What's new

US Supreme Court lets victims' 9/11 suit vs. Saudi Arabia proceed

Raphael

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 1, 2012
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
5
Country
China
Location
China
Supreme Court lets victims' 9/11 suit vs. Saudi Arabia proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead Monday to a lawsuit by victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the government of Saudi Arabia, alleging it indirectly financed al-Qaeda in the years before the hijackings.

The justices declined to hear an appeal by the Saudi government of a lower-court ruling that the lawsuit could go forward. The high court also declined to hear a separate appeal by 9/11 victims of a lower-court decision preventing them from suing dozens of banks and individuals that allegedly provided financial assistance to the hijackers.

"From our perspective, we are looking forward to having the opportunity to finally conduct an inquiry into the financing of the Sept. 11 attacks," said Sean Carter, a partner at the Center City law firm Cozen O'Connor, one of the firms involved in the litigation against the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia has long denied responsibility for the attacks and pointed to a finding by the 9/11 Commission that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government "as an institution" had involvement.

But the issue has refused to go away.
Cozen, which has taken the lead in the litigation, sued the kingdom in 2003 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, alleging that Saudi-funded Islamist charities had secretly provided money and logistical support to al-Qaeda for more than a decade.

In 2005, a federal District Court judge in Manhattan ruled that Saudi Arabia could not be sued. The court said the kingdom could not be held accountable for what the charities did with the money.

Ruling in 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that Saudi Arabia could not be the target of a terrorism lawsuit. But in December, the Second Circuit effectively reversed itself and reinstated the kingdom as a defendant.

The Saudi government appealed that ruling, and the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear it, without comment.

Carter said he expected that discovery of Saudi government documents and depositions would begin shortly.

Cozen represents dozens of insurers that suffered losses as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Other plaintiffs in the litigation include the family of John O'Neill, a former senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, who sounded some of the first alarms about Osama bin Laden and died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, where he had gone to work as head of security after leaving the FBI.

"The O'Neill plaintiffs believe that the Supreme Court correctly denied . . . Saudi Arabia's petition seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision reinstating it in the 9/11 litigations," said Gerry Goldman, a lawyer with the firm of Anderson Kill P.C., which represents the O'Neill family. "We are looking forward to proceeding with discovery."

-------------------------------



A lot of nutty rulings coming out of American kangaroo courts these days. Not long ago, Bank of China was also sued for providing banking services for Palestinian suicide bomber.
 
Supreme Court lets victims' 9/11 suit vs. Saudi Arabia proceed

The U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead Monday to a lawsuit by victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks against the government of Saudi Arabia, alleging it indirectly financed al-Qaeda in the years before the hijackings.

The justices declined to hear an appeal by the Saudi government of a lower-court ruling that the lawsuit could go forward. The high court also declined to hear a separate appeal by 9/11 victims of a lower-court decision preventing them from suing dozens of banks and individuals that allegedly provided financial assistance to the hijackers.

"From our perspective, we are looking forward to having the opportunity to finally conduct an inquiry into the financing of the Sept. 11 attacks," said Sean Carter, a partner at the Center City law firm Cozen O'Connor, one of the firms involved in the litigation against the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia has long denied responsibility for the attacks and pointed to a finding by the 9/11 Commission that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government "as an institution" had involvement.

But the issue has refused to go away.
Cozen, which has taken the lead in the litigation, sued the kingdom in 2003 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, alleging that Saudi-funded Islamist charities had secretly provided money and logistical support to al-Qaeda for more than a decade.

In 2005, a federal District Court judge in Manhattan ruled that Saudi Arabia could not be sued. The court said the kingdom could not be held accountable for what the charities did with the money.

Ruling in 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that Saudi Arabia could not be the target of a terrorism lawsuit. But in December, the Second Circuit effectively reversed itself and reinstated the kingdom as a defendant.

The Saudi government appealed that ruling, and the Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear it, without comment.

Carter said he expected that discovery of Saudi government documents and depositions would begin shortly.

Cozen represents dozens of insurers that suffered losses as a result of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Other plaintiffs in the litigation include the family of John O'Neill, a former senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, who sounded some of the first alarms about Osama bin Laden and died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, where he had gone to work as head of security after leaving the FBI.

"The O'Neill plaintiffs believe that the Supreme Court correctly denied . . . Saudi Arabia's petition seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision reinstating it in the 9/11 litigations," said Gerry Goldman, a lawyer with the firm of Anderson Kill P.C., which represents the O'Neill family. "We are looking forward to proceeding with discovery."

-------------------------------



A lot of nutty rulings coming out of American kangaroo courts these days. Not long ago, Bank of China was also sued for providing banking services for Palestinian suicide bomber.

US Law provides for and accepts the "Doctrine of Vicarious Liability". That is how these Suits have been filed and accepted as being actionable. Now the suits will be heard and determined on their merits.
 
Will the victims also sue the United States Government for actually starting and financing Al-Qaida. What about the Iranians who lost their lives when US Navy decided to take down Iranian civil plane in the Persian Gulf? Will they ever get justice?
 
Good luck with that.

I wonder when all those countries that were invaded by USA will get their compensation for the actions of thousands of Americans? Be it Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan or Iraq.

The US. Supreme Court has no international jurisdiction and its rulings are completely irrelevant for KSA or any other state that is not the US.

There has already been dozens of threads about this topic. All with the same conclusion. Meaning utter bullshit.

They have a higher chance of suing their own country as they have apparently done as US citizens.
 
Good luck with that.

I wonder when all those countries that were invaded by USA will get their compensation for the actions of thousands of Americans? Be it Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan or Iraq.

The US. Supreme Court has no international jurisdiction and its rulings are completely irrelevant for KSA or any other state that is not the US.

There has already been dozens of threads about this topic. All with the same conclusion. Meaning utter bullshit.

They have a higher chance of suing their own country as they have apparently done as US citizens.


Think Again.
KSA has a lot of economic interests in the US, that can be controlled by the US.
 
They should sue Ronald Reagan, William Cascey and Charlie Wilson too.
 
Think Again.
KSA has a lot of economic interests in the US, that can be controlled by the US.

Which will never happen. Dozens of countries have investments in the US. What do you think such a behavior would show to them? Do you think that those countries would make similar future investments after such an unlawful act?

Do you think that it will go unnoticed?

You are daydreaming.

If the Americans wanted they could have "dealt" with KSA (like anyone else) long time ago. In fact a few days after 9/11. That never happened for a reason.

The acts of 15 citizens that acted on their own can never become the responsibility of any state.

Besides KSA and USA have very close relations on many fronts. Also in terms of human to human relations as there are thousands upon thousands of Saudi Arabian students in the US. Likewise thousands upon thousands of American citizens living in all regions of KSA.
 
Which will never happen. Dozens of countries have investments in the US. What do you think such a behavior would show to them? Do you think that those countries would make similar future investments after such an unlawful act?

Do you think that it will go unnoticed?

You are daydreaming.

If the Americans wanted they could have "dealt" with KSA (like anyone else) long time ago. In fact a few days after 9/11. That never happened for a reason.

The acts of 15 citizens that acted on their own can never become the responsibility of any state.

Besides KSA and USA have very close relations on many fronts. Also in terms of human to human relations as there are thousands upon thousands of Saudi Arabian students in the US. Likewise thousands upon thousands of American citizens living in all regions of KSA.

Has happened before, will happen again.

Swiss ABB, bought a small/medium sized US company. It turned out that this US company
had been using asbestos before it was bought by ABB. ABB was fined based on the turnover of ABB.
ABB is a HUGE company with 100s of thousand employees, so the fine was 1,5B$ IIRC.
This shows that such things happen.

With ~4000 killed and let's say $500,000 per person, it is only 2B$.
KSA can afford that kind of money,

Those 15 were not on their own, but of course it has to be proved that
KSA or KSA affiliates was involved.
 
That has already been settled, but you were to lazy to check any facts, I guess.

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would only accept when USA apologises and admit it deliberately took down a civilian plane. I guess to Americans ''rag heads'' lives are not worth much is it?

USA also has to apologise to the world for toppling elected democratic government in Iran, mass murder of Vietnamese civilians, funding and arming the Taliban, supporting a brutal dictator in Pakistan and many other nations.

Maybe the world should sue the USA for screwing the peace.
 
I would only accept when USA apologises and admit it deliberately took down a civilian plane. I guess to Americans ''rag heads'' lives are not worth much is it?

USA also has to apologise to the world for toppling elected democratic government in Iran, mass murder of Vietnamese civilians, funding and arming the Taliban, supporting a brutal dictator in Pakistan and many other nations.

Maybe the world should sue the USA for screwing the peace.
A lot of people should apologize. I can add to your list.

Starting with YOU, You should apologize for your total lack of knowledge about the Taliban.
US basically supported Afghan resistance until Russia left in 1989, and then the US stopped support.
The Taliban was created 1994, and was mainly funded by ISI.

Pakistan should apologize for funding the Taliban, something that now bites back,
and it would be appropriate that you make that apology as a representative.

Iran should apologize for violating the Geneva Convention by the US embassy occupation.

Vietnam should apologize for killing a lot of Vietnamese, and keeping them under a Communist Dictatorship
after invading the South.

India should apologize for making a lot of PDF visitors envious of their Su30MKI.
Really it is Pakistan Defense Forum. Show some respect.

India should furthermore apologize for not finalizing the Rafale purchase.
Pakistan is a poor country, and the cost of storing the MMRCA threads
may break the Pakistani finances.

The citizens of Greenland should apologize, for totally ignoring the comment on this Forum.

I apologize for wasting your time with this entry.
 
Has happened before, will happen again.

Swiss ABB, bought a small/medium sized US company. It turned out that this US company
had been using asbestos before it was bought by ABB. ABB was fined based on the turnover of ABB.
ABB is a HUGE company with 100s of thousand employees, so the fine was 1,5B$ IIRC.
This shows that such things happen.

With ~4000 killed and let's say $500,000 per person, it is only 2B$.
KSA can afford that kind of money,

Those 15 were not on their own, but of course it has to be proved that
KSA or KSA affiliates was involved.

Why should KSA and the 30 million Saudi Arabians pay for the actions of 15 nationals that acted on their own? The attack was not even prepared on KSA soil. The mastermind was Egyptian. The operation took place in the US. The leader of the organization was an half Yemeni and half Syrian (OBL) who back then had been stateless as KSA stripped his citizenship off him in 1994.

Of course those 19 (!) hijackers did not act on their own. They acted together with Al-Qaeda. The organization that they were a part of and who were blamed for the attack. Apparently if we believe the official version.

Your example is irrelevant as the example concerns a international private firm not state actors.

This can only happen if there are undeniable proof's of Saudi Arabian (GOVERNMENTAL) support for 9/11 which was not the case and which would be close to impossible to prove if we assumed that this was the case.

In short forget about it. Whatever the US Supreme Court rules it will have no basis in KSA.
 
Last edited:
Apology accepted.
As you didn't apologize yourself, I can reject you as a hypocrite.
That was what I assumed. Ignored from now....

Why should KSA and the 30 million Saudi Arabians pay for the actions of 15 nationals that acted on their own? The attack was not even prepared on KSA soil. The mastermind was Egyptian. The operation took place in the US. The leader of the organization was an half Yemeni and half Syrian (OBL) who back then had been stateless as KSA stripped his citizenship off him in 1994.

Of course those 19 (!) hijackers did not act on their own. They acted together with Al-Qaeda. The organization that they were a part of and who were blamed for the attack. Apparently if we believe the official version.

Your example is irrelevant as the example concerns a international private firm not state actors.

This can only happen if there are undeniable proof's of Saudi Arabian (GOVERNMENTAL) support for 9/11 which was not the case and which would be close to impossible to prove if we assumed that this was the case.

In short forget about it. Whatever the US Supreme Court rules it will have no basis in KSA.

We have a saying: Don't sell the skin, until you killed the Bear.
 
As you didn't apologize yourself, I can reject you as a hypocrite.
That was what I assumed. Ignored from now....



We have a saying: Don't sell the skin, until you killed the Bear.

In this case I am ready to sell the skin of the Arabian Leopard before I kill it.
 
Back
Top Bottom