You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
CAIR Named as a Defendant in 9/11 Terror Lawsuit
2005-01-03
A class action lawsuit in the name of John P. O'Neill, Sr., stemming from the 9/11 atrocity, has named the Council on American-Islamic Relations as a defendant. (For those confused about the multiple 9/11 court cases, there is help on the way at http://www.september11terrorlitigation.com/.) Here are the paragraphs dealing with CAIR's role in the events of September 11, 2001, from the second amended class action complaint, filed today:

86. Council on American Islamic Relations and CAIR Canada (collectively, CAIR), have aided, abetted, and materially sponsored and al Qaeda and international terrorism. CAIR is an outgrowth of the Hamas front group the Islamic Association of Palestine. The FBI's former associate director in charge of Investigative and Counter-Intelligence Operations described the Islamic Association of Palestine as an organization that has directly supported Hamas military goals and is a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has produced videotapes that are very hate-filled, full of vehement propaganda. It is an organization that has supported direct confrontation.

87. CAIR and CAIR-Canada have, since their inception, been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism. These organizations play a unique role in the terrorist network. They emanate from the notorious HAMAS terrorist organization and like so many of the terrorism facilitating charities named and indicted by the United States government they are engaged in fund raising under the guise of assisting humanitarian causes they are, in reality, a key player in international 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, analysts, commentators, media organizations, and government officials by leveling false charges of discrimination, libel, slander and defamation. In addition, both organizations have actively sought to hamper governmental anti-terrorism efforts by direct propaganda activities aimed at police, first-responders, and intelligence agencies through so-called sensitivity training. Their goal is to create as much self-doubt, hesitation, fear of name-calling, and litigation within police departments and intelligence agencies as possible so as to render such authorities ineffective in pursuing international and domestic terrorist entities.

88. 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. They are the intellectual "shock troops" of Islamic terrorism. 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.
Posted by:tipper

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#25  Damn! I meant $150.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-01-03 5:16:38 PM  

#24  Well, then, it's a good thing I didn't bet Shipman.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester   2005-01-03 3:59:19 PM  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#15  Ever been sued, Mike?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-01-03 12:39:08 PM  

#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  

#13  heh heh heh :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2005-01-03 12:19:06 PM  

#12  Discovery's a bitch. Got email?
Posted by: mojo   2005-01-03 12:18:38 PM  

#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  

#10  #6
Not unless they can staff a jury.
Posted by: gromgorru   2005-01-03 12:09:54 PM  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#5  Well, start off with the bluebirds - then finish off with raptors!
Posted by: Tony (UK)   2005-01-03 11:16:04 AM  

#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  

#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  

#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  

#1  Once in a while, there ARE good news.
Posted by: gromgorru   2005-01-03 10:21:38 AM  

00:00