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 might also try this link:
http://www.intelmessages.org/Hack/ZKZ_Osama_and_Saddam_002.html
Don't know about that but there is little doubt Saddam was aiding and abetting Al Queda. Too much information showing the connections have been revealed to deny it.
Look, if your unsubstantiated smear against the judge is all you have, well, you don't have much.
What part of the basis of the decision do you find objectionable?
-or-
Do you just not like the result?
My guess - you just don't like the result of his decision.
BTTT
There's absolutely no question in my mind whatsoever that Iraq was a major player in 9/11, and probably also in the subsequent anthrax biological weapons attacks which followed.
Thanks for the ping!
"The information will silence them, in time."
I can't understand the reason to wait - please give me your opinon.
Here's one example: we've heard all kinds of stories about razor blades and boxcutters, but to this day nobody really knows how the hijackers gained control of the aircraft. Most of the prevailing wisdom about the events of 9/11 have very little basis in substantiated facts.
My "unsubstantiated smear" against Harold Baer is not so outlandish to anyone who has been exposed to his loony decisions here on the Federal bench in New York. Baer, you may remember, is the judge who heard the appeal of a suspect in a narcotics case who claimed that the police had no right to search his car after he fled the scene of a traffic stop in the city. He threw out the conviction of the suspect, on the grounds that fleeing from a police stop could not be construed as a "probable cause" for a police search -- because it was perfectly reasonable for black men to flee from the police in New York City.
If GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole had his way in 1996, Baer wouldn't even have been around in 2003 to render a decision in this 9/11 case; Dole called for Baer's impeachment and removal from the Federal bench after that bizarre, disgraceful ruling in New York.
They failed to mention that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was Ramzi's Uncle. Ramzi was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi", and entered the US on an Iraqi passport and lived with several other Iraqis up on arriving. They also fail to mention several meetings...
Farouk Hijazi, an Iraqi intelligence officer met with bin Laden in Kandahar in Dec 1998.
Also in 1998, two of bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad for discussions with Qusay Hussein. This and info on other meetings can be found here.
Predictions of the attack are not discussed either:
In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.
Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.
The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided in the para above. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?
There are just too many things that point to Iraqi involvement, even without the refuted Prague evidence.
Also to be taken into consideration...this is the same DoJ/FBI/CIA that said the shipments to Syria's Bekaa Valley "did not register" at the time and disputed the Niger claim merely because they said Saddam already had enough uranium and therefore wouldn't need more.
Info I keep on file:
Yousef and Nichols crossed paths in the Phillipines. Mohammed was Yousef's uncle. It is interesting to note that Yousef entered the United States on an Iraqi passport and had been known among the New York fundamentalists as "Rashid, the Iraqi". Another name that could be thrown into the mix is Abdul Rahman Yasin, a U.S. citizen who moved to Iraq in the 1960's and returned to the U.S. in 1992. After the 1993 WTC bombing, Yasin fled to Iraq and was given monthly salary and housing by Saddam Hussein's regime.
I'm not among those who think Bush is waiting to play the Iraq-9/11 card for maximum political effect. Were he to play it even now, let alone in Oct., the media would bury the actual evidence with questions about why Bush waited and whether he was grasping at straws because the WMD argument fell through.
There would also be questions about why Bush was citing Iraq-9/11evidence that was available when he proclaimed last year there was no evidence of any connection. That was the single most irresponsible thing the president has ever said.
Had Bush cited evidence of the Iraq connection early on, however, everything would have turned out differently. No foreign leader would have questioned our right to avenge the murder of 3,000 Americans. No domestic critic of the Iraq invasion would have been taken seriously.
My best guess is that Bush decided to ignore the Iraq-9/11 connection in order to protect the CIA, which has long feuded with the Iraqi National Congress - the primary sponsor of many of the Iraqi defectors who came forward with accounts on stuff like Salman Pak.
The CIA was also apparently (deliberately?) blind to highly persuasive circumstantial evidence that Iraq played a role in the '93 WTC bombing, as detailed by Laurie Mylroie and others.
In the days after the attacks, had Bush announced to the nation that the evidence suggested an Iraq-9/11 connection, it would have been tatamount to publicly calling the CIA incompetent. And if the reason for that incompetence was some sort of petty dispute with the INC, it would have been a scandal of major proportions.
In the days after 9/11, Bush likely calculated that the US needed all the intelligence resources it could get - and demoralizing the Agency at that critical moment could further damage America's ability to foil future attacks, which looked as if they were in progress. (Rememeber anthrax.)
My guess is that even though Bush believed in a 9/11-Iraq tie-in, he calculated that the WMD argument would be strong enough to make the case for attacking Iraq. And exposing the CIA for being out to lunch would be gratuitous and counterproductive. Better to reform the Agency and fight another day - or so the thinking apparently went.
But Bush's calculation turned out to be a monumental blunder. It took 14 months for us to find the first credible evidence of WMDs. And now, unless we find a warehouse labeled (as one Freeper put it), "WMDs Are Us," even that evidence is probably lost as an issue.
The Bush family history with the CIA also likely had a bearing on the president's decision. Tenet had named a building after George H.W., who served as the Agency's director in 1975. Neither father nor son likely wanted to see the CIA blamed for 9/11, whether it deserved to be or not.
All this became apparent, in hindsight at least, in Bush's first speech after 9/11, when he traveled to Langley headquarters to personally assure Tenet and all his employees that there'd be no fingerpointing or recrimination over 9/11 intelligence failures.
The way this has played out meant that both the Bush adminsitration and CIA now have a vested interest in keeping the lid on the Agency's mistaken analysis of Iraq's role in 9/11 - even if it means ignoring Salman Pak satellite photos and eyewitness testimony from guys like Charles Duelfer, who, as a UN weapons inspector, confirmed what the defectors said about 9/11-style dress rehearsals at Salman Pak.
I consider President Bush's decision to sweep the Iraq-9/11 connection under the rug the single worst blunder of his adminsitration. I hope it doesn't cost his reelection. But it could.
I have always thought they were, especially when the left makes such a point to say they weren't! I also believe Janna Davis (?) when she says they were involved with OKC bombing too! (tin foil hats are so cute on me!:-)
More importantly, so do the Czechs.
Carl - thank you for your analysis - this question has been driving me crazy. However in the aftermath of the CIA and FBI's failures in respect to the WMD claims and Rowley's claims - the CIA's failure to make the 9/11-Iraqi connection is mild in comparison because the one secret meeting between the accomplices would be extremely difficult to conclude in advance that an attack was in the works.
If your analysis is correct, then why the coverup of the Iraqi connection between OKC and TWA 800? Why is that connection not made more public?
Frankly your Canadian whining is getting really boring. Go put you head in the snow and wait for the Islamofascists to shoot your butt off....
WRONG...it came from Czech intelligence and from captured Iraqi documents..you are soooo behind the news cycle
Read my posts. Allawi vetted the info, don't you know.
Again, your comment is feckless. You obviously aren't current with the late news that the WSJ and others have released from Iraq about DOCUMENTS that have been found and translated ( and there are more that have yet to be translated). Look for a new book out called The Connection to see what Iraq and Al Quiada have in common
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.