James Baker and the Saudi's

With the presidential debates coming up, I was wondering what people think about the following:

- Bush's lead negotiator is ex Secretary of State James Baker.
- James Baker's law firm (Baker Botts) is the firm defending Saudi insurance companies, members of the Saudi House, and the Saudi American Bank. These entities all are being sued by the families of the 9/11 victims.
- Those entities are being sued for providing funding and aid directly to the 9/11 hijackers.

That's for the facts, and maybe there's nothing wrong with it... I think it's a bad choice, but I guess there's nothing illegal about it.

My question is: is this just a bad choice, or is it immoral? Right now, there is no real (public) proof about the fundings (although everybody who saw the 27 classified/missing/censored pages of the 9/11 report agrees that that's exactly what those pages are about - with hard proof and everything). What if those pages are made public, and you see the hard proof for the fundings?

Hey Neg. Where can I get a look at those "27 classified/missing/censored pages of the 9/11 report" Please. Not being anal, just haven't seen them.

Lol... they're classified...

The word is out there, though: those 27 (or 28... depends on who you ask) pages contain all the proof... (not saying it's true... just saying that the word is out there :)

One of those sources, for example, is Senator Arlen Specter (R). And the 9/11 victims are sueing the Saudi's for that exact reason... they must have some ground for it...

I think it's imoral to be able to sue a country because some people just happend to be born there and moved away and commited murder. That is totally ****ed up and I live in a country where the only people not sue crazy are Conservatives.

Bush's lead negotiator to what? The debates? Probably a poor choice given the fact that Kerry and the left thing Bush sleeps with the Royal Family. Other than that I don't see what would possibly be imoral about it. The left applaudes the ACLU for taking up DEFENCE of terrorists and the Saudi Government didn't sponsor these guys. I don't get it.

Just another example of the American way of planning / thinking ahead .....

A friend of mine, working in the Gulf region, received work orders for the repair of several installations. They were detailed to the extent that the co-ordinates and duration of workload were there.

Problem:
They were Iraqi installations, and Gulf 2 hadn't started yet.

three months later the US military completed its part of the deal. They were NOW in need of repair.

The company: Halliburton......... And the CEO of said company: Dick Cheney. Now the US vice president..........

Morals, ethics, bad choice, greed or stupidity.

Makes for an interesting mix though.


[edit]

Quote:

---

think it's imoral to be able to sue a country because some people just happend to be born there

---

The court case is not because of where someone was born ........ It's because the Saudi's bankrolled [allegedly] the whole 9/11 attack, and they did it with open eyes, not for them the excuse of " I didn't know they were going to do that" they funded [allegedly] because it was the easy option. Give them money [allegedly] and they will go away.[/edit]

And for more explanations about why we did what we did where we did it and when:
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=262499

A little odd? Maybe. But since when do you have to agree with every position a law firm takes for their clients....in order for the lawyers to be used in any other capacity? I would think this firm may be one of a very few capable of taking on such suits. If they have extremely skilled high-profile lawyers....you know, the "best minds" so to speak, then why would you not use them for other tasks...say a "negotiator".

I didn't know they're sueing a country?
To the debates, yes.
Is it "logical" (changing the wording... maybe I'll get some on-the-point replies this way) for someone to both help Bush and the Saudi's?

Bush was very quick to accuse Saddam of funding the 9/11 terrorists. Would it be "logical" for Baker to become Saddam's lawyer? In my opinion: no.
But in the Saudi's case (where there seems to be evidence that they really did fund the terrorists, as opposed to Saddam) there's nothing wrong with it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mathgirl
A little odd? Maybe. But since when do you have to agree with every position a law firm takes for their clients....in order for the lawyers to be used in any other capacity? I would think this firm may be one of a very few capable of taking on such suits. If they have extremely skilled high-profile lawyers....you know, the "best minds" so to speak, then why would you not use them for other tasks...say a "negotiator".

---

Would your opinion change if you knew for a fact that the entities accused actually did fund the 9/11 attack? I believe in a fair trial for everyone, and I don't have a problem with them getting the best defense there is. But it would be "odd" to say the absolute least, no?

The Saudi House is the country? The National Bank state sponsored. So in essence you are telling me the Saudi's carried out 9.11? If so, we already have tanks there and a large force just to the north. Assuming that is the case, **** em they are next.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
Would your opinion change if you knew for a fact that the entities accused actually did fund the 9/11 attack? I believe in a fair trial for everyone, and I don't have a problem with them getting the best defense there is. But it would be "odd" to say the absolute least, no?

---

No, my opinion would not change. I believe in fairness and objectivity. Yes, as I said at the beginning of my post...it is a little odd. But, as the two are life-long friends, he is obviously not just a great mind (in Bush's opinion), but also someone he really trusts.

I see this whole scenario you brought up sort of like the job of a gynecologist. His job...is his JOB. He isn't (necessarily) cheating on his wife when he goes to work every day.

Obviously, things haven't gotten bad enough to bring
sobriety to the people in the Bush administration.
They obviously think it's still all about making a buck
and business as usual.

They refuse to even entertain the suspicion that all is
not well with the house of Saud, that it is a crumbling
fake regime, that if elections were held in Saudi Arabia
today, Osama Bin Laden would win to thunderous
applause.

Bush and Cheney are the classic American innocents abroad,
too clever for their own good, being conned by every pickpocket
in the Middle east as they search for the mythical moderate
Arab ally.

We have laws that require people working on behalf of foreign
states to register with the state dept. as agents of a foreign
power How would it look if Baker had to carry the same label
that the McCarthyites hung on communists in the 1950s.
:cool: