US judge rules Iran responsible for 9/11

Remove all ads!

In a thrilling display of genius, and the infallible ability of the US justice system in really getting at the ground of things and uncovering unvarnished, raw truth, sleuthing Manhattan Judge George Daniels has eventually ruled over the question who is responsible for 9/11 - and in particular who can be sued for damages and punitive damages - and has found the culprit in Iran. Indeed. Who else?

Good grief. He is underlining with his ruling that rulings are institutionalised findings, ideally based on reality, that acquire the status of fiction, i.e. are regarded as reality (even when reality is entirely different), for future proceedings. In future proceedings in this case Iran has to be considered responsible solely by merit of his absurd ruling.

His brilliant insight is particularly remarkable in light of long standing utter and irreconcilable hostility of Al Qaeda type Tafkiris against Shiites (whom they consider apostates; evidenced in the numerous suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Iraq against Shiite targets). Not to mention that nobody in law enforcement, military or intelligence circles, in US or anywhere else, seriously believes that Iran had anything to do with it.

I cannot decide for myself whether the judge is just a gullible nut or someone who approached the ruling in a result oriented way (not to mention that the case blaming Iran for 9/11, claiming $100 billion damages, is about propaganda, at best, and entirely frivolous) - with both alternatives (and the bracketed possibility) being equally disturbing. These clowns ought to have been laughed out of court. The same goes for the judge.

 

That would be a verdict from a Bill Clinton appointee....

 

A nut all the same. And besides, why do you bring partisanship into this? This ruling is perfectly idiotic in its own right.

My hunch is, to elaborate on the "result oriented" thesis:

Read: With the Taleban and Al Qaeda there is no money to be retrieved (no quota litis either), they're both broken and broke. Iran, irrespective of them having not been involved, is solvent. They got assets to seize and freeze. And they are evil anyway, and the lawsuits harasses them and may serve as a justification for sanctions, which harasses them further. The case also helps bolstering the propagandistic case against Iran. Defectors (Ahmed Chalabi types?) who testify to the effect of blaming Iran are compensated for their efforts. They got every reason to tell what they presume wants to be heard. They make a living of that. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win.

Blaming Iran, irrespective of how bogus and ludicrous the claim is, is a politically and economically useful activity. As the case illustrates, it is something of a lucrative cottage industry. With so many incentives around, and a permissive US legal system, it is almost unsurprising that a ruling so detached from factual reality has eventually become a legal reality anyway. It's just too good of an opportunity to pass up.

 

Or Pakistan, Kuwait, Yemen, the Emirates possibly even Bosnia and a few others. Nope, it's all Iran. The closest "official" accusation on them (as per this) is that they've been dealing with them post-2005.

I wonder what kind of "accusations" were being levied at that trial, and what evidence was presented.

 

... just wanted to point out nut cases come from both sides of the aisle. He was probably an ambulance chaser when he practiced though....

 

On some inane ideas there is a bipartisan consensus - getting into a war with Iran asap is one of them. Both parties appear, if the votes on recent sanctions bills are any indication, to hardly be able to brace their enthusiasm.

The Republicans on the other hand have a largish number of genuinely and uniquely Republican idiocies that they, thank God, share with nobody. Corresponding with the largely incestuous nature of Republican ideological 'discourse' nowadays (that proverbial tent has gotten quite small, after all), these idiotic ideas degenerate synchronous with the party proper. The result is people like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann being considered presidential material. The horror. And as for Ron Paul, the only area where he is sane in is foreign policy. Beyond that, good grief.

In comparison, even the crankiest of Democratic wing nuts look rather sane and rational. These socialist extremists propose radical new ideas like regulating Wall Street after all.

 

Because that's what it's all about. Hence the reason NOTHING gets done here [at least anything that is really useful or worthwhile].

 

From a red cross to a green crescent, eh? It's all in the right symbol.