Saudis Were Funding Al Qaeda

[magekillr]

Well, as much as I like to be vindicated, I don't want to be vindicated by this. As some of you might remember on another post on these boards, I had said that I believed al Qaeda was getting its money from the Saudis, and that it would be all too ironic, considering the US gives so much money to Saudi Arabia; it's like the US was funding terrorism.

 

 

 

Other people didn't agree with my theory because of the disdain Osama bin Laden has for the Saudi Family, but I thought the evidence was there, and I just had a gut feeling about it.

 

 

 

Well, it appears I was correct, and the United States has been trying to cover it up:

 

 

 

Documents gathered by lawyers for the families of Sept. 11 victims provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family, but the material may never find its way into court because of legal and diplomatic obstacles.

 

 

 

The case has put the Obama administration in the middle of a political and legal dispute, with the Justice Department siding with the Saudis in court last month in seeking to kill further legal action. Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.

 

 

 

The Saudis and their defenders in Washington have long denied links to terrorists, and they have mounted an aggressive and, so far, successful campaign to beat back the allegations in federal court based on a claim of sovereign immunity.

 

 

 

Allegations of Saudi links to terrorism have been the subject of years of government investigations and furious debate. Critics have said that some members of the Saudi ruling class pay off terrorist groups in part to keep them from being more active in their own country.

 

 

 

But the thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents compiled by lawyers for the Sept. 11 families and their insurers represented an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.

 

 

 

Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed support for terrorist organizations at least through 2006.

 

 

 

A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself.

 

 

 

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

 

 

 

And a confidential German intelligence report gave a line-by-line description of tens of millions of dollars in bank transfers, with dates and dollar amounts, made in the early 1990s by Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz and other members of the Saudi royal family to another charity that was suspected of financing militants activities in Pakistan and Bosnia.

 

 

 

The new documents, provided to The New York Times by the lawyers, are among several hundred thousand pages of investigative material obtained by the Sept. 11 families and their insurers as part of a long-running civil lawsuit seeking to hold Saudi Arabia and its royal family liable for financing Al Qaeda.

 

 

 

Only a fraction of the documents have been entered into the court record, and much of the new material is unknown even to the Saudi lawyers in the case.

 

 

 

The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups.

 

 

 

Saudi lawyers and supporters say that the links are flimsy and exploit stereotypes about terrorism, and that the country is being sued because it has deep pockets and was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers.

 

 

 

In looking at all the evidence the families brought together, I have not seen one iota of evidence that Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, Michael Kellogg, a Washington lawyer representing Prince Muhammad al-Faisal al-Saud in the lawsuit, said in an interview.

 

 

 

He and other defense lawyers said that rather than supporting Al Qaeda, the Saudis were sworn enemies of its leader, Osama bin Laden, who was exiled from Saudi Arabia, his native country, in 1996. Its an absolute tragedy what happened to them, and I understand their anger, Mr. Kellogg said of the victims families. They want to find those responsible, but I think theyve been disserved by their lawyers by bringing claims without any merit against the wrong people.

 

 

 

The Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.

 

 

 

Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, made up of survivors of the attacks and family members of those killed, throwing out the suit on the ground that the families cannot bring legal action in the United States against a sovereign nation and its leaders.

 

 

 

The Supreme Court is expected to decide this week whether to hear an appeal, but the families prospects dimmed last month when the Justice Department sided with the Saudis in their immunity claim and urged the court not to consider the appeal.

 

 

 

The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that potentially significant foreign relations consequences would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed.

 

 

 

Cases like this put the U.S. government in an extremely difficult position when it has to make legal arguments, even when they are the better view of the law, that run counter to those of terrorist victims, said John Bellinger, a former State Department lawyer who was involved in the Saudi litigation.

 

 

 

Senior Obama administration officials held a private meeting on Monday with 9/11 family members to speak about progress in cracking down on terrorist financing. Administration officials at the meeting largely sidestepped questions about the lawsuit, according to participants. But the official who helped lead the meeting, Stuart A. Levey, the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, has been outspoken in his criticism of wealthy Saudis, saying they have helped to finance terrorism.

 

 

 

Even if the 9/11 families were to get their trial in the lawsuit, they might have difficulty getting some of their new material into evidence. Some would most likely be challenged on grounds it was irrelevant or uncorroborated hearsay, or that it related to Saudis who were clearly covered by sovereign immunity.

 

 

 

And if the families were to clear those hurdles, two intriguing pieces of evidence in the Saudi puzzle might still remain off limits.

 

 

 

One is a 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint Congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. The secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers, and the Saudis themselves urged at the time that it be made public. President George W. Bush declined to do so.

 

 

 

Kristen Breitweiser, an advocate for Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the World Trade Center, said in an interview that during a White House meeting in February between President Obama and victims families, the president told her that he was willing to make the pages public.

 

 

 

But she said she had not heard from the White House since then.

 

 

 

The other evidence that may not be admissible consists of classified documents leaked to one of the law firms representing the families, Motley Rice of South Carolina, which is headed by Ronald Motley, a well-known trial lawyer who won lucrative lawsuits involving asbestos and tobacco.

 

 

 

Lawyers for the firm say someone anonymously slipped them 55 documents that contained classified government material relating to the Saudi lawsuit.

 

 

 

Though she declined to describe the records, Jodi Flowers, a lawyer for Motley Rice, said she was pushing to have them placed in the court file.

 

 

 

We wouldnt be fighting this hard, and we wouldnt have turned the material over to the judge, if we didnt think it was really important to the case, she said.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world ... sts&st=cse

 

 

 

The United States has tortured people for links to terrorism, and it has prosecuted charities caught funding al Qaeda and other extremists.

 

 

 

Why won't the US publicly go against the Saudis? Because of oil...just like everything else.

[MirageOfDeath]

I thought this was already proven but damn didn't know the royal family itself was funding them.

 

Unless Saudi Arabia's oil reserves mysteriously dry up overnight this is just going to be swept under the rug and most people will be ignorant of this.

[Poppet]

If it wasn't for all the wars,terrorists,etc.the Middle East would be a nice place to visit. :D

 

 

 

America isn't helping there only making it worse I doubt they care much about the Middle East anyways besides oil.

[spacheco]

Heres a fun fact, Geroge W Bush is like bff's with the Saudi royal family.

[Seraphi]

Well, Damn.

[warren211]

The Royal Family realizes that America can't do crap to stop them without ending diplomatic ties. I mean, we go around spreading democracy to every country that doesn't want it, except for Saudi Arabia. Because they're our buddy and we don't wanna mess with them. Then it turns out that they are funding a group that was messing with us big time. Do we have the right to mess with them now? Of course not, because we need the oil.

[Perakp]

I'm looking forward to seeing a high quality hollywood action drama/ court thriller about this, preferably with vin diesel and/or sean connery in it.

[Millard]

Im pretty sure most of the leading powers in the world have funded Al Qaeda or other terrorist organisations at some point.

[Pinkbullet3]

I'm a nub at politics, but you said it's like the U.S. was funding terrorism? Is that something like using our tax dollars to do it? :?

[Hoobs]

The irony, though it's not very surprising; the Saudis and al-Qaeda both practice the same extreme version of Islam.

[mmmcannibalism]

I'm a nub at politics, but you said it's like the U.S. was funding terrorism? Is that something like using our tax dollars to do it? :?

 

 

 

Simple example

 

 

 

I give you 20$ for a bicycle, you go buy 20$ of drugs, I have indirectly given money to a drug cartel.

 

 

 

Whats happening here(allegedly) is that the saudis are funding al qaeda and its a given that at least some of that money was earned by selling oil to the united states.

 

 

 

This doesnt really surprise me, we arent exactly skilled at not screwing up foreign policy.

[Sam]

Im pretty sure most of the leading powers in the world have funded Al Qaeda or other terrorist organisations at some point.

 

 

 

 

 

Probably :P

[Skully]

I just realized how much I hate the middle east. If there wasn't oil over there they would have been wiped out by now.

 

That made me lol.

[i_love_burritos]

Mage, is this one of your "bait and switch" posts ?

 

 

 

Well whoda' thunk' it. :roll:

 

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing a high quality hollywood action drama/ court thriller about this, preferably with vin diesel and/or sean connery in it.

 

 

 

The Don is dead. No. You just can't do it.

 

 

 

[unless it became an animation ?]

[acenator]

The Royal Family realizes that America can't do crap to stop them without ending diplomatic ties. I mean, we go around spreading democracy to every country that doesn't want it, except for Saudi Arabia. Because they're our buddy and we don't wanna mess with them. Then it turns out that they are funding a group that was messing with us big time. Do we have the right to mess with them now? Of course not, because we need the oil.

 

The U.S. doesn't necessarily NEED the oil. The U.S. has large reserves of its own oil not to mention the fact that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. The one problem is all the environmentalists running around saying that we can't get at/use any of it because of "climate change" (I love the name change that has come about since the earth started cooling recently*) and the idea that it'll ruin the view (not an altogether unfounded claim, but still silly imo; especially when talking about the barren wasteland called ANWR).

 

 

 

As for the Saudis supplying Al Qaeda, I would think it'd be common sense to think that this was happening (we might be on good terms diplomaticly, but I wouldn't be surprised if every muslim nation in the world was helping terrorists in one way or another).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I would post more on the whole "man-made climate change" hoax, but I don't feel like typing any more atm and this thread is about Saudi Arabia and terrorists, anyways.

[mmmcannibalism]

The Royal Family realizes that America can't do crap to stop them without ending diplomatic ties. I mean, we go around spreading democracy to every country that doesn't want it, except for Saudi Arabia. Because they're our buddy and we don't wanna mess with them. Then it turns out that they are funding a group that was messing with us big time. Do we have the right to mess with them now? Of course not, because we need the oil.

 

The U.S. doesn't necessarily NEED the oil. The U.S. has large reserves of its own oil not to mention the fact that the U.S. is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. The one problem is all the environmentalists running around saying that we can't get at/use any of it because of "climate change" (I love the name change that has come about since the earth started cooling recently*) and the idea that it'll ruin the view (not an altogether unfounded claim, but still silly imo; especially when talking about the barren wasteland called ANWR).

 

 

 

As for the Saudis supplying Al Qaeda, I would think it'd be common sense to think that this was happening (we might be on good terms diplomaticly, but I wouldn't be surprised if every muslim nation in the world was helping terrorists in one way or another).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*I would post more on the whole "man-made climate change" hoax, but I don't feel like typing any more atm and this thread is about Saudi Arabia and terrorists, anyways.

 

 

 

QFT

 

 

 

just remember everyone, fossil fuels hurt the environment, but if were going to use them anyway we should make sure we stay dependant on unstable governments.

 

 

 

Ot

 

Im pretty sure most of the leading powers in the world have funded Al Qaeda or other terrorist organisations at some point.

 

 

 

Most likely, a lot of this gets traced back to the fact the united states went on a anything is better then communism streak and f'd up the whole region.

[punk4ever]

If I recall, one of the Guantanamo detainees gave up information on two Saudi princes who were directly involved in the September 11th attacks. Now, this was a while back, and three of the four individuals have died. One of a heart attack, another in a car crash, and I forget what happened to the third. Slowly but surely they are finding the missing links behind the funding and training of al Qaeda as it pertains to ongoing terrorism throughout the world.