Gunco Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
CAIR Named as a Defendant in 9/11 Terror Lawsuit 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.

Comment: (1) This filing explicitly ties CAIR to "the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism" that carried out 9/11, a first to the best of my knowledge.

(2) If the suit is successful, CAIR (1) will have been legally tied to Al-Qaeda and (2) will be partially responsible for damages amounting to US$100 billion.

(3) This filing, when added to Anti-CAIR's counter suit, suggest that despite CAIR's growing litigiousness, it will find itself legally more on the defensive than the offensive in coming months. (December 30, 2004)

All material on this site ?1980-2005 Daniel Pipes. meqmef
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
A bit of background on CAIR:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9706



Omar Ahmad
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies. A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.

"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ...... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
----Omar Ahmad


Ibrahim Hooper
CAIR Spokesperson

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

"CAIR does not support these groups publicly."
---- Ibrahim Hooper
(Hooper comments on CAIR's record of supporting Hamas, Hezbullah and other official terrorist groups)


Dr. Ghazi Khankan
CAIR Spokesperson

"I bring to you salaams and greetings from the Mujahadeen at CAIR."
(Statement made during a Washington D.C. rally)

"Anyone over 18 is automatically inducted into the service and they are all reserves.
Therefore, Hamas, in my opinion, looks at them as part of the military."
----Ghazi Khankan
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The media routinely uses CAIR's press releases as the basis for positive spin on all Islamic issues and complaints.

The news outlets are like lap dogs to this well heeled and aggressive advocacy group and the public does not know who is behind these stories. They think it is "reporting".
 

·
Gunco Irregular
Joined
·
4,323 Posts
Cephus said:
Just look at his taste in women that should tell how he got the idea for spin.
:lolup:
I agree Cephus!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Interesting. If the allegations are true, why didn't the US pursue criminal charges against them?

I'm a little disconcerted to see actions against any political organization taking place in a civil suit: The standard of proof is lower in a civil suit (preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyone a reasonable doubt), and the burden of proof is shared in a civil suit (i.e. CAIR will have to present evidence to refute these allegations, as opposed to a criminal trial where the burden of proof is upon the prosecution).

I'm not defending CAIR - I don't know enough about them to attack or defend them, although from previous posts of Custer's I do know they've said some pretty astonishingly stupid things - but I am questioning whether it's appropriate for civil suits to be lodged against political organization. Although I guess CAIR would also deny that it's a political organization. But, anyway, don't forget: "If they can do it to that other fellow, they can do it to you." I'd hate to see the NRA, for example, tangled up in a civil suit.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Let the truth come out in the crucible of cross examination.

While there is a lower burden of proof, the burden of proof never shifts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
...While there is a lower burden of proof, the burden of proof never shifts.
Huh? Can you explain?

I've had the pleasure of being subject to both criminal and civil charges.

With the criminal charges, I had the option of just keeping my mouth shut and making the prosecution prove it.

With the civil charges, I did not have that option: I had to present evidence to refute the allegations.

For example, seems to me that in a criminal case, CAIR would not have to refute the allegation of its association with Hamas, but instead could simply sit back and make the prosecution prove it. But in a civil case such as this, CAIR is going to have to present evidence refuting that it has an association with Hamas.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
This could get to be a 400 page treatise...but

Burden of proof includes two different concepts no matter if civil or criminal.

1. The burden of persuasion which is what is the standard that never shifts from the party who has it. There are 3 of them from high to low: beyond reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of evidence.

2. The burden of going forward with the evidence which will shift back and forth depending on what the other guy has presented during the course of the trial. This is a practical assessment of what you better do, if anything, to offset what your opponent has put into evidence.

Now, what about this?

Assume you have been arrested for robbing a gas station. The state has the burden of proof to prove you did it.

But, what if you claim an alibi? i.e. you were home playing poker with friends.

Who has the burden of proof about the alibi?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer, in a criminal case I would have no requirement to come up with an alibi in the first place. But if I did come up with one, there's two ways to do it, and I think we've all seen both:

First, just have your attorney put it out there in closing arguments as a reasonable hypothesis, as a "reasonable doubt" to prevent a conviction. And it took me a while to figure out that attorneys apparently can lie with impunity when doing so since they are not under oath themselves and are not suborning perjury by having someone else swear that a false alibi is true: When an attorney does this, it may or may not be true, there's no burden of proof for the alibi.

Second, introduce evidence to support the alibi. And yes, here there's a burden of proof taken on. But taken on - not imposed. There was no obligation to present evidence to refute the charge (i.e. present your alibi) as there would be in a civil case.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Alibi is an affirmative defense, if you raise it, you have to prove it.

In fact, in most states, you have to file a paper notifying the state that you plan on using an alibi as a defense before you go to trial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Had forgotten the "affirmative defense" terminology. Thanks!

So in most states you can't just have your attorney say at closing arguments, "Nothing that the prosecution has presented rules out the possibility that Mr. Booth was home playing with his children at the time Mr. Lincoln was shot."?

Anyway, my point was simply that in a criminal case you've got no obligation to present evidence in your defense, whether an alibi or anything else, whereas in a civil case if you just sit and don't rebut the plaintiff's case the preponderance of the evidence is going to be that presented by the plaintiff and you're screwed.

Don't know just how that would work if the standard was "clear and convincing evidence", I would presume with that you arguably could stand pat if you chose. My understanding is that most lawsuits go by preponderance of the evidence, administrative stuff like professional licensure revokation sometimes but not always goes by "clear and convincing evidence" instead of preponderance of the evidence. And criminal cases always go by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
In a criminal case, at the close of the prosecutor's case, the defense lawyer could ask for dismissal as a matter of law without having to put on a defense. The idea being no reasonable jury could convict on the presented evidence. Dismissal like this does not happen a lot but it does happen.

Similar in civil. At the end of the plaintiff's case, the defense asks for summary judgement (different names in different states) based upon a similar analysis as above.
Again, this is not frequent, but it is not rare either.

In fact, a lot of civil cases get bounced out of court by summary judgement before the plaintiff ever goes to trial. Not rare, either.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top