Article

2005-01-03 Home Front: WoT

CAIR Named as a Defendant in 9/11 Terror Lawsuit

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2005-01-03 9:25:58 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Once in a while, there ARE good news.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-01-03 10:21:38 AM|| 2005-01-03 10:21:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Ho-ho! - this should be good fun!

All sorts of avians coming home to roost...

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-01-03 10:27:38 AM|| 2005-01-03 10:27:38 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 "All sorts of avians coming home to roost..."

The bluebird of happiness to Lady Liberty, for example?

Posted by Korora 2005-01-03 10:51:26 AM|| [http://basementburrow.blogspot.com] 2005-01-03 10:51:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Hopefully those birds are vultures and ravens coming to feast on CAIR's corpse.

Posted by Laurence of the Rats 2005-01-03 11:13:32 AM|| [http://www.punictreachery.com/] 2005-01-03 11:13:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Well, start off with the bluebirds - then finish off with raptors!

Posted by Tony (UK) 2005-01-03 11:16:04 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:16:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 These are reckless accusations. If CAIR sues for counter-damages for slander, it probably will win.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-03 11:19:23 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:19:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Mike Syl

The Plaintiffs can obviously show that a number of former members of CAIR had ties to Hamas, etc.

The Plaintiffs can obviously also show that a number of former members of CAIR are AlQ sympathizers and have made pro AlQ statements.

If they can also show some non trivial ties between HAMAS and Al Q or can show some non trivial ties between statements that are pro AlQ and AlQ's fundraising in the US, then they are bullet proof against a slander claim.

If this went to trial, the issue in determining guilt and damages would be how substantive, how direct, how effective was the nexus.

However, I'm not sure if this is a case where the plaintiff will settle for cash or whether the plaintiff wants to go to court for the publicity.

This should

Posted by mhw 2005-01-03 11:30:21 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:30:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Unlike Britain, Mike, in the US, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of slander. Plus, in defense against a slander/libel charge, you can produce a lot of evidence that isn't acceptable in a criminal charge. Ask Alger Hiss.

Posted by jackal 2005-01-03 11:31:10 AM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-01-03 11:31:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 mhw, what you listed is about all they can show. Here's part of their accusation:

The role of CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to wage PSYOPS (psychological warfare) and disinformation activities on behalf of Whabbi-based [Wahhabi-based, DP] Islamic terrorists throughout North America.

If CAIR sues for slander for that, then how are they going to prove it?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-03 11:38:35 AM|| 2005-01-03 11:38:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 #6
Not unless they can staff a jury.

Posted by gromgorru 2005-01-03 12:09:54 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:09:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 how about internal documents, Mike? Oh yeah, you're used to them being shredded at your beloved UN.

I'd bet they have internal communications. If they only succeed at spotlighting and bankrupting CAIR and making them a pariah, the efforts are worthwhile

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-03 12:14:34 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:14:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Discovery's a bitch. Got email?

Posted by mojo 2005-01-03 12:18:38 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:18:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 heh heh heh :-D

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2005-01-03 12:19:06 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:19:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Mike
I doubt very much that the plaintiffs can prove the PSYOPS charge. However, they don't have to prove it. They have only to show preponderance of evidence. They can surely show that CAIR did agitate for less scrutiny of Arabs, they can also show that CAIR was aware that AlQ had operatives in the US (the 1993 WTC bombing for example), they can show CAIR officials coordinating with ALQ fundraisers. If I was on a jury, I'm not sure that would be enough for preponderance but for some people it would be.

Posted by mhw 2005-01-03 12:33:26 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:33:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Ever been sued, Mike?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-03 12:39:08 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:39:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#16
Re #14 (mhw): I doubt very much that the plaintiffs can prove the PSYOPS charge.

That was just one example. Here's some more:

CAIR and CAIR-Canada have, since their inception, been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism.

The unique role played by CAIR and CAIR-Canada is to manipulate the legal systems of the United States and Canada in a manner that allows them to silence critics .... by leveling false charges of discrimination, libel, slander and defamation. ... to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police ... Their goal is to ... render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.

In the years and months leading up to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 these organizations were very effective in helping to ensure that North American law enforcement and intelligence officials were sufficiently deaf, dumb, and blind to help pave the way for the attacks on the United States. The role played by these entities is an absolutely essential part of the mix of forces arrayed against the United States as they help soften-up targeted countries so as to facilitate and enhance the likelihood for a successful attack.

I expect that a judge or jury will find these accusations to be slander.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-03 12:48:39 PM|| 2005-01-03 12:48:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mike, I'm no legal eagle but I do participate in the legal system as a medical expert. I don't know the legal issue involved, but my readings suggest that the legal standard for proving libel/slander is a high one.

The point made by Frank and mojo is a good one: discovery is a bitch, and all sorts of stuff can come out. The very good trial lawyers are masters of discovery -- not just depositions (though imporant), but the interrogatory process (production of documents and following the paper trail).

While CAIR might sue for libel/slander, and could conceivably make a case, I just imagine there are all sorts of tidbits about them, their contacts, members and benefactors that they don't want made public. If they're smart, they'll try to keep this under the public radar.

Posted by Steve White 2005-01-03 1:08:43 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:08:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Mike
Reply to #16
The charge that CAIR has been since its inception part of a criminal conspiracy also seems impossible to prove. The plaintiffs can cite the existence of former CAIR personnel who were fundraising for HAMAS, they can cite HAMAS's all jihad policy (on the HAMAS website), they can cite a few other things but they will have an extremely tough time selling the 'since its inception' charge and I'm not sure what they intend to define as the 'criminal conspiracy'.

The charge of 'render authorities ineffective' is probably a bit stronger.

I will also agree with Steve that CAIR would not want to go through the discovery process -- especially because it will involve looking at CAIR's financial records. Thinking ahead here, however, I imagine CAIR is already shredding lots of these records. If so, it will make it harder to embarrass CAIR during discovery but also make it harder for CAIR to successfully countersue.

Posted by mhw 2005-01-03 1:38:10 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:38:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Authoritative source: Anti-CAIR - also being sued by CAIR for libel - unsuccessfully, thus far.

Posted by .com 2005-01-03 1:45:40 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:45:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 What a bunch of scumbags. I would not have known what these folks are about without Rantburg. Great link, .com. Thanks-I will be bookmarking that one.

Posted by Jules 187 2005-01-03 1:49:10 PM|| 2005-01-03 1:49:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I expect that a judge or jury will find these accusations to be slander.

I'm not a legal eagle either.
However, would you care to make a small wager on the above proposition? I will give you 3-1 odds.
:)

My limit is 100 (American) dollars.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 2:18:40 PM|| 2005-01-03 2:18:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Thanks for your offer to bet, Shipman, but no thanks. I've been wrong and poor too often in my life. I'll hope for a moral victory.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-03 3:07:12 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:07:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I can settle your bet right quick, here. Statements in legal pleadings enjoy "absolute privilege" -- you can't sue anyone for defamation based on them, period.

(See, 3 years of law school was good for something!)

Posted by Mike 2005-01-03 3:46:36 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:46:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Well, then, it's a good thing I didn't bet Shipman.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2005-01-03 3:59:19 PM|| 2005-01-03 3:59:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Damn! I meant $150.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-03 5:16:38 PM|| 2005-01-03 5:16:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Bingo Mike. Wait till you get sued Mike S; you won't believe what you read. There is no lie a lawyer won't tell in the cause of his clent's case.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-03 5:21:08 PM|| 2005-01-03 5:21:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't know. Does anyone think turning the legal pit bulls loose does any good in such a case. Will any of the victims get anything? If suing does any good, I'm all for it but I am doubtful it will result in much.

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-03 7:15:01 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:15:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 JQ. I think there is immense PR value in putting CAIR on the defensive. There is also the benefit to discovery alluded to above, and the even greater benefit to Obstruction of Justice charges when CAIR is found to have destroyed documents under discovery even if it can't be proven they contained anything incriminating.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-03 7:35:50 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:35:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 This is the third suit for facilitating/participating in 9/11 that has been reported here in the past few days, not to mention others filed in the past. As the first two are being handled by the same lawyer,

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-03 7:37:24 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:37:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 JQ - it's how they destroyed the organization of the KKK. They always get mobsters on tax evasion, so I don't see any reason why they can't consistently bankrupt hate organizations through lawsuits which make them liable for the death and destruction that they promote.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-03 7:42:38 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:42:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 I will give you 3-1 odds.

I'd give 3-1 if a first-year law student were handling the case for the plaintiffs. A good trial lawyer should be able to nail CAIR 9 times out of 10 based on public perception & publicly available information alone. And should anything even remotely interesting turn up during discovery ... watch out.

Mike what you're forgetting / ignoring is the dynamic of jury trials in the US: all things being equal sympathetic plaintiffs routinely defeat unsympathetic defendants in civil cases. Doubly true where the defendant is a deep pocket (e.g., a PR arm of the Saudi Oil ticks). I'll suggest here that there are no plaintiffs in the US with whom juries will be more sympathetic than 9/11 victims' families and precious few defendants less sympathetic than defenders of radical Islamic sects.

CAIR needs to begin writing very large checks right now or this one will get ugly in a big hurry.

Posted by AzCat 2005-01-03 7:43:40 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:43:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Sorry. To continue:

As the first two are being handled by the same lawyer, I strongly suspect there will be a good deal of sharing of the evidence by the various plaintiffs' legal teams. Not to mention all the evidence coming out of the Oil For Food investigations, translations of documents found after Baghdad was taken, and the results of discovery for each of these lawsuits.

Popcorn, anyone? I'm thinking that just butter & salt might not suffice... we may well need caramel! Maybe even homemade fudge (I just got a new recipe I'm dying to try :-D )

Posted by trailing wife 2005-01-03 7:44:04 PM|| 2005-01-03 7:44:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 John Q - almost no one in this country outside of Daniel Pipes and other jihad watchers is paying attention to the CAIR-Hamas network. This trial is worthwhile if it gets broad public attention and deprives the terror-apologists in the universities of whatever public sympathy they may be able to drum up.

Posted by lex 2005-01-03 9:05:15 PM|| 2005-01-03 9:05:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 lex,

"This trial is worthwhile if it gets broad public attention"

I hear that CNN and CBS are dying to be fair & balanced. Well, here is their chance.

Holding Breath-/begin 1.2.3.4./stopping futility

Posted by Poison Reverse 2005-01-03 9:48:22 PM|| 2005-01-03 9:48:22 PM|| Front Page Top

17:23 Liberalhawk
17:23 Liberalhawk
00:07 joeblow
23:58 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:45 lex
23:43 tipper
23:41 Asedwich
23:39 Zenster
23:35 Zenster
23:26 Zenster
23:20 lex
23:17 lex
23:16 lex
23:14 lex
23:13 Mark Z.
22:41 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:16 Frank G
22:12 Seafarious
22:09 2b
22:05 Aris Katsaris
22:02 Frank G
21:59 2b
21:58 2b
21:58 Frank G