's threats about ousting the U.N. weapons inspectors, which he eventually did on August 5, 1998. See Tr. 178-79.
"Dr. Mylroie concluded that 'Iraq, I believe, did provide support and resources for the September 11 attacks. I agree with [Iraqi defector] Captain [Sabah] Khodada when he said that ... it took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on September 11.' See Tr. 182." [End of Excerpt]
To be sure, Judge Baer also noted that the case for Iraq's involvement in 9/11 is far from a slam dunk, concluding, "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda."
Nevertheless, that's a far cry from media claims - not to mention President Bush's incredibly ill-advised statement last fall - that there's no evidence tying Iraq to 9/11.
You ask good questions that make many of this board squirm. I was surprised to see Carl respond to your questions as well as give the analysis he gave. It isn't pretty.
btt
If the Administration began getting the news out to the masses about the links between the terrorists and Iraq between now and the election wouldn't that help them in the end?
Two points: 1) To expose the Iraq/9|11 commections reopens serious speculation regarding Flight 800, OKC and the first WTC bombing--all under Clinton.
2) Ashcroft dropping that Gorelick-approved memo might be interpeted as an indication to certain people they do know and have the power to choose what to do with the information--and when.
It isn't being coy or irresponsible--just leaving a warning.
And let's not forget Al Gore's little about face on airline security after the TWA800....after the big payoff from the airline industry.
I, for one, hope that the connections between the TWA-800/OKC/WTC-1/Clintonistas-Gorelick/Reno comes out just in time for the fall elections!!
I don't think it ever will, in the manner where it will be believed by a lot of people, however I think it may be enough to stay a few left hands.
How so?
Who knows, actually... My view is there are two important pieces missing to the puzzlement that is this antiwar footing the left has taken. In regards to the intelligence failures under the Clinton Administration--it seems the behavior is more akin to enabling the behavior of the militant Whahabbi Islamists more than it was to stop them. Everything--from the support of Bosnian and Albanian Muslims in the Yugoslav wars, the lack of a response to direct attacks by AQ and the bizarre investigatory practices involving the three mentioned cases point to that. It made no sense politically for Clinton to fail to tie OKC to Iraq, or Islamist elements. Instead, it seems that they chose their perp, stuck w/it, made a big story to their short-term political advantage when a larger puzzle was being hidden from plain view. The Ramzi Yousef case laid out precisely future plans of offensive terrorist actions that led in a predictable line to the dramatic attacks of 9|11. For instance, we're talking about a movement led by one of the richest men in the world, well-connected to one of the largest corporate entities in a powerful international industry (I love it when the left whines about Hallibruton/Brown and Root--like the alternative for a big construction contract in the ME is who? Other than the French, it's Bin Ladin Group.) and a trained engineer, with an ability to get other well-trained, and thoughtful individuals to do his bidding. It was no surprise we'd be faced with such a daunting challenge. I'm not going to play up BinLadin as Lex Luthor, but he's pretty darn close.
The eight years of mismanagement, perfidy and seeming enabling allowed AQ, and the movement it has inspired to become an international threat not seen in quite some time.
That's a line that is hard to sell to the public--but I imagine it is one espoused in Washington, privately.
The other disturbing aspect to all this is the intellectual ferment the radical Islamics are from. It's just as much fascism as it is militant Sunni cultism.
marker bump
Exactly! And if they were to confront the *real* forces behind the earlier attacks (from WTC '93 and Somalia through the USS Cole), that would have involved some tough decisions and actions -- and would not have done Clinton any good in the all-important polls and focus groups.
He also got a lot of partisan mileage out of blaming the OKC bombing on "right-wing extremists" and trying to pin it on Rush Limbaugh, et al.
Oh, and as Maddy "The Mad Bomber" Halfbright once said re: how to respond to terrorist attacks, it wasn't "a good time to be bombing Muslims" -- that's when the perjuring rapist was still trying to squeeze a legacy out of Israel and the so-called palis.
Stupid sonofabitch would have had his legacy if he honestly (ha!) confronted islamofascist terrorism and 'splained it all to the soccer sucker moms as he did the "tough things" that Bush has had to face since 9/11/01.
That's why we call it islamofascism!
ping post 33
And we're supposed to what? Take your word for it?
And it's a noticeable lapse when you can't respond to the facts on the ground - that Saddam and AQ had a decade's long relationship which has been documented time and time again by the legal system, the media and defector's own words.
And I notice that you cannot begin to explain away how Saddam had such advance notice of 9/11 that he had an article printed in his own state run newspaper that soon America would be hurting where it hurt before (WTC) and we'd never again sing "New York, New York" without crying.
I concur 100%. I've written the president and members of his administration about this matter out of complete frustration.
Welcome back, prairie, and thanks for the ping.
I think Carl from NewsMax has exactly nailed why the administration has failed to capitalize on this matter, and unfortunately, it is to their detriment.
If there was a such a clear connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, then why is this coming to light in an uncontested civil trial while this administration has repeatedly denied that such a connection exists?
I'll be perfectly willing to accept the notion that this connection exists. But if you go through the events of the last 15 years, you'll understand why nobody in either political party would ever want to admit it.
If Bush believed in a 9/11-Iraq connection, it is more likely that he knew that it was in his own best interests to make sure this connection never saw the light of day.
If I were a Canadian, you'd have a good point there.
You didn't ask me, but I can tell you the reason that I think that Bush has not made a stronger case of the connection between Saddam and 9/11. Bush was told by the CIA, before the war that the Saddam connection was difficult to prove and that the WMD connection was a slam dunk. The left leaning media will claim that if the CIA were wrong on the WMD, they are most likely wrong on the 9/11 connection now, and the president cannot flip-flop on his reasoning. (I know that would be circular logic, but that is what the media does and that is the definition of spin.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.