Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIR


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."