web analytics


By Pete Moore On December 27th, 2011

What timing!

As 2012 dawns, as the calls for war against Iran grow louder, a Manhatten judge has fingered Iran for 9/11:

A federal district court in Manhattan yesterday entered a historic ruling that reveals new facts about Iran’s support of al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled yesterday that Iran and Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.

Gosh, ‘new facts’. I bet they’re ‘new facts’, shiny new facts straight off the production line. Does anyone believe Iran had anything to do with 9/11? Come on, not even the war-crazed Cheney and Rumsfeld tried it on with a whopper like that, and that’s a pair who’d lie about anything.

During last week’s hearing, September 11 victims’ families sat through a four-hour presentation from lawyers who cited evidence supporting their claims that Iran actively assisted the hijackers of planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. Former members of the September 11 Commission and three Iranian defectors also spoke.

Well that’s me sold. Some Powerpoint slides and three defectors are highly persuasive. Alright, those Iraqi defectors who assured us that Iraq was brimming with WMD seem to have been dealing in fairy tales, but these are Iranian defectors. Apparently.

(h/t ATW regular Allan@Aberdeen)


  1. This has a lot more to do with a Junk Legal System than it does with an organized conspiracy by anyone.

    And I’ve spoken about the Junk Legal System many times here, and I don’t think that you two conspiracy nuts have spoken about it even once.

    This appears to be the OJ Legal System yet again. And not Dick Cheney manipulating the universe from his flying saucer.

  2. Head of Al-Qaeda: Saudi
    Financing for Al-Qaeda: mostly Saudi
    15 of 19 Hijackers: Saudi

    Action taken against Saudi Arabia for 9/11: none

  3. It’s a default judgement. Which as I understand it happens when one party declines to follow the summons and attend court.

    If anyone with knowledge on the New York legal system (ie Mahons) can explain it more fully then feel free.

    In this case it is clearly stupid to issue a summons to a country with whom the USA has no relations but as a call for war- I very much doubt it.

  4. Fewsorange- Saudi Arabia is a problem but are you saying we should have acted against Saudi Arabia because the attackers were from there? They weren’t acting on behalf of Saudi Arabia and the Saudis weren’t protecting them.

  5. There have been similar Junk Verdicts against Cuba.

    It is all lies and bullshit from a horrible legal system.

    This coming from a Federal judge would be based on federal law and not NY law.

  6. The US would never accept the jurisdiction of a Cuban or Iranian court, and especially under the current state of diplomacy, the Cubans or Iranians should not be expected to consent to the jurisdiction of a United States court.

    The entire process was illegitimate and the verdict should be voided.

    ( As is the ” universal jurisdiction ” as promoted in some English and Spanish circles )

  7. I don’t imagine anyone is about to collect any time soon. These type of lawsuits are a waste of time and fraught with stupidity. Sadly, victims families tend to need someone to blame and are often ready to be convinced by some lawyer that this is in their interests and the interests of their lost ones.

    Ross is correct it was not a contested suit, but even so I find the judge’s giving the appearance of legitimacy to it was unfortunate.

    I will note that there is zero indication that this is some prelude to war with Iran.

    As an aside, there is a wonderful yet disturbing film called The Sweet Hereafter which involves a lawyer trying to get family members to sue the school district when a busload of children are killed. It captures the emotional toll and vulnerability of families in these situations.

  8. The thought process of the lawyer and judge are as honest as that of our two resident chuckleheads in discussing the case.

    Two and two equals a penguin speaking Swedish, always.

  9. Phantom –

    The evidence came from 9/11 Commission members and two CIA officers, among others.

    Are their thought processes and evidence as dishonest as that of the judge, lawyers, Allan@aberdeen and me?

  10. The 9/11 Commission did not say that Iran did it.

    Nice try.

    This entire trial was illegitimate. I won’t pay any attention the the workings of an illegitimate process. That will be left to you, Allan, and Alex Jones, and to the Montana Militia.

  11. You’ve flipped.

  12. In what way, the commission didn’t say the attack was directed by Iran.

  13. What part of ” the entire trial was illegitimate ” do you not understand.

    I have for years here been critical of similar illegtimate misuse of the court systems in the US ( vs Cuba ) and Spain and the attempted misuse of courts in England ( Pinochet, Israel )

    But the two genius kahunas only now jump out and basically say that this trial was orchestrated by the US ” neocons ” ( say it. You know you want to ) in order to start WW Three. And only they, and Ron Paul, and Alex Jones, and Alex Jones’s pen kinkaju can see it all because the rest of the sheeple are stupid and only they are smart.

    This was a misuse of the courts. Which is a really bad thing. But our system is prone to such abuse. And this is not the first time that this has happened.

  14. Phantom –

    You’re remarkably keen to comment on something you will not comment upon.

    Look at the first link again. Iran has been judged, on the basis of evidence submitted by 9/11 Commission members and CIA officers, to have “materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September 11, 2001 attacks”. If you read the link you find things such as these:

    Included among Judge Daniels’ findings in Havlish are the following:

    * Members of the 9/11 Commission staff testified that Iran aided the
    hijackers by concealing their travel through Iran to access al Qaeda
    training camps in Afghanistan. Iranian border inspectors refrained from
    stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because evidence
    of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers from obtaining
    visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into the United States.
    The 9/11 Commission Report addressed these facts and called for further
    investigation. 9/11 Commission Report at pp. 240-41.

    Whether or not you think the hearing was illegitimate, this is the position of the 9/11 Commission.

  15. The US government and the commission have not said that Iran was involved in in 9/11 plotting.

    Despite your attempts to imply that they did with the usual Prison Planet logic.



  17. So there is no effort being made by the corporate-military-judiciary to create the necessary pretext for a ‘preventative’ war against Iran? The reality is that a huge effort is being made incrementally until the American public is ‘persuaded’ that Iran is a threat to the American way of life (unlike the Fed and Wall Street). Firstly, there’s the terrorist used car salesman – that didn’t havve sufficient traction for very obvious reasons. Then there was Iranian aggression in seizing an American drone, and the fact that it was over Iranian territory – an act of war reportable to the UN – cuts no ice with the corporate warriors on this site. Now, there’s the fall-back position of 9/11 involvement and Phantom’s nonsensical efforts to discredit the source article (fully-linked to references) means that the propaganda machine is running through the gears. If this attempt to co-opt US public opinion fails, then the ‘authorities’ will try something more drastic.

  18. The trial ( and much of the US legal civil litigation system ) lacks logic.

    That is a more damning criticism, and it’s better since it happens to be true.

    Iran -is- a threat to the neighborhood and likely beyond, the only question is what to do about it.

  19. It wasn’t a trial, it is a default judgemet with a jurist who has about as much chance of being involved in a grand conspiracy as Rin Tin Tin.

  20. There should not have been the possibility of a default judgment here.

    The system is seriously messed up.

  21. Ron, oh I’m sorry I mean Pete, you and your ilk are the only people who would be surprised by facts and proof.

    Iran has given material, financial, and personnel aid to every Islamic terror group on the Planet since 1979. It doesn’t matter Sunni or Shia.

    Iran is the head of the terrorist snake, only an idiots refuse to see it.

    Bomb them, bomb them now, and continue to bomb them

  22. The Bush Administration did not say that.

  23. Iran has given material, financial, and personnel aid to every Islamic terror group on the Planet since 1979. It doesn’t matter Sunni or Shia.

    Sunni or Shia matters a lot if you are an Islamic fundamentalist. Before 2001 Iran and the Taliban hated each other and nearly went to war in the late 1990s after the Taliban murdered some Iranian envoys.

    The Taliban’s allies Al Qaeda have blown up Shias by the hundred in Iraq.

    The chances that Iran supported Al Qaeda is pretty remote.

  24. Troll – are you advocating a ‘preventative’ war? Phantom – same question.

    As for assisting terrorist organisations, has the US ever assisted a terrorist organisation? More particularly, has the US recently facilitated violelne and murder by supporting proxies?

  25. I do not advocate preventative war but I close no doors.

    And I note a lack of feasible alternatives to war from the Dynamic Duo.

  26. Ross is correct, though a mutual hatred of us Yanks (a/k/a The Great Satan) might result in some cooperation between them.

    Anyway, there is no reason, willingness or justification for war with Iran at the moment.

  27. Troll –

    “Iran has given material, financial, and personnel aid to every Islamic terror group on the Planet since 1979.”

    Well not every one of them, as Ross points out. If it has aided some anti-western terror groups since 1979 it’s only because they couldn’t get rid of the puppet Shah sooner.

    You know nothing of the 1953 coup d’etat in Iran but Iranians remember it well. The CIA and MI6 organised the overthrowing of the elected government and installed the Shah. This war you go on about, the one which Iran apparently declared in 1979, was started by our forces in 1953. Events in 1979 were just a continuation.

    Learn some history and you will understand what blowback means.

  28. Pete – In the context of the Cold War the coup was understandable, if ultimately a negative. I would prefer a history in which we didn’t have to ally themselves at times with bad players, but the history of the world doesn’t provide such a luxery. But whateever resentment the Iranians have against us it certainly doesn’t mean the Mullahs have some superior moral standing in world events (and even among their own people for whom they are far worse than the Shah).

  29. And again

    The regime in power there has only a bit more legitimacy than the North Koreans. They were not elected in any honest process.

    That said, they should not have to defend themselves in front of some schmuck judge in the US.

    They’re a sovereign state, and the judge’s proper powers do not go that far.

  30. ‘Preventive war’ was used as a defence at the Nuremburg trials and rejected.


    – When Obama administration officials, like those of the Bush regime before it, say “all options are on the table,” they are threatening nuclear war and that is prohibited by international law, says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois at Champaign.

    “The whole (George W.) Bush Doctrine of preventive warfare, which is yet to be officially repealed by Obama now after 18 months, was made by the Nazi lawyers for the Nazi defendants at Nuremberg, and it was rejected,” Boyle said. –

  31. When Obama administration officials, like those of the Bush regime before it, say “all options are on the table,” they are threatening nuclear war

    So if I’m in a dispute with somebody and I say that I haven’t ruled out any response yet, I’m threatening them with rape murder and arson?

  32. Ross, seriously, if rape, murder and arson are really in your arsenal of ‘options’ then you should be locked up.

    On the reality of the US-military’s options, when its nominal ‘leader’ states that all options are on the table, then ‘all options’ means ALL OPTIONS. Obama could simply have said that weapons of mass destruction will never be used by the US unless in a retaliatory sense, but he didn’t so the option of whatever the weapons suppliers would like to try out on the live firing range of Iran is there.

  33. Rape, murder and presumably arson are weapons actually used by the Islamic Republic of Iran against its opponents. Do spare a thought for those who have crossed that government’s path.

  34. On rape, murder and arson, the US-military-psycho ‘enforcers’ use that on its opponents or on anybody they want. I always thought the fires at Waco burnt more ferociously than a simple building fire so who brought in the phosphorus which utterly ininerated those inside?

    As for murder, Deborah Palfrey was another convenient suicide which was just a bit too convenient.


    However, back to Ross eause he’s even more of a concern than Troll. At least Troll is in the US where such people are quite ommonplace.

    Ross – are rape, murder and arson amongst your ‘options’?

  35. Ross – are rape, murder and arson amongst your ‘options’?

    Er no, that’s the whole point. When someone says “all options are on the table” it doesn’t literally mean that they are threatening them with the most extreme option that is physically possible.

  36. Ross – the only options which you can ever have on the table are those available to you. If you are not a rapist, murderer or arsonist then those options aren’t there. If Spain were to say to Morocco that all options are on the table, military action is one of them but nuclear war is not – because the option isn’t there. So when Hilary or whichever psycopath runs the corporate-military’s Middle East policy says that “all options are on the table” using those exact words, it means that the options available are being considered, including nuclear. Besides, it’s been a while since they’ve tested their nuclear weapons on a city. Some real ‘shock and awe’ is needed to remind China as to who’s boss.

  37. The trial ( and much of the US legal civil litigation system ) lacks logic.
    That is a more damning criticism, and it’s better since it happens to be true.

    It doesn’t require logic in order to fulfil a propaganda purpose. It doesn’t even need to be centrally orchestrated. It merely needs to happen (thank you career hungry lawyers and judges) and for a report to be filed (thank you, as ever, the news wires/press). As long as I get “Iran, 9/11, link, guilty” into some column inches the rest is irrelevant, infact the less logical the better as nobody is going to follow up with any process story because they know it’s propaganda and not news (thank you editors). All parts of the system worked with no central conspiracy.