Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sylvester80 who wrote (16833)	5/7/2003 9:23:34 PM
From: bacchus_ii	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

The ugliest head of imperialist abuse ever seen. Poor Iraqi children that will have to pay for all crime committed in the USA. msnbc.com Judge rules Iraq gave ‘material support’ to al-Qaida network ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK, May 7 — A federal judge Wednesday awarded nearly $104 million in damages to the families of two victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, finding the plaintiffs had provided some evidence that Iraq provided support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Judge Harold Baer outlined the damages against bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government in a written decision in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. BAER SAID he had concluded that lawyers for the two victims “have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida.” He said lawyers relied heavily on “classically hearsay” evidence, including reports that a Sept. 11 hijacker met an Iraqi consul to Prague, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s remarks to the United Nations about connections between Iraq and terrorism, and defectors’ descriptions of the use of an Iraq camp to train terrorists. Baer said the opinions of the lawyers’ experts was sufficient to show that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden’s terrorist acts on Sept. 11. ‘INFERENCES’ ESTABLISHED The judge noted that the experts provided few actual facts that Iraq provided support to the terrorists. But he 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-Qaida.” The case was being closely watched by lawyers for plaintiffs in other lawsuits filed against Iraq, al-Qaida and others after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because it was the first to reach the damages phase. James E. Easley, the lawyer who brought the case, said it was unclear how much in frozen Iraqi and al-Qaida assets could be available to satisfy the judgment. To help pay for Iraq’s revival, the Bush administration has started to use roughly $1.7 billion in Iraqi funds frozen in 1990. Still, Easley called the ruling a “significant victory.” TWO DAYS OF EVIDENCE The judge heard evidence for two days in March to help him determine damages. In January, he had issued a default order against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq. The default judgment was granted by Baer after public announcements of the lawsuits failed to attract a response from any of the defendants. The ruling stemmed from cases brought on behalf of the estate of George Eric Smith, a senior business analyst for SunGard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities. The lawsuits relied in part on legal principles contained in a 1996 law that permitted lawsuits against countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of international terrorism.

To: sylvester80 who wrote (16833)	5/7/2003 11:39:02 PM
From: Edscharp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

sylvester, "US war crimes case 'going ahead'" Thank you. I'm glad I only have to argue with idiots like yourself. You're such a bald faced liar. You've completely misrepresented your original post on the subject. In Post 16801 you said. "The War crimes court is coming after Bush the fascist lying chimp losses in 04" Message 18919792 Anotherwards, you were alleging that the a criminal court case would be proceeding against George Bush. When I challenged you on this assertion you came up with a link with the headline, "A Belgian lawyer is planning to press ahead with a war crimes lawsuit against US General Tommy Franks" First, this has nothing to do with George Bush. Secondly, this allegation against Tommy Franks is not a criminal trial. At best it amounts to a civil suit against Tommy Franks for monetary damages not criminal penalties. It's apparent that you're not from the USA or you would know that there is a difference between a civil trial and a criminal one. I might add that the case against Franks is dubious at best. The Belgian law he is being tried under is highly contentious and has no jurisdiction beyond the borders of Belgian. Furthermore, to my knowledge, it is unprecedented to try to obtain civil damages for acts of war. At least it is in the United States. To top it off, it's not clear what kind of evidence this lawyer will be presenting. At this moment in time his case is an unknown. So, let's add this up. 1) A dubious Belgian law 2) No legal precedent. 3) Not a criminal proceding 4) George Bush not being tried. 5) 'Evidence' against Franks not made public. I hope you feel as stupid as you look.