Diary: The Obama Administration Sides With Saudis Over 9/11 Families

Statement On Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism In Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court

Source: news.prnewsire.com

(In Re: Thomas E. Burnett, Sr., et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., et al., Case No. 03-CV-9849 (RCC)In Re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, MDL 1570)

WASHINGTON, May 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement of 9/11 Family Members: Mike Low, Father of Sara Elizabeth Low, AA Flight 11; Bill Doyle, Father of Joseph M. Doyle, WTC North Tower; Tom & Beverly Burnett, Sr., Parents of Thomas E. Burnett, Jr., UA Flight 93; and Terry Strada, Wife of Thomas Strada, WTC North Tower on Behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism in Response to the Solicitor General's Refusal to Support The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court:

Today the Obama Administration filed in the Supreme Court a document that expressed the Administration's decision to stand with a group of Saudi princes and against the right of American citizens -- 9/11 family members -- to have our day in court. Let there be no doubt: The filing was political in nature and stands as a betrayal of everyone who lost a loved one or was injured on September 11, 2001.

We are deeply dismayed by this decision, filed by the solicitor general of the United States in response to the Supreme Court's February 23, 2009 invitation for the government to express its views in the 9/11 families' request to appeal a portion of the case to the Court. The Administration's filing mocks our system of justice and strikes a blow against the public's right to know the facts about who financed and supported the murder of 3,000 innocent people. It undermines our fight against terrorism and suggests a green light to terrorist sympathizers the world over that they can send money to al Qaeda without having to worry that they will be held accountable in the U.S. Courts for the atrocities that result.

The Administration apparently gave less weight to the principles of justice, transparency, accountability and security, which our case embodies, and more weight to political concerns and pleadings of a foreign government on the behalf of a handful of members of its monarchy and others who stand accused of financing the attacks that murdered our loved ones. Sadly, although the Administration's obviously politically based filing is merely informational and in no way binding on the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court were to follow it, these people will avoid being held accountable not because they are innocent, but because they are royalty.

The Administration's filing is all the more troubling in that it expressly acknowledges that the courts below applied incorrect legal standards in dismissing the Saudi defendants, but nonetheless argues that the case -- one that seeks to account for the terrorist attacks against America and the murder of our family members -- does not warrant the Supreme Court's time. Contrary to the view expressed by the Obama Administration in the solicitor general's filing, the victims of the September 11th attack deserve to have their claims decided under accurate legal standards.

For all of these reasons, we urge the Supreme Court to reject the solicitor general's politically-premised filing, along with its wrongheaded priorities, accept our petition, and grant us our fundamentally American right to have our day in Court.

9/11 families angered by US support for Saudis

Source: google.com

14 hours ago

NEW YORK (AP) - Relatives of Sept. 11 victims say they're angry that the Justice Department is supporting the Saudi royal family's bid to be removed from a 9/11 lawsuit.

The families of some victims have accused the royal family of financially backing terrorist groups that carried out the 2001 attacks.

The Justice Department filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. It supports the Saudis' argument that the royal family as a sovereign state cannot be sued in a U.S. court.

Bill Doyle's son was killed at the World Trade Center. He says the Obama administration's court filing undermines the nation's fight against terrorism.

Several lower courts have dismissed the lawsuit. The Supreme Court has not decided whether to hear the case.

Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit

Source: nytimes.com

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: May 29, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is supporting efforts by the Saudi royal family to defeat a long-running lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis' favor in throwing out the lawsuit.

The government's position comes less than a week before President Obama is scheduled to meet in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah as part of a trip to the Middle East and Europe intended to reach out to the Muslim world.

Lawyers for the Saudi family said that they were heartened by the department's brief and that it served to strengthen their hand before the court, which has not decided whether to hear the case.

But family members of several Sept. 11 victims said they were deeply disappointed and questioned whether the decision was made to appease an important ally in the Middle East. The Saudis have aggressively lobbied both the Bush and Obama administrations to have the lawsuit dismissed, government officials say.

"I find this reprehensible," said Kristen Breitweiser, a leader of the Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. "One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world."

Bill Doyle, another leader of the Sept. 11 families whose son was killed in the attacks, said, "All we want is our day in court."

The lawsuit, brought by a number of insurance companies for the victims and their families, accuses members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia of providing financial backing to Al Qaeda - either directly to Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, or indirectly through donations to charitable organizations that they knew were in turn diverting money to Al Qaeda.

A district court threw out the lawsuit, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provided legal protection from liability for Saudi Arabia and the members of the royal family for their official acts.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the brief to the Supreme Court that her office agreed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit "that the princes are immune from petitioners' claims," although she pointed to somewhat different legal rationales in reaching that conclusion.

Ms. Kagan noted that the Supreme Court had historically looked to the executive branch to take the lead on such international matters because of "the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit."

The government said in its brief that the victims' families never alleged that the Saudi government or members of the royal family "personally committed" the acts of terrorism against the United States "or directed others to do so." And it said the claims that were made - that the Saudis helped to finance the plots - fell "outside the scope" of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.

Justice Department officials declined to address the issue of whether the timing of the brief was related to Mr. Obama's trip to Riyadh, but other lawyers involved in the case said the timing appeared to be coincidental. They said as a practical matter the department, which was invited to state its views in the case in February, needed to do so by this week if it hoped to influence the court's decision on whether to accept the case before it leaves for summer recess in June.

William H. Jeffress, a Washington lawyer who is representing Prince Turki Al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the United States who is one of the princes named in the lawsuit, said the Justice Department came down on the right side of the law in supporting immunity.

Any suggestion that the timing of the brief was influenced by Mr. Obama's upcoming visit was "baseless," Mr. Jeffress said, as were the accusations in the lawsuit itself about the Saudi ties to Al Qaeda. "Osama bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the royal family of Saudi Arabia, and the idea that they would be providing financial support to Bin Laden is a little absurd," Mr. Jeffress said.

High court is urged to block 9/11 suit against Saudis

Source: philly.com

By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer

In a setback for insurers and individual victims of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan urged the Supreme Court yesterday to reject allegations that Saudi Arabia was responsible because it indirectly financed al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Kagan, in a 22-page amicus brief filed yesterday with the Supreme Court, said U.S. law generally barred lawsuits against foreign governments for supporting terrorism unless they met narrowly tailored exceptions.

Kagan said none of those exceptions applied, and she advised the court not to hear the case.

The brief was in response to allegations contained in a lawsuit filed by Center City's Cozen O'Connor law firm on behalf of dozens of insurance companies that lost billions at ground zero. Hundreds of victims' families and survivors also have joined in the litigation alleging Saudi responsibility.

The Supreme Court generally - but not always - follows the recommendations of the solicitor general in deciding whether to hear a case.

"The lower courts correctly concluded that Saudi Arabia and its officials are immune from suit for the governmental acts outside the United States," the brief said.

A federal district judge in Manhattan ruled in the case in 2005 that Saudi Arabia was immune from lawsuits by American citizens, and his opinion was upheld last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Cozen O'Connor and lawyers for individual victims and families appealed to the Supreme Court.

In February, the Supreme Court asked the solicitor general, who functions as the U.S. government's Supreme Court lawyer, for an opinion.

The 812-page Cozen lawsuit alleges that the Saudi government financed Islamic charities based in the kingdom that in turn funded al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. It cites findings that U.S. government officials had warned the Saudis for years in advance of the attacks that the charities were helping to finance terrorists and that they may have played a role in the bombings of U.S embassies in East Africa in 1998.

In her brief, Kagan said the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which governs lawsuits by American citizens against foreign governments, permits such lawsuits only if the U.S. State Department has issued a finding that the foreign government is a terrorism supporter, or if the government has been directly involved in a terrorism act within the United States.

It noted that the State Department has issued no such finding regarding Saudi Arabia and concluded Saudi government financial support for radical Islamist charities was too far removed from the 9/11 attacks themselves to cause the Saudi government to be liable.