Court Passes On 9/11 Claims Against Saudis

Refuses To Consider Appeal In Victims' Lawsuit Against Royals With Alleged Ties To Terrorists

(AP)  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 Qaeda.

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 Qaeda 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.

More Supreme Court coverage:

Court Rules For Firefighters In Ricci Case
Sotomayor Overturned In Firefighters Case
Tie Goes to Kennedy In Ricci Case
Supreme Court To Take NFL Apparel Case
Supreme Court Won't Touch Bible Club Case
Court Passes On 9/11 Claims Against Saudis
Court Delays Ruling On Anti-Clinton Movie
Supreme Court Hands DVR Win To Cable Cos.

[babooph]

That bunch Bush had the "SPECIAL" fast flight out of US jurisdiction ,hours after 9/11,for those Saudi& Bin Ladin cronies, they would have been available !Lets have the fat Bush family trust funds liable instead-the propaganda system seems to avoid that thought.

[noloyalisti]

They should go after Butch-Cheney, who arranged for the attacks and the planned demolitions of the three buildings. These are war criminals, plain and simple. They would kill their fellow citizens for financial and political gain. Same as the big American corporations.

[wtcmedic911]

did you stop taking your medication again? your mom told you not to or youd become an idiot again.... guess she was right.

[zonkzilla]

But foreign countries can demand we send our soldiers to them for trial and we agree?
Makes no sense to me, but then again I am not in the pockets of oil companies.

[pensacola8-2009]

As soon as Michael Moore made his stinging documentary at the 2004 election to malign President Bush's alliances with Saudi Arabia, who included the large and wealthy Bin Laden family, it was clear that hypocrtitical views were growing. History has been rich with hypocrits where diplomatic channels seem to create exceptions for criminal behavior.

The hatred against Osama Bin Laden for his attack seems to have spread to hatred towards the Royal Saudi Arabian family, but few actually have discerned and leaned that both the Royal Family, and Sadaam Hussien, himself - the Heads of State for both Saudi Arabia and Iraq considered Osama Bin Laden a radical and that neither wanted to do business with Osama Bin Laden.

In the 1980's, when the COLD WAR was coming to a close, the USA actually established covert ties with the Mujadin Rebels in Afghanistan to oppose the Russians, who invaded and occupied that country. It was during that time Osama Bin Laden was on the same side as the USA in opposing the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan. Bin Laden was a wealthy resource and much of the US funding for resisting the Russians was matched by Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden.

The Soviet exit from Afghanistan under Premier Gorbachev signified Russia's begining to doubt the effectiveness of Communism as both a viable political and economic system.

The USA failed to rebuild Afghanistan under a Marshal Plan model, and the Mujadin Rebels and Osama Bin Laden were left to rebuild a country with a grudge against the USA for abandonment.

The real root cause of the 911 attack was a poor choice in the foreign policy during the Reagan/Bush era. The USA employed a double standard and simply chose to give it's back to Afghanistan during it's time of post-war need.

[wtcmedic911]

The real cause isnt our foreign policy. its because we are different then the conservative muslim. we embrase homosexual and trans sexual, nudity etc etc everything that makes the Muslim wish to exterminate us. period..... i mean conservative muslim not the average.

[antoniof123]

Do you even think befor you answer or do you spout off right wing retroic just for the sake of it.

[cs4466]

Yea the court took a NFL uniforms case instead. Talk about your screwed up priorities. Time to get rid of scalia and roberts and the rest of the neocons and put in some judges that will take on the tough cases and make a stand for the American People.

[wtcmedic911]

liberals take tough cases? are you kidding? come on... your the limp wristed party, remember? your not about to get your underwear in a bunch in case some other goverment might not like you. its all about being liked for libs.

[antoniof123]

wtcmedic911 the facts speak for themselves. You are wrong.