[Peach]

This makes my entire day.

Hopefully Republicans and the WH will remember to remind the Democrats that when Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, they sounded more hawkish than some of our Republicans sound today. And the Democrats warned about the danger that Iraq's WMD posed to the United States.

And while the WH is at it, hopefully they will remind voters that, despite the leftist lie that there was no connection between Iraq/AQ, it is Clinton's Justice Department that signed a federal indictment of bin Laden which mentioned his agreement with the country of Iraq not to attack that country in exchange for weapons development. That sounds an awful lot like a relationship to me.

Oh, and maybe someone in the administration will find it interesting to remind the voters that many 9/11 families sued Iraq in federal court for Iraq's involvement in 9/11, and the judge agreed with their findings.

[Peach]

Here is a link for the things I mentioned above:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts

[proactus]

The problem with the WH is chronic, compounded ignorance. They never seem to realize that they don't know that they don't know. They have to stop looking out at the world and start looking in from the outside.

[CyberAnt]

Good points Peach! Keep saying them.

[Cboldt]

... many 9/11 families sued Iraq in federal court for Iraq's involvement in 9/11

Burnett, et al. v. al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al., 1:02CV01616(JR)
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/burnettba81502cmp.pdf <- First Complaint

Burnett v. al Baraka Investment and Dev. Corp. - Third Amended Complaint
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/burnettba112202acmp.pdf

Havlish et al. v. Sheikh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Laden, et al., 1:02CV00305(JR)
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/havlish2.pdf

CRS-RL31658 | Terrorist Financing: The U.S. and International Response | Dec. 6, 2002

List of additional cases ...
http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/unilateralism.htm

... and the judge agreed with their findings.

Saudi Charity Dropped From Suit Over Sept. 11 Attacks
Mark Hamblett - New York Law Journal
09-28-2005

A Saudi charity that allegedly funded terror activities cannot be sued for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal judge has ruled. Southern District of New York Judge Richard Conway Casey found that the Saudi High Commission was shielded from suit under the act because it presented a prima facie case that it is a foreign sovereign.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1127811912376

---

November 15, 2003
Saudi Princes Dismissed From Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment Suit

An earlier post describes this lawsuit arising from the September 11 terrorist attack. In a recent decision [http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/02-1616c.pdf], U.S. District Judge James Robertson has granted the motions to dismiss filed on behalf of Prince Turki Al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud and Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud.

http://www.InsuranceDefenseBlog.net/insurancedefenseblog/2003/11/saudi_princes_d.html

---

August 18, 2003
Sept. 11 suit seeks 1 trillion in damages

In a memorandum opinion in this case, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson neatly summarizes this remarkable action:

In this action, more than two thousand victims, family members of victims or representatives of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, seek to hold accountable the persons and entities that funded and supported the international terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, which is now generally understood to have carried out the attacks. Plaintiffs have sued nearly two hundred entities or persons -- governments, government agencies, banks, charitable foundations, and individuals, including members of the Saudi royal family -- broadly alleging that each of them, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, provided material support, aided and abetted, or conspired with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks.

Damages claimed exceed one trillion dollars.

In this opinion, Judge Robertson decides the following:

that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiffs' claims; that this Court has personal jurisdiction of MWL, Khudeira, and AHIF; that personal jurisdiction of Al Rajhi is uncertain, and plaintiffs may take limited jurisdictional discovery with respect to that party; that venue is properly laid in the District of Columbia; that plaintiffs' civil RICO claims must be dismissed for want of standing; that the complaint adequately states ATA, ATCA, and common law intentional tort claims against AHIF; that plaintiffs' negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against AHIF must be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and that Al Rajhi and Khudeira may move for more definite statements of plaintiffs' claims against them before they will be required to answer the complaint or respond to discovery.

Burnett v Al Baraka, No. 02-1616 (D.D.C.)

I used to think these sort of lawsuits were futile, but I've seen newspaper reports of a number that ultimately yielded huge damages, and attorney's fee awards to boot, that ultimately were collected.

http://www.InsuranceDefenseBlog.net/insurancedefenseblog/2003/08/sept_11_suit_se.html

[Cboldt]

... maybe someone in the administration will find it interesting to remind the voters that many 9/11 families sued Iraq in federal court for Iraq's involvement in 9/11, and the judge agreed with their findings.

Do you have a cite for the second part of that? Where a judge "agreed with the findings?" I believe the present legal posture is that the trial(s) may go forward against some of the named defendants, but other defendants have been dismissed on various bases.

In considering whether or not a case is to be dismissed as a matter of law, the court will assume the facts are as stated in the complaint. If the facts are arguable and the outcome of the factual argument is material to the outcome of the case, and other requirements such as venue, standing, amenability of defendant to judgement, etc. are met, the case is not dismissed. Those assumptions of fact are not the same as legal findings of fact that occur during the course of trial.

The below posts represent the research I have undertaken to substantiate your assertion that "the judge agreed with their findings." Can you provide more detailed particulars regarding "the judge agreed with their findings." For example, which case, which judge (some cases have bounced from DC to NY), and which findings? Or if you don't have a cite to the legal details, a cite to an article or column might direct further research.

TIA!

Burnett, et al. v. al Baraka Investment and Development Corp., et al. ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=287#287

More on the Burnett case, and introducing the Acree case ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=291#291

More on the Acree case and pending Congressional reaction ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1516791/posts?page=302#302