FBI asks Miami judge to reconsider, keep secret ‘sensitive details’ about 9/11

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

The 9/11 hijackers

The FBI is pushing back against a federal judge’s findings that certain classified details about the funding of the 9/11 attacks and the 19 al Qaeda suicide hijackers should be made public.

Specifically, the government is asking Miami U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga to reconsider her May 16 ruling that would largely open for public inspection a 60-page FBI slide show titled “Overview of the 9/11 Investigation.” The FBI showed the overview to the 9/11 Review Commission in secret on April 25, 2014.

The FBI released some of the overview’s pages in full earlier this year, but many more were either partially blanked out or withheld completely for privacy or other reasons. The overview and numerous other FBI records are the focus of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by Florida Bulldog one year ago.

Here’s what an FBI official told the court last week about four blanked-out PowerPoint slides regarding “the transfer of money prior to and funding of the attacks”:

“The release of this information would reveal sensitive details about how much money was being moved around, when it was being moved, how it was being moved, the mode of transfer and locations the FBI had detected movements in. Disclosure of this information would provide a playbook to future subjects on how much money one can move around in certain forms without attracting attention,” FBI record chief David M. Hardy said in his sixth declaration in the case.

Questions about who financed the 9/11 attacks are at the heart of sprawling civil litigation brought against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others by survivors and relatives of the nearly 3,000 people who died that day. The plaintiffs and their lawyers contend that the kingdom, its official charities and others were responsible. Saudi Arabia has strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

Florida Bulldog’s Miami FOIA case seeks records of the 9/11 Review Commission. The Bulldog also sued the FBI in 2012 in federal court in Fort Lauderdale seeking records about its 2001-2002 Sarasota investigation of a Saudi family who moved abruptly out of their upscale home two weeks before 9/11 – leaving behind cars, clothes, furniture and other personal possessions. The probe was triggered by neighbors’ calls to authorities, but the FBI never disclosed its existence to Congress or the original 9/11 Commission.

Six months after that initial FOIA case was filed, the FBI released a small batch of records, including an April 2002 report that said agents found “many connections” between the Sarasota Saudis and the hijackers. In 2014, the FBI told the 9/11 Review Commission in closed session that the agent who wrote the 2002 report had no basis for doing so, but did not further explain or identify the agent.

Also in 2014, Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Judge William Zloch ordered the FBI to produce its records about the matter. The FBI turned over all classified records about 9/11 maintained in its Tampa field office — 80,000 pages. The judge continues to review those documents for possible public release.

Trial date sought

Judge Altonaga’s order last month granted in part and denied in part an FBI motion for summary judgment, notably on the lawfulness of the FBI’s redactions of certain information from several records that it has produced. The FBI, however, has not restored any of those redactions, and attorneys for the Bulldog have asked the judge to set a date for trial this summer.

“At trial, the FBI will be required to offer admissible evidence through witnesses – not through inadmissible hearsay by declaration – to attempt to sustain the redactions,” wrote attorney Thomas Julin in a June 2 “Joint Status Report” to the court. “The Bulldog will have the opportunity, in accordance with due process, to cross-examine any FBI witnesses presented.”

The government asked Judge Altonaga to reconsider her prior ruling the same day. The judge has not yet decided whether an FOIA trial is needed, but if one does happen it would be highly unusual.

Hardy, who heads the FBI’s Records/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), went on in his most recent declaration to discuss other redacted pages in the 9/11 Overview. He said they were withheld to protect FBI “techniques and procedures not well-known to the public as well as non-public details about the use of well-known techniques and procedures.” Hardy’s descriptions shed some light on what’s in those records.

One page, withheld in full, “is a photo taken by a security camera.” The FBI does not identify the photo’s subject, the date it was taken or its general location.

“This was withheld because the release of this picture would disclose the location of the security camera at the site where the photo was taken. The disclosure would allow future subjects to know where to find the security camera so as to avoid the area in which the camera points, thereby circumventing detection or the ability for the FBI and law enforcement to try to obtain an image of the subject.”

Two more pages from the overview section about the FBI’s “ongoing investigation,” also completely withheld, contain “information about a conspirator and his actions taken in preparation for the attacks. This is sensitive information, which if revealed, would put at risk the collection techniques used to obtain such information. It also reveals sensitivities that future subjects could exploit in the future while planning and performing an attack.”

‘Under the radar’

Another page the FBI wants to remain hidden “contains specific factors deemed pertinent in the analysis of the actions of the hijackers’ concerning financial transactions before September 11, 2001. Disclosure of this information would reveal what the FBI already knows about the hijacker’s [sic] financial actions and how they were able to stay ‘under the radar.’”

The FBI’s Hardy similarly advocates for secrecy regarding:

  • The kinds of weapons and identification the conspirators carried.
  • Information about the arrival of the pilots, intended pilots and conspirators in the U.S.
  • Information about when the conspirators moved to their respective departure cities and the timing of their plane ticket purchases.
  • “A timeline of telephone records and money transfers between conspirators.”
  • Information about “previous flights the conspirators took before the attacks to include the collection and timing and locations of flights.”

Finally, Hardy said that information about “investigative leads derived from forensic analysis” and “leads and the sources of data the FBI finds useful to or significant in its analysis” should also remain veiled.

“The places the FBI does not look for information can be just as telling as the places it does look for information,” Hardy wrote.

In responding to Hardy’s assertions in court papers filed Monday, attorneys for Florida Bulldog noted that the “referenced techniques apparently are those techniques that the 9/11 hijackers evaded on September 11, 2001. One would hope that different techniques are in place today.”

“If anything, the PowerPoint slides might reveal outdated, failed law enforcement acts or omissions,” wrote attorney Julin. “The 9/11 attacks on the United States are a consequence, at least in part, of the failure of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to detect and halt them.”

The government has until Monday, June 19 to file a reply. The judge will then decide whether the case will go to trial.

Trial looms as judge denies FBI request to keep 9/11 records secret for privacy reasons

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

New York World Trade Center’s North Tower ablaze on Sept. 11, 2001

In a ruling that could lead to the release of significant new information about 9/11, including details about who funded the al Qaeda terrorist attacks, a Miami federal judge has rejected FBI assertions that many records should be kept secret due to privacy considerations.

At the same time, U.S. District Court Judge Cecilia Altonaga granted summary judgment in the FBI’s favor regarding more than 1,000 pages of classified records it withheld from public view citing national security and other exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Those records, about which little is known, will remain secret.

A trial could be needed to resolve outstanding issues in the case, the judge said.

Florida Bulldog’s parent, Broward Bulldog Inc., sued the FBI last June seeking records of the 9/11 Review Commission kept by the FBI. The commission, whose most prominent member was Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese, was authorized by Congress to take an “external” look at the FBI’s post-9/11 performance and to evaluate new evidence. Instead, Meese and two other members were chosen, paid and spoon-fed information by the FBI.

Among other things, Judge Altonaga analyzed the legality of FBI redactions in 28 partially declassified documents that were disputed by the Bulldog’s attorneys. Again and again, she declared as “unconvincing” FBI arguments asserting a need to veil the names of agents, suspects and others for privacy reasons – specifically citing FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(c).

“Release of this information could further the public interest in learning about the September 11 attacks and may outweigh any privacy interest individuals mentioned in the document may have,” she wrote. You can read her order here.

Miami attorney Thomas Julin represents Florida Bulldog. “The FBI must stop being so secretive about the events of 9/11,” he said. “Excessive assertion of privacy is harming national security. The next FBI director should put a stop to this.”

Here’s what the judge had to say about numerous privacy deletions made to an Oct. 5, 2012 FBI memo about an active but previously unknown investigation by New York authorities, who were actively looking to indict an unidentified suspect with providing material support for the 9/11 hijackers:

‘Significant public interest’

“Plaintiffs have identified the significant public interest in information about who may have been involved in the September 11 attacks…Given the significant public interest in learning about possible suspects involved in the attacks, the FBI has not met its burden of showing Exemptions 6 and 7(c) apply to the selectively redacted names.”

The October 2012 document was also censored for national security and other reasons. Those redactions were upheld by Altonaga and will not be made public. Also not to be released: draft copies of the 9/11 Review Commission’s final report, which was released in March 2015.

The title page of the 9/11 Review Commission’s 2015 report.

Other partially-declassified FBI documents similarly appear to be chock full of deleted information about September 11th that Judge Altonaga determined is being improperly withheld from the public.

Among the most compelling is a PowerPoint presentation given to the 9/11 Review Commission on April 25, 2014 in a closed meeting. The title of the PowerPoint was “Overview of 9/11 Investigation,” and court papers say it “covers the hijackers, where they attended flight school, how they adapted to Western life and blended in, and known co-conspirators.”

The PowerPoint pages that Judge Altonaga now has identified as being improperly blanked out include these topics:

  • “Funding of the 9/11 Attacks” and “Early to Mid-2001 Additional Funding.” Two pages.
  • “KSM Non-Immigrant Visa Application.” KSM is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Guantanamo detainee identified by the 9/11 Commission as “the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.”
  • “Early to Mid-2000: Pilots/Intended Pilots Arrive U.S.’’
  • “Investigative Findings” regarding hijacker “Identification” and “Financial. Ample Financing was provided.”
  • “Early to Mid-2001: Non-Pilots Arrive U.S.”
  • “July – August 2001: Knife purchases”
  • “August 2001: Reserving 9/11 Tickets”
  • “Al-Hawsawi Credit Card Statement Supplemental Card Activity.” Like KSM, Mustafa al-Hawsawi is one of 17 “high-value” Guantanamo detainees. The Department of Defense says he was a “senior” al Qaeda member who helped facilitate “the movement and funding of 9/11 hijackers to the U.S.”
  • “Standard Chartered Bank KSM Supplemental Visa Application.”
  • “Ongoing Investigation.” Four pages.

Questions about who bankrolled the 9/11 attacks are at the heart of massive litigation in New York against principal defendants, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia & Herzegovina. The consolidated lawsuits were brought by relatives of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the attacks, survivors and businesses that suffered property damage.

A future king’s involvement

Before he was crowned in 2015, King Salman “actively directed” the Saudi High Commission, an official charity whose funding was “especially important to al Qaeda acquiring the strike capabilities used to launch attacks in the U.S.,” according to court papers filed last year by lawyers for the 9/11victims and their families.

The Freedom of Information Act requires the FBI to conduct an adequate search for records that is “reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant (requested) documents.” Florida Bulldog attorney Julin argued, however, that the FBI’s search of 9/11 Review Commission records was inadequate and had intentionally concealed records that appear to remain missing. But Altonaga decided the government had met its burden of showing the search was “adequate and reasonable.”

Saudi King Salman presenting President Trump the Order of Abdulaziz al-Saud medal on Saturday at the Saudi Royal Court in Riyadh. Photo: Al Arabiya English

Likewise, the judge ruled in the government’s favor regarding a dispute over whether the FBI should be required to produce documents in the case file of “the Sarasota family.” The FBI previously included those records among 80,000 pages of 9/11 records submitted in a parallel FOIA case pending before Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Judge William Zloch, who since 2014 has been evaluating those records for possible public release. The FBI will not be required to produce those records in the Miami FOIA case.

The “Sarasota family” refers to Saudi citizens Abdulaziz and Anoud al-Hijji and her parents, Esam and Deborah Ghazzawi. The al-Hijjis lived in an upscale home owned by the Ghazzawis in a gated community named Prestancia.

Neighbors called the police after 9/11 to report that the al-Hijjis had abruptly moved out of their home about two weeks before 9/11, leaving behind their cars, furniture and other personal belongings. The FBI opened an investigation that fall that an April 2002 FBI report says found “many connections” between the Sarasota Saudis and “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

For reasons that remain unclear, however, the FBI never notified Congress or the 9/11 Commission about what happened in Sarasota, according to former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the terrorist attacks.

Smoke rising after the crash of United 93 in Shanksville, Pa. on Sept. 11, 2001. Photo: Val McClatchey

Florida Bulldog, working with Irish author Anthony Summers, first reported about what happened in Sarasota a decade later in September 2011. A counterterrorism officer who spoke on condition of anonymity said agents found phone and gatehouse records that linked the al-Hijjis’ home on Escondito Circle to Mohamed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, who between June 2000 and January 2001 took flight training just 10 miles away at Venice Municipal Airport’s Huffman Aviation.

Atta was at the controls of the American Airlines passenger jet that crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Jarrah was the pilot who wrested control of United Airlines Flight 93, the jetliner that crashed into a Pennsylvania field after passengers rebelled against their hijackers.

After the Florida Bulldog story broke, the FBI confirmed that it had investigated, but said it found no ties to the 9/11 plot. It also said Congress had been told about its Sarasota investigation.

FBI tries to discredit own report

In April 2014, the FBI sought to discredit its April 2002 report during a private meeting with the 9/11 Review Commission. The FBI said then that the agent who wrote the report had no basis for doing so, but it did not elaborate or identify the agent. The assertion prompted Florida Bulldog to file a FOIA request for the commission’s files. After a year passed without a response from the bureau, the second FOIA lawsuit was filed.

Documents about that briefing include numerous sections withheld for privacy reasons that the judge said were improper. Several additional documents, including interviews with Florida witnesses who knew Atta and other hijackers, contain similar deletions about what went on in Sarasota prior to 9/11 that could be restored based on the judge’s findings.

One of those documents, titled “Alleged Sarasota Links to 9/11 Hijackers” has been released three times by the FBI, each time looking differently. The first release, in March 2013, was on stationery of the “Counterterrorism Division of the Guantanamo Detainee Prosecution Section, 9/11 Prosecution Unit.” The two-page memo, containing numerous privacy redactions, was written in response to the Bulldog’s initial story in September 2011 and says that “the FBI found no evidence that connected the family members” to the hijackers.

The FBI released the document again on Dec. 30, 2016. This time all mention of the Guantanamo 9/11 Prosecution Unit as the source of the memo was removed and more information that had been previously released was now deleted. In April, after the Bulldog’s attorney’s protested, the FBI released a third copy that restored some of the deleted information, but still removed mention of the Guantanamo 9/11 unit.

In her ruling last week, Judge Altonaga denied the FBI’s request for summary judgment “as to all redactions in this document.” Altonaga wrote “the court cannot fathom why the FBI would redact and claim a statutory exemption for information it has already released and which plaintiffs already possess.”

The FBI must now decide whether to make public the information for which summary judgment was denied or continue to oppose release.

Judge Altonaga’s order gives both sides until Thursday, May 25, to file a joint status report “advising how they wish to proceed to conclude the case, and if a trial is to be held, to propose a trial period.”

On Monday afternoon, the FBI requested an extension until June 2.

“The FBI is currently working to determine how to proceed with the information as to which the Court denied summary judgment, i.e., whether the information will be released to Plaintiffs or whether the agency must persist in defense of its claimed FOIA exemptions,” says the motion filed by Miami Assistant U.S. Attorney Carlos Raurell. “This process, which is already under way, requires not only the FBI’s own internal analysis, but also consultation with the Justice Department’s Civil Appellate Division and with at least one other government agency.”

28 pages connect Saudi prince to al Qaeda leader, supporters of 9/11 hijackers

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House via HistoryCommons.org]

From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House via HistoryCommons.org]

The Saudi ambassador who met with President George W. Bush at the White House two days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 had connections to a major al-Qaeda figure and other Saudis suspected of helping two of the suicide hijackers while they were in the United States.

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan’s contacts are contained in FBI and CIA reports cited in the 28 pages from Congress’ Joint Inquiry into 9/11 that were ordered declassified by President Obama after 13 years and made public Friday.

The “28 pages,” which are actually 29 pages, assert that 9/11 hijackers were helped by individuals “who may be connected with the Saudi government.’’ They do not, however, address the apparent ties of Mohamed Atta and other hijackers to Saudis living in Sarasota prior to 9/11.

FBI reports say agents found “many connections” between the September 11 plotters and the Sarasota Saudis, but neither Congress nor the subsequent 9/11 Commission were informed. The matter did not become public until 2011 when the Florida Bulldog, working with Irish author Anthony Summers, first reported it.

The 28 pages, however, do contain a new Florida angle.

“FBI documents also indicate that several Saudi Naval officers were in contact with the September 11 hijackers,” the 28 pages say. One of those officers, Saleh Ahmed Bedaiwi, was posted to the U.S. Naval Air Station in Pensacola.

The FBI’s Jacksonville Field Office investigated Bedaiwi at the time, but what else the 28 pages had to say about the matter was blacked out by the government before their public release.

Government officials, including House Intelligence Committee members Devin Nunes, R-CA, and Adam Schiff, D-CA, said the 9/11 Commission and the nation’s intelligence community investigated, but could not substantiate the 28 pages’ leads about possible Saudi involvement. However, there is little information in the public record to back up those assertions.

For example, while the names of Bedaiwi and fellow Saudi Naval officers Osama Nooh and Lafi al-Harbi are included in a declassified June 2003 9/11 Commission work plan as “interview candidates,” none is identified on a list of 1,200 persons interviewed by commission investigators.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who coordinated the declassification review of the 28 pages, said in a statement Friday that the final chapter of the Joint Inquiry’s 2002 report was kept secret so long because it “contained still-sensitive national security and law enforcement information.”

Secrecy ‘outweighed by the public interest’ in transparency

The declassification review, however, “determined that the harm to national security” by releasing the 28 pages “is outweighed by the public interest in additional transparency… Some information has been redacted because the document includes discussion of properly classified matters the disclosure of which would still cause significant harm to national security.”

Clapper’s statement was accompanied by the less-noticed release of a one-page “executive summary” of a September 2005 “joint FBI-CIA intelligence report assessing the nature and extent of Saudi government support of terrorism.”

Congress required the previously unknown joint assessment in a classified annex of the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Several sentences of the report’s transmittal letter to Congress by FBI Director Robert Mueller and CIA Director Porter Goss were blanked out, as were several sentences in the summary. The full report remains classified.

The assessment’s key finding marked the latest government statements in defense of the Saudis: “There is no evidence that either the Saudi government or members of the Saudi royal family knowingly provided support for the attacks of 11 September 2001 or that they had foreknowledge of terrorist operations in the Kingdom or elsewhere.”

President George W. Bush meets with Saudi Arabian Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2002. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

President George W. Bush meets with Saudi Arabian Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas in 2002. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

The assessment, however, also noted, “There is evidence that official Saudi entities, [redacted] and associated nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), provide financial and logistical support to individuals in the United States and around the world, some of whom are associated with terrorism-related activity.” Further, the assessment said, “The Saudi government and many of its agencies have been infiltrated and exploited by individuals associated with or sympathetic to Al-Qa’ida.”

While the 28 pages reference the sometimes bitter testimony of FBI agents and CIA officers who complained “about a lack of Saudi cooperation on terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11 attacks,’’ the 2005 joint FBI-CIA report observed that the Saudis began cooperating with the U.S. following several bombings inside Saudi Arabia starting in May 2003.

Imprisoned al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah

Imprisoned al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah

The 28 pages include a variety of new information about figures in the 9/11 drama. Among the most intriguing is a previously unreported connection between Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s longtime ambassador to the U.S. whose nickname was Bandar-Bush because of his close ties to President George W. Bush, and Abu Zubaydah, the “high-value” Guantanamo detainee who before his March 2002 capture in Pakistan was among al Qaeda’s highest ranking members and a confidant of Osama bin Laden.

U.S. and coalition forces recovered Zubaydah’s phone book. “According to an FBI document, ‘a review of toll records has linked several of the numbers found in Zubaida’s [sic] phonebook with U.S. phone numbers.’ One of the numbers is unlisted and subscribed to by ASPCOL Corporation in Aspen, Colorado,” the 28 pages say.

An FBI investigation stayed pending ‘guidance’ from headquarters

In July 2002, FBI headquarters asked its Denver office to investigate “this connection.”

Two months later, the 28 pages say, agents in Denver reported that ASPCOL “is the umbrella corporation that manages the affairs of the Colorado residence of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The facility is protected by Scimitar Security. Agents of the Denver Field Office noted that neither ASPCOL nor Scimitar Security is listed in the phone book or is easily locatable. In addition, the Colorado Secretary of State’s office has no record of ASPCOL.”

The 28 pages say the FBI reported that “CIA traces have revealed no direct (emphasis added) links between numbers found in Zubayadah’s phone book and numbers in the U.S.”

Hala Ranch, the former Aspen, Co. home of Saudi Prince Bandar and his wife, Princess Haifa. The home was sold in 2012 for $49 million to hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson, according to The Aspen Times.

Hala Ranch, the former Aspen, Co. home of Saudi Prince Bandar and his wife, Princess Haifa. The home was sold in 2012 for $49 million to hedge-fund billionaire John Paulson, according to The Aspen Times.

“The Denver office did not attempt to make any local inquiries about ASPCOL as they believed that any inquiries regarding ASPCOL would be quickly known by Prince Bandar’s employees,” the 28 pages say. “Due to the sensitivity of this matter, they decided to hold their investigation of ASPCOL in abeyance until they received additional guidance from FBI headquarters.”

Asked about the matter via email, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Matthew Bertron said Tuesday, “The FBI has no comment on your specific questions.”

The 28 pages contain additional new information involving other individuals who worked at Saudi Arabia’s Washington embassy. One was an embassy bodyguard whose phone number was also in Zubaydah’s possession. The paragraph about the matter includes a number of redactions, including the name of the bodyguard, that make it difficult to understand what’s being said.

Bin Laden’s half-brother, Abdullah Bin Laden, also surfaces in the 28 pages under a section titled, “Connections between Saudi government officials in the U.S., and other possible terrorist operatives.”

“For example, according to FBI documents there is evidence that hijackers Marwan al-Shehhi and Mohammed Atta [who piloted the jets that struck the Twin Towers] were in contact with Mohammed Rafique Quadir Harunani, the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation since 1999 and a close associate of Abdullah Bin Laden… He claims to work for the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington, D.C. as an administrative officer. Abdullah Bin Laden has financed Quadir’s company and is listed by Quadir as the emergency contact for Quadir’s children. They are in frequent email and phone contact as well.”

Osama Bin Laden half-brother’s terrorist connections

The chapter goes on to discuss Abdullah Bin Laden’s connections to “terrorist organizations.”

“He is the president and director of the World Arab Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) and the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America. Both organizations are local branches of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. According to the FBI, there is reason to believe that WAMY is ‘closely associated with the funding and financing of international terrorist activities and in the past has provide logistical support to individuals wishing to fight in the Afghan war.’”

The 28 pages also provide new information about a known episode that raised questions about Prince Bandar’s possible ties to some of the hijackers more than a decade ago.

Back then, it was reported that Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, had for some time sent a monthly stipend to $2,000 the wife of Osama Bassnan, a suspected Saudi agent, alleged al Qaeda sympathizer and “close associate” of Omar al-Bayoumi, another apparent Saudi agent who provided financial and other support to two 9/11 hijackers in San Diego in 2000.

The 28 pages say “in a recent search of Bassnan’s residence the FBI located copies of 31 cashiers checks totaling $74,000 during the period February 22, 1999 to May 30, 2002. These checks were payable to Bassnan’s wife and were drawn on the Riggs Bank account of Prince Bandar’s wife.” The money was supposed to be for “ ‘nursing’ services, but according to the [blank] document, there is no evidence that Bassnan’s wife provided nursing services.”

The pages say Prince Bandar himself also sent checks directly to Bassnan and his wife. Those checks, cashed in 1998, were for $15,000 and $10,000.

On Oct. 9, 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director Pasquale D’Amuro told the Joint Inquiry, “What the money was for is what we don’t know.”

One year later, on Oct. 7, 2003, investigators with the 9/11 Commission interviewed Bandar. What he was asked and his replies are not known. A “memorandum for the record” about his interview, and the interview itself, are classified. The reason, according to the National Archives, is national security.

Its spy vs spy as CIA directors differ on making public 28 hidden pages of 9-11 report

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

CIA Director John Brennan, right, and former CIA Director Porter Goss

CIA Director John Brennan, right, and former CIA Director Porter Goss

Two CIA directors. Two conflicting opinions.

On Monday, former CIA director Porter Goss strongly disagreed with current CIA chief John Brennan’s assertions on Meet the Press as to why President Obama should keep secret 28 classified pages from a 14-year-old congressional report about 9/11 said to implicate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the terrorist attacks.

“I favor full declassification of the 28 pages unless there is a national security reason not to,” Goss told FloridaBulldog.org. “If there is such a reason, I feel the Administration should tell us specifically what it is. I will not settle for generalities about ‘offending allies.’ ”

Brennan, who has been CIA director since 2013, told TV interviewer Chuck Todd Sunday the top secret 28 pages contain information that was “thoroughly investigated” and in some cases found to be inaccurate by the subsequent 9/11 Commission and last year’s lesser-known 9/11 Review Commission.

“I think some people may seize upon that uncorroborated, unvetted information that was in there that was basically just a collation of this information that came out of FBI files and point to Saudi involvement which I think would be very, very inaccurate,” Brennan said.

The Obama Administration’s Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, which includes the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is reviewing the hidden chapter in the 838-page congressional report about “specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States.”

The review process for the 28 pages has been underway since June 2013 when the Florida Bulldog’s parent, Broward Bulldog Inc., invoked what’s known as the Mandatory Declassification Review process. James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, told reporters last week that an “interagency position on the declassification of the 28 pages” is ongoing and that a decision on whether to release the 28 pages was likely by June.

Goss, who helped write the 28 pages, believes the government will act soon, yet will continue to withhold some information they contain from the public.

“My guess is that some of the 28-page material will be released soon, but some bits will still be redacted. Thus the speculation will continue. I think this will all be settled about the same time everyone agrees about the Kennedy assassination,” Goss said.

Goss, the CIA director from 2004 to 2006, was a veteran Republican congressman from Southwest Florida and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when in 2002 he was tapped to help lead Congress’s Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. His co-chairman was Florida Sen. Bob Graham, the Democrat who chaired the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rebuffed by the FBI director

Graham has been a leading figure in calling publicly for the release of the 28 pages. In a recent 60 Minutes report, Goss told how Graham and he met with then-FBI Director Robert Mueller before the Joint Inquiry’s report was released to secure declassification of the 28 pages, but were rebuffed.

“I distinctly recall that after Bob [Graham] and I were turned down by Bob Mueller at FBI, we both were disappointed and a bit puzzled about ‘why.’ We were under some time constraints to get our Joint Inquiry Report out and we had the option of handing off the material to the 9/11 Commission for further attention – which we did,” Goss said in an email. “I have never had a satisfactory explanation of why this material has not been declassified – though there may be one.”

The 9/11 Commission’s final report later stated that while “Saudi Arabia has long been considered the primary source of al Qaeda funding … we have found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization. (This conclusion does not exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to al Qaeda.)”

As FloridaBulldog.org has reported, Saudi King Salman “actively directed” one Saudi charity that court papers filed by 9/11 victims and their families say was “especially important to al Qaeda acquiring the strike capabilities used to launch attacks in the U.S.”

Goss said he hasn’t “pushed as hard as Bob on this, possibly because I do not think there was any official Saudi State complicity in the 9/11 attacks …

Obviously there could have been a rogue ‘official’ or misguided ‘Royal’ in the mix, but even that is uncertain.

“For me the salient point today is just how tolerant are we as a civilized society to allow exploitation of our freedoms by foreigners who deliberately want to undermine those freedoms with systematic violence and malevolent propaganda,” Goss said.

“I am not sure why the Obama Administration thinks the Radical Islamists are rational enough to negotiate with or emotionally stable enough to live peacefully among us. The concept of trying to appease those who have no interest in anything less than a whole new Caliphate is dangerously foolish. Using mosques as forward based platforms to preach and perform violence is a reality that far outstrips my understanding of Freedom of Religion,” Goss said.

Goss called the continued classification of the 28 pages “a minor irritant compared to the idiocy of ‘over-tolerance’ and mishandling of the real threat by the current (and likely next) Administration.”

“If you surmise that I have low confidence the Administration will tell us the truth, you have a high perception,” said Goss. “I guess they could send [National Security Advisor] Susan Rice out to the Sunday Talk Show Circuit to explain it.”

Bob Graham questions decision to send Guantanamo detainees to Saudi Arabia for rehab

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

The Mohammad bin Naif Counseling and Care Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which claims a nearly 90 percent success rate in rehabilitating terrorists

The Mohammad bin Naif Counseling and Care Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which claims a nearly 90 percent success rate in rehabilitating terrorists

Ex-Florida Sen. Bob Graham is questioning the wisdom of the Obama Administration’s decision to release nine Guantanamo detainees to Saudi Arabia for “rehabilitation.”

“Here’s a country that is under deep suspicion of being a co-collaborator in 9/11 and now we are sending it people who were considered to be among the most violent terrorists in the world,” Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said in an interview with FloridaBulldog.org.

“In fact, this is another reason why the blanket of secrecy that’s been thrown over this material should be lifted so people can make their own judgment as to whether this is the kind of country we should be sending these people to for rehabilitation.”

Saturday’s transfer of the nine Yemenis to Saudi Arabia, in the name of reeducating them to become law-abiding citizens, continued President Obama’s plan to “securely and responsibly” move detainees out of the notorious military detention facility so it can be closed.

The release preceded the President’s mid-week visit with Saudi King Salman in Riyadh.

The U.S. said 80 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi bin al Shibh, identified in Department of Defense documents as the “coordinator” of the 9/11 attacks. The Miami Herald reported this week that 26 of the 80 have been cleared for release.

About 780 men have been detained at Guantanamo, many without charges or access to federal courts, since January 2002.

U.S. law currently restricts the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States, as well as the use of funds to build or modify prisons for such transfers. In February, Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s office said the administration “looks forward to working with Congress to lift those restrictions.”

During his 2008 campaign, President Obama promised repeatedly to close Guantanamo following allegations that detainees had been tortured. On Jan. 22, 2009, two days after his inauguration, he signed an executive order creating the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force, whose job included reviewing the cases of individual detainees to determine who can be released for transfer.

Approved for transfer

The task force unanimously approved transfer for eight of the Yemenis. Another entity, the Periodic Review Board, recommended transfer by “consensus” of the ninth Yemeni, Mashur Abdullah Muqbil Ahmed al-Sabri.

The U.S. does not explain itself when a determination is made that individual Guantanamo detainees, once described by top U.S. officials as “the worst of the worst,” are no longer considered to pose a significant threat to the security of the United States.

Mashur Abdullah Muqbil Ahmed al-Sabri, who was among nine Guantanamo detainees sent to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation on Saturday.

Mashur Abdullah Muqbil Ahmed al-Sabri, who was among nine Guantanamo detainees sent to Saudi Arabia for rehabilitation on Saturday.

For example, in 2008 the task force reported to the commander of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami that al-Sabri was a member of “a Yemeni al-Qaeda cell directly involved with the USS Cole attack.” A bomb ripped open a large hole in the Navy guided missile destroyer while it was anchored in the port of Aden in October 2000, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 others.

The task force’s 12-page, declassified report says al-Sabri, now 38, received “advanced training at al-Qaeda facilities in Afghanistan” and engaged in combat there in support of the Taliban after 9/11.

Without rehabilitation and supervision, the report says, “it is assessed detainee would immediately seek out prior associates and reengage in hostilities and extremist support activities.”

The U.S. assessment of al-Sabri was softened, however, in an unclassified, three-paragraph profile submitted to the Periodic Review Board in December 2014. The profile downplayed al-Sabri’s alleged role to that of an al-Qaeda “associate” who “possibly received militant training” and who “probably did not play a significant role in terrorist operations.”

“There is no indication” that al-Sabri had “foreknowledge of the attack” on the Cole, the profile said, even though the 2008 Defense Department report said his al-Qaeda cell had “conducted surveillance on the USS Cole and prepared explosives for the bombing.”

Al-Sabri “has expressed non-extremist goals for his life after detention, and none of his family members in Saudi Arabia or Yemen are involved in terrorist activity,” the profile concluded. “He may, however, attempt to contact a family friend who is an AQAP (al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) operative and facilitator with a long history of association with extremists, providing (al-Sabri) a possible path to reengage.”

Four months after the profile was filed, al-Sabri was cleared for release and transfer. Saudi Arabia recently agreed to accept him and the other Yemenis. bobgraham60minutes2

Ex-Sen. Graham said he is “really sympathetic to the idea of trying to close Guantanamo” because “it’s giving us a bad name.”

Still, he believes that trusting a “perfidious ally” like Saudi Arabia with the job of rehabilitating hardened terrorist suspects imprisoned for years at Guantanamo is fanciful.

“I went to Riyadh in 2011 or 2012 when I was on the CIA’s external advisory board. We had a session on this rehabilitation program and it seemed a little frivolous to me. Part of it was they were learning to paint to help them rehabilitate their terrorist leanings,” said Graham, appeared on 60 Minutes last week to urge the government to release hidden 9/11 records.

The high-security Mohammad bin Naif Counseling and Care Center is one such rehabilitation center. Its main objectives include “pointing out the role of [the] Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in fighting terrorism, overcoming immoderate thoughts and caring for its youth,” according to its website.

The Christian Science Monitor reported in May 2015 that art therapy, water aerobics classes, Ping-Pong, Jacuzzis, gourmet chefs, psychologists and imams are available to 250 Jihadist patients at the correctional facility in Saudi Arabia’s capital city.

The three-month rehabilitation program was created by namesake Crown Prince Naif, the powerful First Deputy Prime Minister who is first in line to the throne.

The Monitor and the Associated Press reported the center claims a nearly 90 percent success rate for the approximately 3,000 men who have gone through the program, including many convicted of terrorism-related charges in Saudi Arabia.

John Horgan is a professor at the Global Studies Institute at Georgia State University and the author of “The Psychology of Terrorism.”

He could not be reached for comment, but in an interview with the AP last year he was skeptical of Saudi Arabia’s rehab program.

“Some critics would say that this isn’t true de-radicalization, this is just a diversion. It’s smoke and mirrors,” Horgan said. “What I’ve seen so far is that it’s just a token gesture. It’s very good for the optics and very good for public relations.”

Saudi Arabia’s king ran state charity that 9/11 victims say funded and armed al Qaeda

Editor’s Note: Saturday’s lead story in The New York Times is headlined “Saudis Tell U.S. to Back Off Bill on 9/11 Lawsuits.” It reports that Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al Jubeir warned the Obama Administration that his country will sell off as much as $750 billion in American assets if Congress passes a bill that would allow the kingdom to be held liable in U.S. Courts if found responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Saudi threat follows last Sunday’s 60 Minutes report calling fresh attention to 28 censored pages from Congress’s 9/11 report that former Florida Sen. Bob Graham says points a finger at Saudi Arabia.

On Wednesday, President Obama will travel to Saudi Arabia for meetings with King Salman and other Saudi officials. The FloridaBulldog story that follows was first published Feb. 6, 2015. It has not been reported elsewhere. It seems appropriate to republish now.

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org  

Saudi King Salman with President Obama at Erga Palace during a January 27, 2015 trip to Saudi Arabia. Photo: Pete Souza, official White House photo

Saudi King Salman with President Obama at Erga Palace during a January 27, 2015 trip to Saudi Arabia. Photo: Pete Souza, official White House photo

Saudi Arabia’s new king, Salman, “actively directed” a Saudi charity whose funding was “especially important to al Qaeda acquiring the strike capabilities used to launch attacks in the U.S.,” say court papers filed this week by lawyers representing 9/11 victims and their families.

The Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC), which Salman led from its founding in 1993 until it closed in 2011, helped fund “the very al Qaeda camps where the 9/11 hijackers received their training for the attacks, and the safe haven and facilities in Afghanistan where senior officials of al Qaeda, including Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, planned and coordinated the attacks,” the court papers say.

King Salman bin Abdul Aziz al Saud assumed the throne on Jan. 23 after the death of King Abdullah, 90, who had ruled Saudi Arabia since 2005.

The lawyers filed approximately 4,000 pages of motions and supporting documents in federal court in Manhattan opposing Saudi Arabia’s renewed efforts to be dismissed as a defendant in the long-running civil lawsuit that arose from the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001.

The Saudis and the Saudi High Commission had been dropped from the case years ago over claims of sovereign immunity, but they were reinstated as defendants in December 2013 after an appellate court reversed its earlier decision.

President George W. Bush with then-Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz in 2008.

President George W. Bush with then-Prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz in 2008.

BOB GRAHAM WANTS NEW 9/11 INQUIRY

Among the new filings is a six-page affidavit by former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into 9/11. Graham said he’s convinced 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” and that “the American public deserves a more robust inquiry.”

One matter he said “deserves further attention and investigation is the relationship between three of the future hijackers and a Saudi family living in Sarasota” prior to 9/11.

FloridaBulldog.org, working with Irish journalist and author Anthony Summers, first reported in 2011 that the family of Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud, abruptly moved out of their home about two weeks before 9/11 – leaving behind cars, clothes, clothing, furniture and food in the kitchen. The departure triggered an FBI investigation that lasted for at least two years, but was never disclosed to either Graham’s committee or the 9/11 Commission.

While FBI officials said publicly that the investigation found no connection to 9/11, FBI documents released later in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by Broward Bulldog Inc., the corporate name of the Florida Bulldog, stated there were “many connections” between the family “and individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Court Judge William J. Zloch is currently reviewing 80,000 pages of records about 9/11 from the FBI’s Tampa office for possible release.

This week’s filings, and related news coverage by The New York Times and other national media, is turning up the heat on the Obama Administration to make public 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry’s report concerning “specific sources of foreign support” for the 9/11 hijackers.

Those pages were censored on orders from then-President George W. Bush. Graham has said they are about “the role of Saudi Arabia in funding 9/11.”

Imprisoned 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui

Imprisoned 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui

The new filings in New York present an information mosaic of the kingdom’s actions leading up to the attacks. They cite primary documentation including FBI reports, diplomatic cables and even a once-classified “threat matrix,” used to assess enemy combatants at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp. Also included are statements from witnesses, including Zacarias Moussaoui who is serving a life sentence in a federal “supermax” prison in Colorado after pleading guilty in 2005 to charges that he helped plan the 9/11 attacks.

The Guantanamo threat matrix lists the Saudi High Commission among a number of “terrorist and terrorist support entities…identified in intelligence reports and U.S. government terrorism lists.”

A key figure in the plaintiff’s emerging mosaic is the new King of Saudi Arabia.

King Salman was a prince when he founded the SHC in 1993 with the support of then-King Fahd to aid Muslims in war-torn Bosnia-Herzegovina. A 2004 affidavit by Saudi Minister of State Dr. Mutlib bin Abudllah al-Nafissa describes the commission “as an arm of the Saudi Arabian government” and says “decisions regarding causes to support” were within Salman’s discretion.

An affidavit the same year by the commission’s former executive director, Saud bin Mohammad al-Roshood, said the commission spent $448 million on aid between 1993 and 2000.

A RADICAL STRAIN OF ISLAM

The 9/11 victims contend the commission was not only a charity, but an Islamic da’awa organization “created by the government of the kingdom to propagate a radical strain of Islam throughout the world, commonly referred to as Wahhabism.”

The SHC “served as a primary conduit for the Kingdom’s massive sponsorship of al Qaeda’s jihad in the Balkans,” plaintiff’s court papers say.

To back it up, the pleadings cited both detailed investigative reports from the mid-1990s and interviews with witnesses like Ali Hamad who helped coordinate al Qaeda’s military operations in Bosnia and was later convicted and jailed for a 1997 car bombing in Herzegovina.

Among other things, Hamad testified that the SHC provided him and other al Qaeda members with false employment papers so they could travel freely in the Balkans, allowed them to use the SHC’s offices and rented houses to plan terrorist attacks and provided “extensive” financial support and food for mujahideen forces.

“Ali Hamad’s sworn testimony is independently corroborated by numerous U.S., U.N. and NATO investigations,” wrote attorneys Stephen A. Cozen, Sean P. Carter, Jodi W. Flowers and others in a pleading that describes the evidence.

A United Nations-sponsored investigation also determined Salman, the new king, “transferred in excess of $120 million from his personal accounts and SHC accounts under his control to the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA)” from July 1992 to July 1995, the pleading says.

A PIPELINE FOR ARMS

The 9/11 Commission identified Third World Relief as an al Qaeda front and pipeline for illegal arms shipments to al Qaeda fighters in the Balkans.

“The U.N. sponsored audit of the TWRA’s records suggested that the SHC’s lavish funding of TWRA commenced shortly after a personal meeting between Prince Salman and the head of the TWRA. As the SHC had a robust operational presence of its own in Bosnia, there was no legitimate ‘humanitarian’ reason for it to send any funds to the TWRA,” the pleading says.

Rescue crews work to clear debris from the site of the World Trade Center. Photo Michael Rieger/ FEMA News

Rescue crews work to clear debris from the site of the World Trade Center. Photo Michael Rieger/ FEMA News

In October 2001, the U.S. and NATO raided SHC’s office in Sarajevo. On computer hard drives, the pleading says, investigators discovered files on deploying chemical agents with crop dusters, information on how to make fake State Department badges, and photographs and maps of Washington, marking prominent government buildings.

Also found: before and after photographs of the World Trade Center and photographs of other terrorist targets, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the U.S.S. Cole.

Bosnian police soon arrested six al Qaeda members for plotting to conduct terrorist strikes on U.S. targets. Each was on SHC’s payroll and all six were later incarcerated at Guantanamo, the pleading says.

Government investigations also found evidence that the SHC played “a direct role” in arms trafficking for al Qaeda, the pleading says.

“Of particular note, a Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that General Mohammad Farah Hassan Aideed, the al Qaeda-affiliated Somali warlord responsible for the Black Hawk Down massacre, received ‘weapons’ shipments” from the SHC.

King Salman’s ascension has begun to focus attention on his disturbing prior connections.

Last week, for example, Foreign Policy ran a story headlined, “King Salman’s Shady History: President Obama wants to work with the leader of the House of Saud, but the new king of Saudi Arabia has troubling ties to radical Islamists.”

The Saudi embassy in Washington did not comment to requests for comment via phone and email regarding the allegations regarding King Salman’s involvement with the SHC.

An embassy spokesman, did, however, reissue a statement made on Tuesday that denounced Moussaoui as “a deranged criminal” without credibility and quoted the 9/11 Commission as saying there is “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” al Qaeda.

A stonewall of secrecy hides many 9-11 records on 14th anniversary of terrorist attacks

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

Osama bin Laden, left, with his successor as al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri

Osama bin Laden, left, with his successor as al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri

Seven weeks after the end of the massive cleanup at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan in 2002, a legal investigator for the families of 9/11 victims requested a copy of an arrest warrant issued by Interpol for fugitive al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Here’s the reply she got from the Justice Department’s Interpol-U.S. National Central Bureau:

“Release of information about a living person without that person’s consent generally constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. You must submit an authorization (privacy waiver) signed by Usama bin Laden, consenting to the USNCB’s release to you of any record that it may have pertaining to him.”

The Justice Department’s assertion of privacy rights for bin Laden is a small rock in the stonewall of official secrecy that continues to hide 9/11 documents held by the FBI, CIA and other government entities on the 14th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Lately, the public focus has been on the 28 blanked-out pages in Congress’s 2002 Joint Inquiry into the attacks regarding “foreign support for the hijackers” – read Saudi Arabia. The pages, withheld by President George W. Bush and kept hidden by President Obama, have been the subject of recent stories in The New Yorker, The New York Times and others. On Capitol Hill, pending bills in the House and Senate seek to open those pages to the public.

Yet hundreds, likely thousands, of significant records about what the 9/11 Commission called “a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States” remain off limits in whole or significant part. The result: an incomplete public understanding of events behind the attacks, and a denial of evidence to 9/11 victims still seeking a measure of justice in the courts.

‘LET OUR PEOPLE KNOW’

“Thousands of pages, photographs and tangible evidence have been withheld, much of which from my personal knowledge has nothing to do with keeping America safer but rather protects incompetence or relations with perfidious foreign governments,” said former Sen. Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the attacks and helped write the 28 pages.

Bob Graham

Bob Graham

“The United States has paid a high price in justice to injured Americans, national security and confidence in government by this secrecy. It is time to let our people know,” Graham said.

Many hidden 9/11 records are years, even decades old. But some like the classified files and memoranda of the FBI’s secretive 9/11 Review Commission were produced in 2014 and 2015.

The Review Commission, charged with investigating the FBI’s performance and evaluating new information about the attacks, went out of business in March after issuing a 127-page report. The FBI has yet to release any other commission material – transcripts, memos and the like – sought in a Freedom of Information request filed by FloridaBulldog.org in April.

Perhaps the largest untapped source of information about events leading up to 9/11 is the raw intelligence files about al Qaeda and terrorist threats gathered by the eavesdropping National Security Agency.

In his 2008 book “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” former New York Times reporter Philip Shenon said Commission investigators neglected to examine that “gold mine” of NSA 9/11 data until days before the commission’s final report was due.

Found in that limited time, and noted in the commission’s report, was “strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al-Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers…We believe this topic requires future investigation by the U.S. government.”

“There’s a massive amount of information,” Shenon said in an interview last week. “That’s always been on the top of my list of documents I’d like to see.”

Suppressed records are plentiful and easy to locate in the reports of the Joint Inquiry and the footnotes of the follow-up 9/11 Commission. Aside from the notorious 28 pages, the Joint Inquiry’s report contains numerous other blanked-out parts, including six heavily censored pages regarding covert action ordered against bin Laden by President Clinton.

The National Archives manages the 9/11 Commission’s files and maintains an online list of about 1,200 fact-finding interviews, nearly 200 of which the public cannot access because they are classified. Hundreds more released documents have redactions ranging from minimal to heavy.

911datasets.org, a group that makes available raw information obtained by 9/11 researchers, says the National Archives has released about a third of the commission’s files. Many records within those files are nevertheless withheld citing national security.

‘NO EVIDENCE’ AGAINST SAUDI GOVERNMENT

The 9/11 Commission reported finding “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually” had funded al Qaeda. The official veil of secrecy over its records, however, continues to obscure how it reached that controversial conclusion.

Hidden from public view are commission interviews with White House staff, FBI agents, CIA employees and officials with other agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency, State Department, Treasury Department and Federal Aviation Administration. Also secret: interviews with government officials from Great Britain, Canada, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House via HistoryCommons.org]

From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House via HistoryCommons.org]

One intriguing 2003 interview was with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. who met with President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney at the White House two days after 15 of his countrymen helped carry out passenger jet attacks on New York and Washington.

Bandar’s wife, Princess Haifa, made payments to a man the Joint Inquiry identified as a “Saudi extremist and a bin Laden supporter.” The man, Osama Bassnan, also apparently had contact with 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Midhar, who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it slammed into the Pentagon.

Time Magazine reported that from January 1999 to May 2002 the princess made monthly payments of $2,000 to Bassnan’s wife, who was said to suffer from a severe thyroid condition. The payments totaled as much as $73,000, The New Yorker reported last year.

Key documents by the CIA and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control relating to terrorist financing are also under wraps.

For example, while representing 9/11 victims, New York’s Kreindler & Kreindler law firm filed a Freedom of Information request for a copy of a May 2000 memo about a meeting OFAC officials had with two of Osama bin Laden’s half-brothers, as well as a subsequent letter about the meeting from the Saudi Binladin Group, the large construction conglomerate founded by Osama bin Laden’s father. Both documents are cited in the 9/11 Commission’s report.

OFAC denied the 2009 request saying, among other things, that the release of those records would constitute “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” presumably of the bin Ladens.

OFAC also asserted personal privacy and national security considerations in 2006 when refusing to release nearly 700 pages of records about the International Islamic Relief Organization, a Saudi charity whose branches in Indonesia and the Philippines were specially designated by OFAC as terrorist entities for funding al Qaeda.

Another 600 OFAC pages were likewise withheld about the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a Saudi charity designated by the Treasury Department in 2008 for having provided “financial and material support” for al Qaeda.

IMMUNIZING FINANCIERS OF TERRORISM?

“The wholesale redaction of any relevant detail is a problem we’ve seen across the board when we’ve asked for documents that address specific details of Saudi-based support for al Qaeda in the pre-9/11 era,” said Sean P. Carter, a victim’s attorney with Philadelphia’s Cozen O’Connor law firm. “At the end of the day this is immunizing those people from the consequences of their actions.”

Al Rajhi Bank headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Al Rajhi Bank headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The CIA took a different tack in its July 2013 response to a FOIA request by another plaintiff’s lawyer seeking intelligence reports about Saudi Arabia’s al Rajhi Bank that were cited in a Wall Street Journal story, “U.S. Tracks Saudi Bank Favored by Extremists.”

The front-page article said CIA documents described al Rajhi Bank, which describes itself as one of the world’s largest Islamic banks, as a “conduit for extremist finance” that once obtained a visa for a money courier working for Osama bin Laden’s second-in-command, Ayman al Zawahiri. The CIA replied that it “can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence” of the requested records.

CIA documents cited prominently in the 9/11 Commission Report and requested by plaintiff’s lawyers have been released in recent years, often with heavy redactions and assertions that the information was exempt by presidential directive or U.S. law.

Examples include:

In June, the CIA released a 10-year-old report by the agency’s Inspector General regarding criticism leveled by the Joint Inquiry. The 490-page report is riddled with redactions, including nearly all of a 29-page section titled “Issues Relating to Saudi Arabia.” A sentence that remains states that the CIA found no “reliable reporting confirming Saudi government involvement with and financial support for terrorism prior to 9/11.”

The National Security Archive, a private research group based at Washington’s Georgetown University, has identified key 9/11 information that remains classified.

“Hundreds of cited reports and cables remain classified, including all interrogation materials such as the 47 reports from CIA interrogations of [alleged 9/11 mastermind] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” the group’s website says.

THE FBI’S MANY CLASSIFIED RECORDS

The FBI posts 72 documents about the 9/11 Commission on its website. Many contain extensive redactions and none involve allegations of Saudi financing for terrorists, the most controversial aspect of the 9/11 case.

The FBI’s sprawling 9/11 investigation, code-named PENTTBOMB, was the largest in its history. More than half of its agents worked the case, following more than half-a-million investigative leads, the FBI has said.

U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch

U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch

How many documents is that?

The FBI’s Tampa field office alone holds 80,000 classified pages in its 9/11 file, according to papers filed by the Justice Department in ongoing Freedom of Information litigation brought by FloridaBulldog.org.

The records include details of a once-secret FBI investigation of a Saudi family with apparent ties to the 9/11 hijackers who gained attention after they abruptly moved out of their Sarasota area home two weeks before the attacks, leaving behind their cars, clothes, furniture and other belongings. FloridaBulldog.org working with Anthony Summers, co-author of the 9/11 history “The Eleventh Day,” first reported the story in 2011.

Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Court Judge William J. Zloch is currently reviewing those 80,000 pages for possible public release.

The continuing secrecy about 9/11 has not sat well with the former leaders of the 9/11 Commission.

At an event last year marking the 10th anniversary of the release of its report, former Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton urged transparency, saying he was “surprised and disappointed” to learn that documents remain hidden.

“I assumed, incorrectly, that our records would be public. All of them, everything,” Hamilton said. “I want those documents declassified. I’m embarrassed to be associated with a work product that is secret.”

9/11 victims: Saudi Arabia’s ‘lavish sponsorship’ of al Qaeda made attacks possible

By Dan Christensen, BrowardBulldog.org twintowersexplosion

As defense attorneys tried again last week to get Saudi Arabia dropped from a massive federal lawsuit accusing it of complicity in the 9/11 attacks, lawyers for those who survived, and relatives of the dead, filed a sweeping new statement of the evidence they are marshaling for trial.

The 156-page pleading offers the court a fresh account of what’s become known about Saudi Arabia’s alleged ties to al Qaeda since it was initially dismissed from the lawsuit in 2005. An appeals court reinstated Saudi Arabia and its agency, the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina (SHC), as defendants late last year.

Likewise, the document seeks to counter retooled Saudi claims of sovereign immunity.

The 9/11 victims don’t argue that Saudi Arabia had foreknowledge of the attacks. Rather, they contend the attacks were made possible by the Saudis’ “lavish sponsorship” of al Qaeda for “more than a decade leading up to September 11, 2001.

The Saudis allegedly supplied that funding – as much as $35 million a year – even though they knew “of al Qaeda’s intent to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States,” according to the pleading filed in federal court in Manhattan on Sept. 15.

In contrast, Saudi Arabia’s memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the multi-billion dollar lawsuit opens with a blanket denial of wrongdoing.

‘KINGDOM HAD NO ROLE’

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had no role in the attacks of September 11, 2001. The United States has said often and vigorously that Saudi Arabia is an important ally in the fight against terrorism,” says the memo. It also says the 9/11 Commission found “no evidence” that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials funded terrorists.

Saudi Arabia’s claim to exoneration met stiff resistance. Lawyers for the victims cited affidavits made by 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey, an ex-Nebraska senator, and former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the attacks, rebutting the Saudi’s assertions.

“Further undermining the Kingdom’s efforts to characterize the 9/11 Commission investigation as ‘exhaustive,’ recent disclosures make clear that both the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 Joint Inquiry were deprived of critical information by the FBI,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote.

9-11hijackers (1)“For example, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought against the FBI by BrowardBulldog.org has revealed that the FBI never disclosed to the 9/11 Commission or the 9/11 Joint Inquiry the existence of a massive investigation into an apparent Saudi support network for the 9/11 hijackers in Florida.”

That once-secret FBI investigation concerned links between 9/11 hijack pilots Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah and a Saudi family with ties to the royal family who lived in a gated community near Sarasota. Abdulaziz al-Hijji and his wife, Anoud, came to the FBI’s attention after they moved out of their home two weeks before 9/11, leaving behind cars, clothes, furniture and other personal belongings.

BrowardBulldog.org, working with Irish journalist and author Anthony Summers, broke the story in September 2011. At the time, the FBI confirmed that it had investigated, but said no connection was found to the 9/11 plot.

Yet last year, seven months after the FOIA lawsuit was filed, the FBI made public records that say flatly the Sarasota Saudis had “many connections” to “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.” The records tie three of those individuals to Huffman Aviation – the Venice flight school where hijackers Atta and al-Shehhi trained – but the FBI blacked out their names and other details citing national security.

Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch is currently reviewing more than 80,000 pages of records turned over by the FBI in response to his order to decide what additional records can be made public.

The 9/11 victims, whose ranks include companies that suffered enormous property losses, are suing hundreds of other defendants – from Middle East banks and “purported” Islamic charities like the Muslim World League to the estates of the dead hijackers.

“Although representing themselves to the West as traditional charities or “humanitarian organizations,” these organizations are more accurately described as Islamic da’awa organizations, created by the government of the kingdom to propagate a radical strain of Islam throughout the world, commonly referred to as Wahhabism,” the 9/11 victims’ pleading says.

On Monday, a federal jury in New York City found Jordan-based Arab Bank liable for knowingly helping terrorists carry out two-dozen suicide bombings in Israel in the early 2000s. The verdict marked the first time a bank was found liable for violations of the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act.

“It makes it pretty clear how jurors view this kind of conduct when courts allow cases to reach them,” said Sean P. Carter, an attorney for the 9/11 victims.

FSIA CLAIMS

The 9/11 case consolidates several lawsuits filed between 2002 and 2004. It proceeds today under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

FSIA generally bars plaintiffs’ claims against other nations. One exception, however, is when a foreign state commits a tort – a wrongful act that causes harm – in the U.S.

The current legal fight focuses on complex legal issues regarding FSIA applicability.

Michael Kellogg, a Washington, D.C. attorney who represents the kingdom, argues the case should be dismissed because FSIA’s “tort exception” does not apply. Among his reasons: the law says wrongful acts, like funding al Qaeda, must be committed in the U.S., but that no such acts took place here.

“It is irrelevant that the September 11 attacks themselves occurred in the United States. Those attacks were ‘distinct and separate’ torts from those that involve giving money and aid to purported charities that supported al Qaeda, and those attacks therefore cannot serve as a basis for avoiding the entire-tort rule,” Kellogg wrote.

But attorneys for the other side say their clients’ claims are based on wrongdoing within the U.S. – both by Saudi “agents” who “provided direct assistance and support” to the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi charity “collaborators” like the Saudi High Commission that supported al Qaeda “through offices located in the United States.”

“Literally troves of governmental investigative reports have been declassified,” since the lawsuit was dismissed in 2005 that supports those claims, says the pleading filed on behalf of more than a half-dozen law firms by Carter’s Philadelphia law firm, Cozen O’Connor. More “evidence” was obtained from the charities and other defendants as the lawsuit has proceeded.

Some of that developed evidence involves a terrorist support network in southern California whose members allegedly included suspected al Qaeda advance man Omar al-Bayoumi and two other Saudis, Fahad al-Thumairy, and Osama Basnan.

The trio is accused of aiding 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they entered the U.S. in January 2000 after attending an al Qaeda conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The support network “assisted them in settling in the United States and beginning preparations for the September 11th Attacks,” the pleading says.

Mihdhar and Hazmi were among the terrorists who flew a hijacked American Airlines jet into the Pentagon.

Bayoumi is described in the pleading as a Saudi intelligence agent. Bayoumi moved out of his San Diego apartment on June 23, 2001, telling his landlord he was leaving the U.S.

According to the pleading, Thumairy was a diplomat with the Saudi consulate’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs from 1996 to 2003. He was also a religious leader at the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, Ca. with a reputation as an Islamic fundamentalist.

Basnan was an associate of Omar Abdul Rahman, the blind sheikh who is serving a life sentence for his role in supporting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the pleading says.

9/11, Saudi Arabia and the search for answers amid government secrecy

By Dan Christensen, BrowardBulldog.org 

President Obama with Saudi King Abdullah at the White House in 2010; President George W. Bush with Crown Prince Abdullah shortly before he became king in 2005

President Obama with Saudi King Abdullah at the White House in 2010; President George W. Bush with Crown Prince Abdullah shortly before he became king in 2005

It’s been 13 years since al Qaeda hijackers commandeered four U.S. passenger jets and slammed them into America’s heart, yet a basic question persists: Did they act alone or with the help of a support network?

The answer is shrouded by government secrecy. Many believe that secrecy exists to protect oil-rich Saudi Arabia.

From the start, questions have simmered about the kingdom’s role in the September 11, 2001 attacks because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, as was Osama bin Laden. Congressional investigators and the 9/11 Commission stoked suspicion when they found evidence that at least some of the hijackers received direct financial support traceable back to the Saudi government.

The Saudis have consistently and strongly denied involvement in 9/11. Those denials, however, have been undercut by U.S. government documents – leaked or made public under the Freedom of Information Act – detailing the kingdom’s financial support for various Muslim extremist groups, including al Qaeda.

Here’s a candid assessment of Saudi Arabia’s dealings with external terrorists by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton contained in a secret December 2009 cable to U.S. diplomats that was made public by Wikileaks in 2010:

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide…Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT [Pakistan’s Lashkar-e-Taiba] and other terrorist groups, including Hamas.”

Such assertions, like others found in Treasury Department documents linking members of the Saudi royal family to charities supporting terrorist groups, take on new urgency with recent news about the kingdom’s financial support for the brutal Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also known as ISIS.

Today, the heat is on in Congress and the courts to expose more information about the backdrop to 9/11. That includes obtaining facts about Saudi Arabia’s suspected involvement in funding the hijackers kept hidden by the administrations of two presidents – Democrat Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush.

THE NOOSE TIGHTENS

“The noose is starting to tighten,” said former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee. “All of this points to the role of Saudi Arabia, over a long period of time, in some of the most horrific actions against the U.S., the people of the Middle East today and possibly the world tomorrow.”

In New York, a rejuvenated federal civil lawsuit brought by thousands of 9/11 victims and relatives promises to uncover a trove of primary U.S. and Saudi records.

9-11-01The Saudis had been dismissed as a defendant in 2005 after claiming sovereign immunity. But last December, in an unusual and complex ruling citing legal error, a federal appeals court in Manhattan reversed itself and restored both the kingdom and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, its charity, as defendants.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Saudi Arabia’s appeal on June 30.

To date, proceedings in the case have involved a number of Saudi funded charities, including the Muslim World League and its financial arm, the Rabita Trust, which was designated as a terrorist entity by President Bush a month after 9/11.

While some material produced by the charities has made it into the public domain via court pleadings, many other documents that were turned over are stamped confidential pursuant to a protective order entered early in the case by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey, according to Philadelphia plaintiff’s attorney Sean Carter.

“I can say with confidence that the discovery we’ve received from certain of the charities documents significant financial irregularities,” said Carter. “The documents confirm that certain money ostensibly distributed to branch offices for humanitarian projects was not applied to humanitarian projects.”

At the same time, the 9/11 families have a number of Freedom of Information Act requests pending – “some for many years,” said Carter.

SUSPECTED SAUDI AGENT

One request to the FBI concerns Dallah Avco, a corporate contractor with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation identified as a possible employer of Omar al Bayoumi. a suspected Saudi agent who befriended 9/11 hijackers Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in San Diego.

Bayoumi met the pair – who later died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon – shortly after their arrival in the U.S. after attending an al Qaeda summit meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The FBI reply to that FOIA request was that it had no responsive records about Dallah Avco, yet Carter said an online search later found responsive documents posted in the FBI’s electronic reading room.

“To say the least, we are experiencing frustration,” said Carter. “The potential for litigation between the 9/11 plaintiffs and agencies of the U.S. government looms.”

Such a lawsuit would be a spectacle – thousands of 9/11 victims suing the United States to force the release of information about those suspected of responsibility for their injuries and the deaths of their loved ones.

But such lawsuits can achieve results.

BrowardBulldog.org is currently suing the FBI seeking records about its investigation of a Saudi family with ties to the royal family that moved out of their home in a gated community near Sarasota about two weeks before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks – abandoning cars, furniture and other personal items. Agents later determined that hijack ringleader Mohamed Atta and other terrorists had visited the home, according to sources.

The FBI, however, did not disclose the existence of that investigation to either Congress’s Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks or the subsequent 9/11 Commission, according to former Sen. Graham, who co-chaired the Joint Inquiry. And when BrowardBulldog.org first reported the matter in September 2011, FBI officials said the probe had found no links to the 9/11 plot.

A subsequent Freedom of Information request was similarly met: The FBI said it had no responsive documents. Yet in March 2013, six months after the suit was filed, the Bureau unexpectedly released 35 pages. The heavily redacted records said the Sarasota Saudis in fact “had many connections to individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.”

80,000 PAGES UNDER REVIEW

Further small releases of documents have restated that finding and provided additional insights. Today, Fort Lauderdale U.S. District Court Judge William J. Zloch is reviewing 80,000 pages of records turned over by the FBI this summer for his private inspection to determine whether they should be made public.

“He could issue a ruling at any time,” said the Bulldog’s Miami attorney Thomas Julin.

Julin also represents the news organization in a separate administrative appeal requesting the declassification of 28 pages redacted from the Joint Inquiry’s 858-page final report to the nation. The pages concern “specific sources of foreign support” for the hijackers while they were in the U.S.

The appeal parallels a push by members of Congress to pass House Resolution 428, which calls on President Obama to declassify the 28 pages. The resolution says that declassification is “necessary to provide the American public with the full truth.

“These efforts to force the release of 28 pages of a 13-year-old investigative report by the House and Senate intelligence committees will disclose particularly the role of Saudi Arabia in funding 9/11,” said Graham, who helped write those pages.

9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, an ex-Congressman from Indiana, offered their support for declassification when asked about it by Naples resident Matthew Sellitto during a public appearance on July 22 to mark the 10th anniversary of the commission’s report. Sellitto’s son, Matt, was on the 105th floor of Tower 1 of the World Trade Center.

9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER ‘EMBARRASSED’ BY SECRECY

“I’m embarrassed that they’re not declassified,” said Hamilton. “We emphasized throughout transparency. I assumed incorrectly that our records would be public, all of them, everything.

Still, the 28 pages remain secret despite efforts by numerous political leaders to have them made public. In 2003, for example, 46 senators signed a bipartisan letter to President Bush asking him to declassify the pages.

“If we are to protect our national security, we must convince the Saudi regime to get tough on terror. Keeping private its involvement – or that of any nation – in the September 11th attacks is not the way to accomplish that goal,” the letter says. The signers included Joe Biden, Sam Brownback, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Nelson and Harry Reid.

For a CNN report Monday about the 28 pages, the Saudi government re-released a statement in support of their disclosure made by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal in 2003 shortly after the Joint Inquiry published its censored report.

“We have nothing to hide. And we do not seek nor do we need to be shielded,” al-Faisal said. “We believe that releasing the missing 28 pages will allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner; and remove any doubts about the kingdom’s true rule in the war against terrorism and its commitment to fight it.”

Following CNN’s Monday report, in which 9/11 relative Bill Doyle accused President Obama of breaking a promise to make public the 28 pages, the National Security Council issued a statement saying the White House had taken previously unannounced steps toward releasing the 28 pages.

“Earlier this summer, the White House requested that ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) review the 28 pages from the joint inquiry for declassification. ODNI is currently coordinating the required interagency review and it is ongoing,” said NSC spokesman Edward “Ned” Price.

Meanwhile, BrowardBulldog.org’s administrative appeal seeking release of the 28 pages is pending before the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, which makes recommendations to the president after conducting what’s known as a mandatory declassification review.

The panel is not a rubber stamp. Last year, in its annual report to the president, it said it had reviewed 151 classified documents and approved declassifying 131 in whole or in part.

The panel’s six members are from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Council, the National Archives, and the Departments of Defense, Justice and State.

U.S. Supreme Court green lights 9/11 victims lawsuit against Saudi Arabia

By Dan Christensen, BrowardBulldog.org 

President Barack Obama meets with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during a bilateral meeting at Rawdat Khuraim in Saudi Arabia, March 28, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama meets with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during a bilateral meeting at Rawdat Khuraim in Saudi Arabia, March 28, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In a decision largely unreported by the national media, the U.S. Supreme Court last week denied Saudi Arabia’s appeal that it be dropped as a defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging it bankrolled al Qaeda in the years before 9/11.

The justices ruled without comment. The long-running case, brought by thousands of 9/11 victims, relatives and others, now proceeds toward trial against Saudi Arabia and other defendants.

Plaintiffs attorneys were heartened by the high court’s decision that keeps the Saudis on the hook for potentially billions of dollars in civil damages.

“We are excited about the opportunity to pursue the first meaningful public inquiry into the evidence of possible direct involvement of agents of the Saudi government in the September 11th attacks, and concerning the involvement of Saudi government charities in channeling financial and logistical support to al Qaeda throughout the world,” said Philadelphia attorney Sean Carter.

“Based on what we have seen thus far, we expect that both inquiries will ultimately point back to the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs, an arm of the government largely under the control of Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi religious clerics.” Carter said.

Michael K. Kellogg, a Washington, D.C. attorney who led Saudi Arabia’s appeal effort, did not respond to requests for comment. The Kingdom, however, has called the lawsuit’s allegations “categorically false.”

Multiple lawsuits asserting a variety of claims were originally filed against hundreds of defendants – including Saudi Arabia, members of the royal family, banks and charities. The lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in New York City and a number of defendants, including the Kingdom, were dismissed in 2005 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

But last December, in what amounted to a reversal of its own prior opinion, a Manhattan appeals court restored Saudi Arabia as a defendant, citing legal error. The ruling also restored as a defendant the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a government agency the plaintiffs contend funneled tens of millions of dollars to terrorist fighters across the globe.

With the U.S. government as a courtroom ally, the Kingdom appealed. The Justice Department filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief arguing that both the Kingdom and its officials were immune from suit for their governmental acts.

Sharon Premoli, who survived the collapse of the World Trade Center’s North Towner, is co-chair of the activist group 9/11 Families United to  Bankrupt Terrorism.

“The US Government unfortunately chose not to stand by the families and survivors of 9/11.  All we can say is that we were very, very disappointed,” she said.

The same day the Supreme Court allowed 9/11 victims to proceed with their case against Saudi Arabia, it also refused to hear a related plaintiffs’ appeal that had sought the reinstatement of their claims against dozens of banks and individuals.

The ruling was in the case of O’Neill v. Al Rajhi Bank. The plaintiffs include the family of former FBI agent John P. O’Neill Jr., a counterterrorism expert who died in the attack on the World Trade Center. Ironically, O’Neill was among the first to focus attention on threats issued by Osama bin Laden.

Page 1 of 212»

Newsletter

Notify me by email when new stories are published.