Obama administration supports Saudi immunity in 9/11 lawsuit
- 2009/06/02 15:05:30
- Read all 10 opinions
Brief seeking to deny Americans access to court remedies for attack
Posted: June 01, 2009
9:07 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.
The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States that killed almost 3,000 Americans, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration has asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida's attack.
While the FSIA generally protects a sovereign state, there are exceptions under which its provisions can be invoked. Such interpretations are left largely to the courts to determine.
Families of the 9/11 victims, however, have expressed outrage over the Obama administration's filing. They regard the action as undermining the continuing fight against terror.
In its recent friend-of-the-court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in "Federal Insurance Co. vs. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," the Obama administration asked the court to deny a petition for a "writ of certiorari," or higher court hearing, by the families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its princes.
In the original case filed in 2006, the families of the 9/11 victims allege Saudi Arabia and four Saudi princes acting in their capacity as high-level government officials and as individuals made donations to charitable organizations with the knowledge that the charities were diverting funds to al-Qaida. In response, the Saudi government invoked the FSIA as a basis to preclude a lawsuit by the 9/11 victims' families.
In August 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in dismissing the claim against Saudi Arabia. The dismissal covered the four princes, a Saudi banker and a Saudi charity. In addition, the appeals court said that the exceptions to immunity didn't apply since the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism.
There appears, however, to be a possible conflict in what the FSIA allows and a portion of a U.S. statute [28USC1605(a)] which states, in effect, that a foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if the attack and funding for it occurred in the U.S.
"Although the United States disagrees in certain respects with the analysis of the court of appeals, further review by this Court to determine the best legal basis for that immunity is unwarranted," Kagan wrote.
Fifteen of the 19 terrorists who hijacked U.S. aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and were affiliated with al-Qaida. Intelligence and past actions link the Saudi government and the four princes with al-Qaida.
"In effect, the U.S. Government announced its opposition to allowing 9/11 victims and their families full access to the U.S. legal system in (the government's) effort to protect Saudi Arabia and its princes from being held accountable for their role in the attack on the United States," said Peter Leitner, who has assisted terror victims' families successfully in suing terrorist organizations for the past 12 years.
"As power of Attorney for the family and estate of John P. O'Neill, former FBI (counter-terrorism) expert, I find it disgusting that the Obama administration has spat in the faces of these victims just as (Obama) prepares to leave for Egypt and Saudi Arabia while advocating for the closing of (the U.S. Guantanamo prison in Cuba) and giving full access to the U.S. court system to the terrorists currently imprisoned there," he said.
- Population Control in an Aging Society
- How Payment By Third Parties Distorts Health Care Decisions
- Dems Shred The Constitution
- To Cut Your Health Insurance Costs, Move
- Exposing the Obamacare Shell Game
- View more slideshows »
Government shutdown or not, there's a new $100 bill in town -- and apparently, people love it!
If Congress doesn't agree on how the U.S. will pay its bills by October 1st, the federal government will shut down. But how concerned is the average American? Not very.
Ever since President Obama's re-election back in November, the media hasn't stopped reporting about the ruffled course of the Republican party. So who's the future face of the GOP? Find out how the public voted.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been at the center of media coverage for a while now. But more recently, the buzz has been about his proclaimed political party -- and whether or not he should change it.