9/11 INSURANCE - spanner in the works

Well, this is timely to announce, around the 2nd anniversary - but it's no easy suit!

* What if these insurers face some form of counter-claim, or if the Bush administration itself is enjoined in the proceedings as a complicit "accessory before and after the fact"?

* What if no claim can be proven, because there is so much doubt cast over the veracity of the Congressional Enquiry findings, and the Bush admin stonewalled so many of the proceedings anyway?

* How can Al Qaeda be sued? Where is it a registered legal entity?

* How can any middle eastern country be sued?


This is just blatant stupidity, either a badly presented article not to Reuters usual journalistic standard, or a field day for lawyers of insurers to make millions in fees. They certainly won't be working on any contingencies, as they know they can't win.

UNLESS of course, there is some complicity with the Bush admin in the Middle East itself, and the "Saudis" will come to the party.

What a load of bollocks these lawsuits are.






Insurers Sue Al Qaeda Over 9/11
11/09/2003 07:29 AM - Reuters

Dozens of insurers have said they are planning to file a lawsuit against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as well as several Middle Eastern countries, seeking $300 billion of damages related to claims paid out for the September 11 attacks.

The group of insurers, which includes units of Chubb Corp. and Munich Re's American Re, said they would file suit in federal court in New York and Washington, DC against groups such as al Qaeda and as well as countries including Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The suit, which was to be filed just one day before the two-year anniversary of the airplane attacks that killed about 3,000 people, argues these parties were responsible for the attacks that resulted in the worst insurance disaster in history.

It comes on the heels of Tuesday's decision by a New York judge to let lawsuits against airlines and the World Trade Center's owners proceed. The suits were filed by families who said negligence played a key role in the casualties caused by the September 11 attacks.

The suit by insurers, which are represented by the law firm Cozen O'Connor, seeks to recoup billions of dollars of property and casualty and workers compensation claims in addition to punitive damages.

Over $18.5 billion in insurance claims related to the September 11 attacks had been filed as of July, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

The United States has blamed al Qaeda, which is led by the Islamic militant bin Laden, for the September 11 attacks.

BUMP!

It's well and truly 9/11 around most of the States by now.

What do people think of suing every one left right and centre (OBL, Al Qaeda, unnamed Middle Eastern countries) for losses incurred two years ago?

Shouldn't there be some conclusive pinning of the attacks on specified financiers of the alleged suicide hijackers?

It's a bit hypocritical to me as well, thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald is held out to have acted alone, but the same cannot be applied to 19 dead Saudis and Egyptians.

#ing corrupt idiot fee building lawyers.

..it won't be available to the public who or what that entity is,if it was disclosed who was responsible,if any one entity is,there would be all hell to pay.
-Kinda hard to sue a phantom (al-qaeda)
-kinda hard to sue a country without proof that it was allowing it's citizens to do the crime.
This is rediculous,wonder what's next???.

Let's see.....

RIAA sues a 12 year old girl.
Insurance Companies sue Terrorists.

My best prediction for the next major retard lawsuit of the months would have to be that Uncle Same will hunt down owners of conspiracy related message boards and sue them for "defamation of character"....

This whole damn country is so stuck on frivilous lawsuits it's rediculous. I mean, anyone who will award a woman 750,000 from a store owner for tripping over her own kid in the store has got major flipping issues.

Thank you Unbalanced for (at last) being the third ATS member to express a totally BALANCED (as usual) view on this nonsense.

I have a feeling it is just grandstanding and fee-building by lawyers acting for insurers who will otherwise be slipping off this mortal coil... but it will get really interesting if someone or something that does stand for "Al Qaeda" gets brought into proceedings under the Patriot Act, which was designed this way.

Any transactions involving dirty money or any connection with the Al Qaeda network, under the Patriot Act, can lead to the freezing of that bank account and destitution for the account holder.

If the world is just, then EXACTLY the same thing will apply to all the illegal proceeds of the War On Iraq, and Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and A$$croft will have all of their assets frozen for redistribution to the rightful owners - the citizens of the USA and Iraq. This should happen, even if idiot Bush has had wild and woolly Executive Orders thrown in front of him for signature every day, and in his world travels he has signed bilateral agreements with many countries in exchange for favorable trading terms, that prevent these countries taking Bush and his cronies to International Court for such things as war crimes.

It is a highly complex set of proceedings.

I would not want to be someone who has ever funded an Al Qaeda terrorist operation. But I would not want to be connected with the Bush admin in any way either. They are going to have hell to pay for their criminality.

[Edited on 11-9-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

....If martial law was declared,everyone would be distracted from this topic,and if georgie boy starts sweating,he will declare it for just that reason.
I think GWB has outlived his usefulness,he will either get beaten in the upcoming election or worse....
If the government of the US was held to it's own laws,they would fit right into those new acts that they like to write so much,as criminals.
Maybe this is a good thing,or maybe a bad thing considering how big of a distraction/diversion will have to be presented to make it go away,kinda like stem cell research was big news on 9/10,and forgotten 9/11 for the most part until now,2 years later,but they went through a lot of trouble changing abortion laws and other precedents which would make collecting fetal material easier........hmmmmm.
They must be planning on revamping the legal system.
Uh oh.

A U2U from Unbalanced, fully copied up here without his say-so, because of my pointless and unheeded U2U hunger strike (with full apologies to Unbalanced)!


"....I really get no response to some of my replies on threads,is it because I am wrong?,because what I think is the truth is too harsh and people don't want to deal with it?,?.
I think that a lot of people here just don't want to admit how bad things really are.
WHat do you think?."


My opinions:

1. You are not too harsh.

2. Reasons for low response rate could be as follows:

(a) People are getting to know you, and some of the more squeamish would look at your name, and not want to set you off;

(b) Sometimes the topic looks dull and uninteresting (like "INSURANCE") so people don't get into it until it has 15 or more replies;

(c) Members are sometimes in disbelief when they read some of the current events caused by the Bush admin, and they wander off - either to wash their hands of the whole mess, or consider carefully before responding;

(d) Other members will read, but feel they have no expertise in the matter at hand, storing the info in some deep dark recess to cite months later with authority;

(e) There could be far more exciting topics getting the endorphins flowing for members at the time of your posts, but they will come in their droves to what you have said, later.


None of the above are anything to be concerned about in my opinion.

I read a lot here at ATS that I think is interesting and thought provoking, but don't respond to. My reasons may include:

1) I agree with the point of view expresed. Honestly, I'm much more likely to respond to things I disagree with. If someone is already saying what I would say, what's the point of my adding to it?

2) I may be undecided in my own opinion. Hey, maybe I want some time to think about it, or maybe I'll never form an opinion on that topic.

3) I may not have anything to offer. I'm pretty good at the things I know, but nobody knows everything.

I would never take non-responsivness to a thread personally. You never can tell why people don't respond, nor should you attach too much importance to it if they do. If the idea is good, you will always have the chance to introduce it again later.