Supreme Court Will Not Hear 9/11 Victims Claims Vs. Saudi Arabia

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.

The court, in an order Monday, is leaving in place the ruling of a federal appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can't be sued in American courts.

The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case.

In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government's court brief filed in early June was an "apparent effort to appease a sometime ally" just before President Barack Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia.

At issue were obstacles in American law to suing foreign governments and their officials as well as the extent to which people can be held financially responsible for acts of terrorism committed by others.

The appeal was filed by relatives of victims killed in the attacks and thousands of people who were injured, as well as businesses and governments that sustained property damage and other losses.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York previously upheld a federal judge's ruling throwing out the lawsuits. The appeals court said the defendants were protected by sovereign immunity and the plaintiffs would need to prove that the princes engaged in intentional actions aimed at U.S. residents.

In their appeal to the high court, both sides cited the report of the Sept. 11 Commission. The victims noted that the report said Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding. The Saudis' court filing, however, pointed out that the commission "found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization."

The victims' lawsuits claim that the defendants gave money to charities in order to funnel it to terrorist organizations that were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The appeal also stressed that federal appeals courts have reached conflicting decisions about when foreign governments and their officials can be sued.

The case is Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 08-640.

Comments

[Durango]

that is probably a smart move. Although coming from the fools like Scalia and Roberts it might be hard to credit.

But even broken clocks . . .

Foreign policy can't be carried out through the courts. No matter how much we might want to be able to.

And there is no evidence I have seen that the government of Saudi Arabia was connected to the attacks on 9/11. In fact Osama bin Ladin is a much greater threat to the kingdom than he is to the USA.

The Royal family is another story of course. But if you know anything about monarchies they are all engaged in fighting and even murder behind the scenes trying to get an advantage or to come to power.

Monarchy is perfectly lousy way to run any country.

But that doesn't mean the government was responsible.

[booker52]

Thumbs down to the court. This so called princes should pay. Our troops are still guarding their collective asses and no thanks from them or their gov. The people sueing should go to the world court and see what happens. I am not into the law and don't claim to know it, but this is just my feelings.

[CaptainHowdy2]

"The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case."

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!!!

[jnutlfam2]

Get a grip!! Such a ruling could lead to reprisals against the US and it's citizens for some of the things WE'VE done against other countries.

[Rule Of Law]

15 of the so called and alleged "terrorists" were Saudis, and we invade Iraq and Afghanistan...

Metal skyscrapers don't just turn into dust and fall down in their own footprint.

And building 7, not even a target, fell, destroying some of this nation's most sensitive financial data, and opening the gates to this current economic con job.

Did anyone really think that this case would make it to any public court?

[WeMustSpeakOut]

Not for a nano(therm­ite)second­.

[JohnHKennedy]

"The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case. In their appeal, the more than 6,000 plaintiffs said the government's court brief filed in early June was an "apparent effort to appease a sometime ally" just before President Barack Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia." and "cited the report of the Sept. 11 Commission. The victims noted that the report said Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding."

Given that the Saudi Arabian Princes probably Funded some or all of the 9-11 Killers

How can Obama give the finger to the over 6,000 American plaintiff and voters?

We must push him to prosecute the Bush people
who violated Federal Laws.

SIGN THE PETITION
To Prosecute Those Bush staffers who Tortured In Our Name
at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG
.

[helonias]

They sure knew who to hold hands with

[medic628]

It is about he oil. It always will be about the oil. The ruling family in Saudi Arabia has been burning the candle at both ends for decades. Our ruling class has done all they can do to keep this oil flowing. If you think about it know one should be shocked. WE KEEP PAYING FOR IT! THEY KEEP DOING IT!

[Rule Of Law]

Gosh, I remember Bush telling us he would go anywhere the terrrrorists were to get 'em!

Apparently his map of the world didn't have Saudi Arabia on it.

[medici]

Bush can't read a map anyway.

[DelphineBlue]

Maybe we can send Bush back over there to jaw with them a bit. That'll show em.

[Rule Of Law]

I think that after the fore play of hand holding, Bush's jaw probably got tired, as well.

[TokyoCalling]

Of course not, they are on the payroll. Especially the republican justices. Talk about sleeping with the enemy.

[tomasedison]

They say you can sue a potato if you want to try...but you'll never touch a Saudi. They must be the chosen people.

[naschkatze]

I thought it was a ham sandwich.

[Pippen]

Truth ? The Supreme Court doesn't care about the truth. They care about their loyalty to "W"'s minions and Fascism.

The truth is the entire white house administration knew about 9/11 before it happened and green lighted it to go forward and then attempted to use it to change the world oil supply dollar to improve the US dollar value, improve geophysical strategic position, and garner power and fiscal strength for oil companies loyal to the US, and strengthen US national security for the future.

All of this through a series of lies that are so many they could fill a blackhole.

The result of was more of a money for blood ponzi scheme. American and Iraqi lives in the thousands in exchange for Halliburtons (KBR), Exxon, Chevron, BP, Unocal, Shell's profit margin.

[hankelvis]

Saudis have over 50 trillion. That is a lot of gas money. They put it in American banks for safe keeping when the Iraq war started. They made a small withdrawl last year.

[FightingTheRight]

I'm surprised the victim's families didn't sue the Iraqi government, based on the Neocons linking of Iraq to 9/11.

[ThinkCreeps]

I'm not sure it's too surprising: the victims were typically well-educated, and their families are presumably similar.

[Liberal2]

Hmmmmmm, you know what's odd? Suits against Libya went forward and Muammar al-Gaddafi settled with the victims' families.

[wadenelson1]

/Co-sign

[SnarkyDude]

Link please.

[TovSquirrel]

Here is a link regarding the suit settlement over flight 103:

http://www.panam.org/weblog/foundation/archives/000018.html

[VOTER]

Very Good Point.

[naschkatze]

Excellent point.

[medici]

But Libya didn't supply us with oil. I guess that's the difference.

[Durango]

Yeah they do.

The difference is that the lawsuit was used as leverage over Khadafi. Who wanted closer ties to the USA and the West long before 9/11.

So settling that suit looked like a concession while helping Libya do what they wanted to do in the first place.

It allowed Bush et al to save face.

[rainbowblue]

Even without soverign immunity, you can't hold them responsibile for the decisions of Bin Laden. Put it this way, should shareholders get prosecuted when a company pollutes or knowingly creates a work environment that minimizes worker saftey?

I feel for them, but suing isn't the answer--though that is the American way.

[viper234]

No suing isn't the answer, just bomb Iraq or any other country that had nothing to do with 9/11, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, torture innocent Iraqis, detain and humiliate Iraqi nationals, accuse Iraq of having WMD, then when it's discovered that it's a lie, just don't give a damn. Stay in Iraq any way and keep bombing and killing until you set the timetable to get out and only do that after you've figured out a way to put a US-backed government in power who will give oil contracts to Exxon Mobil and friends. Yup, that's the way to go. And make sure to kill Saddam Hussein. He nationalized Iraq's oil which meant the US couldn't get their hands on it. Bringing lawsuits against the country that had the most foreign fighters in Iraq just isn't the way to go, too legit, too logical, too right.