|
|
PRESS RELEASE
9/11-Saudi Coverup Begins To Crumble
Dec.
23, 2013 (EIRNS)—With a major ruling by a federal appeals court,
allowing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and related entities to be sued for
damages over the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the lid is now coming off of
the 12-year coverup, perpetuated under both Presidents George W. Bush
and Barack Obama, regarding the truth of what really happened in
September 2001.
Combined
with the burgeoning media coverage and public interest in Congressional
efforts to declassify suppressed Congressional findings dealing with
Saudi financing and support of the 9/11 hijackers, it is now the case,
as Lyndon LaRouche declared on Dec. 20, that the truth about 9/11 can no
longer be suppressed.
The
bombshell court ruling—ignored by most of the "mainstream" press—came
on Dec. 19, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned a 2005 Federal Court decision that the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia (KSA) was immune from civil lawsuits arising from the Sept. 11,
2001 attacks, and at the same time, reversed its own 2008 ruling
upholding that 2005 decision from the lower court. This now allows the
9/11 families and insurance companies to proceed with various civil
actions against the Kingdom, after 8 years of being stalled.
'Sovereign immunity'
The
KSA, various Saudi royals, and the Saudi High Commission, a
government-established "charity," had been dismissed as defendants in
2005 by U.S. District Judge Richard Conway Casey, who said that the
Saudi government and related individuals and entities were immune from
civil suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. He also held that
the the Saudi government's support for Islamist "charities" that
supported al-Qaeda did not make it responsible for 9/11.
After
the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling, the
plaintiffs sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. Continuing
the coverup in place from the Bush Administration, the Obama
Administration intervened in the case to support the Kingdom, filing a
brief in May 2009, urging the Supreme Court to refuse to review the
case, and strongly arguing for immunity for the Saudis. One of the
self-serving arguments made by the Obama Administration, was since Saudi
Arabia has not been official designated at a "state sponsor of
terrorism," therefore the "terrorism exception" to the sovereign
immunity doctrine does not apply. Of course the fact that the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia is, in truth, the world's leading state sponsor of
terrorism, cannot be admitted by the U.S. government, either, without
blowing the lid off the 12-year coverup of 9/11, of which both the Bush
and Obama Administrations are guilty.
What caused the Appeals Court to reverse its previous 2008 ruling, was another case, called Doe v. Bin Laden,
in which the plaintiff had sued Afghanistan, among others, over the
death of his wife in the 9/11 attacks. In that case, the federal
district court in Washington D.C. had ruled that another exception to
sovereign immunity, known as the "tort exception" could apply in that
case, and that therefor the government of Afghanistan could be sued.
That case was then transferred to the federal court in New York, to be
consolidated with the other 9/11 cases, and so when that ruling was
appealed, the appeal came to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York. The 2nd Circuit upheld the right of the Doe plaintiff to sue
Afghanistan—a ruling which contradicted its own previous ruling in the
cases involving Saudi Arabia.
In
its Dec. 19, 2013 ruling, the Appeals Court remedies this
inconsistency, thereby allowing the cases against the Saudi Kingdom,
various Saudi princes, and Saudi-controlled charities, to proceed.
Stating
that "the circumstances of this case are extraordinary," the Second
Circuit reversed the district court ruling, and sent the case back to
the lower court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
'A lot of Evidence'
The
reaction from the families was immediate. "I'm ecstatic, because we
have a lot of information and evidence," said William Doyle, whose son
was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. He was likely
referring to the mass of evidence concerning the Saudi role in financing
the 9/11 attacks which has emerged over the past decade. "These people
are getting off scot-free," Doyle added. "They didn't even get a slap on
the wrist, and to this day we still have terrorism running rampant. We
have to hold accountable the people who finance terrorism."
Included
in the new evidence, would be the affidavits last year submitted by
former U.S. Senators Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), who
co-chaired the two major official investigations of the 9/11 attacks,
stating that a Saudi government agent, along with other Saudi officials,
had played a key role during the lead-up to the attacks. "I am
convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the
terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government
of Saudi Arabia," Graham said in his 2012 affidavit, citing, among
other things, the San Diego case of Saudi government Omar al Bayoumi,
who provided direct assistance to two of the 9/11 hijackers.
Will Obama Defend Saudis Again?
The Obama Administration is about to be put to the test on the Saudis again. The Philadelphia Inquirer,
in reporting the Dec. 19 ruling, also reported: "On Monday, the U.S.
Supreme Court asked the Obama Administration to weigh in on an appeal by
Cozen [the law firm handling various 9/11 cases], asking for the
reinstatement of another group of defendants— dozens of individuals and
financial institutions accused of funneling money to al-Qaeda before the
attacks. The request suggests that the court views the matter as having
some importance and increases the odds that it may agree to hear the
appeal."
EIR has confirmed that the Supreme Court did indeed issue such an order on Dec. 16, in the case of O'Neill, John P., et al. v. Al Rajhi Bank, et al.,
asking the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief. John O'Neill was a
former FBI supervisor who was killed in the World Trade Center collapse;
his family and estate have brought a class action suit against numerous
Saudi banks and charities. The Supreme Court's entry also states that
"Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition."
This
is undoubtedly because Associate Justice Elena Kagan, prior to Obama's
appointing her to the U.S. Supreme Court, was Obama's Solicitor General
in the Justice Department, from which she filed the 2009 brief, arguing
that the Saudi Kingdom and Saudi princes are immune from lawsuit in the
United States.
At
that time, Kristin Breitweiser, a leader of the 9/11 Families,
denounced the Kagan brief as "reprehensible," and declared that "One
would have hoped that the Obama Administration would have taken a
different stance that the Bush Administration, and you wonder what
message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world." |
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment