Federal Judge Confirms Iraq-Al Queda ties!

[fatcatfan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86242,00.html

That's just plain remarkable. Yes, the evidence is still slim, but if it can be shown in a case such as this, I don't see why it can't be shown otherwise.

[Aegis Runestone]

No, it's not remarkable.

The guy houses terrorists, kills his own people for 30 years, delays for 13 years in diplomacy and lies about his arensal.

<sarcasm> Yep! There is absolutely NO reason for Saddam's removal. The US has no proof and is being a bully. </sarcasm> :rolleyes:

Bakas.
*glares at liberals and democrats*

Okay, maybe I should be kinder, but to me, that newscast is just stating the balantly obivious.

[DarkDragon]

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.
So the US District Court has jurisdiction over foreign countries? I'm a bit confused; suppose I decided to sue a foreign country whose assets had not been frozen by the US. How, and with what mandate, would the US get me my money?

In any case, I was a bit disappointed in the actual evidence provided, since nothing in that news story was really new; I was hoping that significant new ties had been discovered between Iraq and Osama.

Also, Aegis:

The judge noted that the experts provided few actual facts that Iraq provided support to the terrorists.
So I don't believe you've quite yet been vindicated enough to justify premature liberal-bashing...

[fatcatfan]

Originally posted by DarkDragon
So the US District Court has jurisdiction over foreign countries? I'm a bit confused; suppose I decided to sue a foreign country whose assets had not been frozen by the US. How, and with what mandate, would the US get me my money?

The US gov't can freeze assets belonging to another country which are held in our own. Iraqi money in US banks, that sort of thing. That's where the payout would come from, and we have already done just this (freeze their assets) since beginning the war in Iraq.

And I absoutely agree that this case doesn't really establish anything new in the way of facts or evidence. It *does* establish legal precedent, however, against anyone in the future who might try to sue our President and other leaders over this war. Or impeach or whatever. Practically, to us, it means nothing, but politically, it is huge.

[cap2030]

It says they won by default due to defendants not showing up to defend themselves.

[DarkDragon]

Heh, I'm sure Saddam and Bin Laden have more to worry about than a circuit court trial with jurors who would most likely love to see them dead.

[TheGeepster]

The circumstantial evidence alone is enough to convict Saddam's regime. However, in regards to this case, I'm reserving my judgment for now. I don't know enough about what went on in that court.

And I do seem to recall records being found recently of meetings between Saddam's regime and Osama back in the mid 1990's, and I do believe we were the target (but it might have been that other "Great Satan")

[Aegis Runestone]

Ah, yes, in politics it always seems to have more weight.

And DarkDragoon, the Liberals kept saying that there was no evidence period of ties between Al Queda and Saddam, when it kinda obivious.

They continued to doubt even after the Iraqis were also using Terrorist tactics.

Note, also that the Liberals never attacked Clinton when he bombed Iraq earlier(And I supported his action, even though I dispised him.)