Supreme Court Rules With Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 Families

Blogads

Banner Exchange

Supreme Court Rules With Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 Families

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 10:41am.

Source: news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – 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-Qaida.

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-Qaida 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.

» Jon Gold's blog | login to post comments | printer friendly version

» login to post comments | 8 points

...

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them," except when the terrorists are business partners of ours, personal friends of ours, members of our alphabet agencies, elected officials of ours, or terrorists that we use from time to time when it benefits us.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 4:44pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

Surprise, surprise

I guess it's time to move things over to "The Hague."

Submitted by 911Peacenik on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 6:26pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Invasion

Never heard of the "Hague Invasion Law"? (google it)

Submitted by SnowCrash on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:27am.

» login to post comments | 7 points

It's a contradictory argument:

1) We were told Al Qaeda was a dangerous threat to the US.

2) Yet US intel was ordered to back off from Saudi sponsored terrorism (which means al Qaeda). Examples can be found in Robert Baer's book about Saudi Arabia and Palast's reporting on WAMY and W199I.

3) We were told al Qaeda was an independent terrorist organization that was opposed to both the Saudi government and the US.

There is too much secrecy to know the actual mechanics of the attack (i.e. coordination between al Qaeda recruits, black op outfits, US intel agencies, other state intel, etc). What we can be sure of is that US officials are not telling the truth about al Qaeda. Orders to back off Saudi links to terrorism were basically orders to facilitate al Qaeda attacks. It seems rather obvious that such orders were treasonous.

Submitted by noise on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 8:05pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Don't treat on them!

Even if they are the masterfinanciers.

BTW: I'd recently researched the timeline for Robert Wright another time.

http://dontknow.me/at/?http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp%3Fentity...
http://dontknow.me/at/?http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp%3Fentity...
http://dontknow.me/at/?http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp%3Fentity...

Submitted by Sitting-Bull on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 3:27pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

On Behalf of The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism

In Response to the Supreme Court's Denial of The 9/11 Families' Petition for Writ of Certiorari
PR Newswire

Mon Jun 29, 2:24 pm ET

To: NATIONAL EDITORS

Contact: Alicia G. Ward, +1-843-216-9548, +1-843-532-7011 (cell), Award@motleyrice.com, for 9/11 Families/Burnett v. Al Baraka

On Behalf of The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism

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

WASHINGTON, June 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement on behalf of the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism:

We are deeply disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied our petition for writ of certiorari, thus deciding not to hear our appeal of a lower court's decision to dismiss our charges against five Saudi defendants we allege provided material support for the September 11, 2001 attacks.

The High Court's decision only further denies us our day in court, while enabling members of the ruling family to evade accountability. We respect the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of legal matters in our system of government; nevertheless, we find this result a travesty of justice and a betrayal of the 9/11 families and others whose lives are impacted by terrorism.

In a sad day for justice, the Saudi ruling class' interests have been advanced at the expense of the rights granted to civil litigants under our Constitution and the laws designed by Congress to deter terrorism such as the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 USC 2331 et seq. We believe the High Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent that those who provide support to terrorism atrocities will now see themselves as beyond the reach of U.S. laws. The High Court's decision allows fundamental questions of law to go unresolved, and lets stand a decision by the Second Circuit that the Department of Justice itself believes to be wrong, potentially affording terrorism sponsors undeserved protection from accountability in ongoing and future cases. We will continue to do everything within our rights to stop the material support pipeline fueling al Qaeda and to press our remaining claims in the case.

SOURCE 9/11 Families/Burnett v. Al Baraka

Submitted by Joe on Mon, 06/29/2009 - 8:24pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Travesty of Justice

You are sooo right. This sets a very bad precedent. This is disgusting. It is more than a betrayal of the 911 victims' families, it is a slap in their face. Evading accountability--yeah, we have yet to have any sort of accountability in this matter. I sometimes don't know how I still have hope that justice will prevail. To keep my sanity I have to believe the truth will be known. I just hope it is known sooner than later.

Submitted by Tonya on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 8:27pm.

» login to post comments | 4 points

Statement by Counsel for the Family of John P. O'Neill

Statement by Counsel for the Family of John P. O'Neill in Response to U.S. Supreme Court's Refusal to Hear 9/11 Victims' Case Against Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Others

* Press Release
* Source: Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.
* On Monday June 29, 2009, 2:23 pm EDT

PHILADELPHIA, June 29 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Jerry S. Goldman of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., counsel to the family of John P. O'Neill, Sr.:

We are disappointed by today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case brought by the family of the late American hero, John P. O'Neill, on behalf of the victims of 9/11 against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. Federal Insurance Company, et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 08-640 (6/29/09).

We are saddened to see that the Court declined to apply its traditional standards for accepting a case for review. We assume that it relied upon the arguments propounded by the Executive branch and the defendants to deny the 9/11 victims their day in Court against certain sovereign nations, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that we allege materially support terrorists.

We note, however, that there are still cases pending in the lower courts against other sovereign nations unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

We note, too, that there are still cases pending against other defendants seeking to hold them accountable for their actions in assisting Al Qaeda.

At the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argued that the decision of the Second Circuit was only of limited impact on the other defendants in the case. We can only assume that the Justice Department will be consistent with the arguments that they propounded before the Supreme Court. Similarly, we are looking forward to their filings as to the scope of sovereign immunity.

We are optimistic that the lower courts will allow the rest of the lawsuit to proceed, as we believe that it is obvious that a United States court is the appropriate forum for hearing claims brought for harms suffered by individuals and businesses on American soil, whether against the terrorists who hijacked planes to wreak death and mass destruction, or against those, who provided the material support enabling terrorists to wreak death and destruction.

We look forward to finally proceeding with discovery and allowing justice to prevail.

About Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C.

Submitted by Joe on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 9:27am.

» login to post comments | -1 points

Jon

Awhile back i posted some info from Christopher Bollen. As i pointed out i think the Mossad had something to do with 9/11. If my memory serves me right. You took offense (anti Jewish) which couldn't be farther from the truth. I am not a prejudiced man . I am not saying Saudi didn't have anything to do with it, however as Christopher Bollen points out. Israel ties are hard to ignore.
Please don't take this the wrong way Jon. I mean no disrespect here. Have you looked into Chrisopher Bollens web page? I am just curious to see what you think about what he has to say.
Hey.... he had to flee the country just like Michael Ruppert, so he must have been hitting a nerve.
Please check it out Jon , and let me know what you think. Thanks.

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php

Submitted by WISDOM on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 2:29pm.

» login to post comments | 5 points

Is he...

The individual who says people have dual citizenships with Israel when there is no document anywhere to substantiate that claim? Incidentally, I am not "offended" by stating that Israel may have had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. It is clear they benefitted from the attacks. Also, I am one of the biggest advocates for pointing out Israel's crimes. Murdering innocents in Gaza, capturing Cynthia McKinney's boat today... and a plethora of others. I wonder what Christopher has to say about Israel's repeated warnings in the 9/11 threat period.

I just posted this on facebook today, "No where in the old testament does it say, "thou shalt support the actions of the Israeli Government," and "Israel is acting like a bunch of criminals." The other day I posted, "True or False: Dominick Suter, the owner of a moving company allegedly tied to a possible "Israeli Intelligence Operation" that supposedly documented "the event" of 9/11, fled to Israel before the FBI could continue to question him."

If Israel's intelligence had enough information to allegedly "document the event," then it stands to reason our Government had that information as well.

However, I think we need to follow the money used for the attacks. To my knowledge, there are no links between the money used for the attacks and Israel.

My problem has to do with those individuals who blame Israel and the Zionists for EVERYTHING.

I have a question for you Wisdom... when is the last time any new information came out regarding the Art Students, Dominick Suter, etc...? Aside from Wayne Madsen?

Edit: Wisdom, have you ever read this?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 4:08pm.

» login to post comments | -1 points

Come on Jon!

I am being real here. The reports on the dancing Israels. There is more to this than meets the eye my friend. I am Italian and if it points to anything on my racial behalf than so be it.
Are you saying Zelikow is a saint?
Let's get to the truth. Jon as i said ,,,,, no slur intended. We are looking for the truth here.
Rothschild s.... "Let the counties of the world have there governments.........Those that own the gold make the rules.
Yes we have the best politicians money can buy.
All i am asking you Jon is have you looked at what Mr Bollen is saying , and i would love to hear what you think.

Submitted by WISDOM on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 11:50pm.

» login to post comments | 3 points

I'm done...

For whatever reason, you are singling me out, and trying to paint me as someone who censors information pertaining to Israel, and I've had enough of that bs to last a lifetime. If you want to promote Christopher Bollyn's work, then by all means. I don't agree with a lot of it, and I think he is "the Zionists are responsible for everything" happy, so I am going to stick to my own work. I guess you never read my facts piece wisdom. Israel is mentioned in the first fact. The "dancing Israelis" and Dominick Suter get a fact of their own, and Israel is mentioned in the "who benefitted" from 9/11 fact.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 9:26am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Like i saidi said Jon

........ No Jewish slurs intended here. What do you make of the comment .... Israels ties are classified?
Jon you took this totally the wrong way. I just asked your opinion.

Submitted by WISDOM on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 11:17pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

I gave you my opinion...

Regarding Bollyn, and the promotion of Israel's alleged ties to 9/11. I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "Israel's ties are classified."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Thu, 07/02/2009 - 11:08am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

What do you think about this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7T4DhDLPrY and this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw and i really what you're opinion on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzl3juBt2Z8&feature=related

Submitted by WISDOM on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 12:33pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

What do I think of the first link?

Probably the same thing I did when I posted it on my site on 3/5/2006. What do I think of the second link? Did you read Fact #21 of my article? I wouldn't mention it if I didn't think it was relevant. With regards to the third link, #1, I don't subscribe to the "Protocols of Zion," and again, I refer you to Fact #21 in my article.

Question for you... do you think this helps?

There is a right way, and a wrong way to approach the Israeli issue. If you go around saying "Zionist this," and "Zionist that," as you can see in that video, they can make you look "anti-semitic." Did you read my latest article?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Submitted by Jon Gold on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 6:36pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Jon

Do you think this helps?.... Sounds like what the anti truthers say. Sorry Jon. I believe in covering all the bases, and that every question should be asked.
And if you read all my posts, you would see that i was sincere, and polite.
So with regard to your anti -semitic comment , Going around saying 9/11 was an inside job would be un patriotic.
So call me un patriotic......If the Mossad was involved in 9/11 call me whatever you want for just asking a question.

Submitted by WISDOM on Sat, 07/04/2009 - 11:41pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Jon

...Please don't take me the wrong way.. It just seems there is more to 9/11 than meets the eye.
Ask the survivors of the USS LIBERTY.......What the hell is going on here?

Submitted by WISDOM on Tue, 06/30/2009 - 11:54pm.

» login to post comments | 2 points

Bollyns a douchebag

Sorry, its true. He does nothing but attract negativity to the 9/11 truth movement by inviting association w/ holocaust deniers and other scum. We dont need him.

________________________
“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government.” -Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com
http://www.ubuntu.com
Dont preach it, just mention it :)

Submitted by zombie bill hicks on Wed, 07/01/2009 - 1:02pm.

Recent Headlines

Recent Media

Action Items

Blogads

Banner Exchange

User login

9/11 Inquiry Sites

9/11 Regional Sites

9/11 Related Sites

9/11 International Sites

9/11 Memorial Sites

News and Blogs

RSS Feeds

Web Stuff

Supreme Court Rules With Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 Families

...

Surprise, surprise

Invasion

It's a contradictory argument:

Don't treat on them!

On Behalf of The 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism

Travesty of Justice

Statement by Counsel for the Family of John P. O'Neill

Jon

Is he...

Come on Jon!

I'm done...

Like i saidi said Jon

I gave you my opinion...

What do you think about this?

What do I think of the first link?

Jon

Jon

Bollyns a douchebag