To: Carl/NewsMax
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. I find it odd that NewsMax would report this "woefully underreported decision," since a cursory review of Harold Baer's track record as a judge would reveal that the guy is pretty much a loony-tune who shouldn't be anywhere near a Federal bench.
3 posted on
05/28/2004 11:53:28 AM PDT by
Alberta's Child
("Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium . . . sed ego sum homo indomitus")
To: Alberta's Child
That "fact" should assure wide coverage by the RATmedia. Isn't that its favorite kind of judge.
Or has the RATmedia all of a sudden become circumspect wrt Judicial opinions.
11 posted on
05/28/2004 12:07:43 PM PDT by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies: foreign and domestic RATmedia agree Bush must be destroyed.)
To: Alberta's Child
"...since a cursory review of Harold Baer's track record as a judge would reveal that the guy is pretty much a loony-tune who shouldn't be anywhere near a Federal bench." - so says Abberta's Child
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.
26 posted on
05/28/2004 12:45:41 PM PDT by
Triple
(All forms of socialism deny individuals the right to the fruits of their labor)
To: Alberta's Child
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....
37 posted on
05/28/2004 3:47:11 PM PDT by
jnarcus
To: Alberta's Child
"woefully underreported decision," since a cursory review of Harold Baer's track record as a judge would reveal that the guy is pretty much a loony-tune who shouldn't be anywhere near a Federal benchAnd 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.
54 posted on
05/30/2004 9:30:35 AM PDT by
Peach
(The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson