Saudi Arabia cites FBI’s Meese Commission in asking judge to toss 9/11 victims’ lawsuit

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

New York City’s annual 9/11 memorial tribute to the fallen.

Forced back into court by an act of Congress and faced with tens of billions of dollars in potential civil liability, oil-rich Saudi Arabia is asking a U.S. judge again to throw out a lawsuit brought against it by thousands of 9/11 victims.

Lawyers for the kingdom moved last week to dismiss the massive case pending in federal court in New York City, citing “baseless accusations that Saudi Arabia conspired to commit a horrific crime against its longstanding ally the United States by knowingly funding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.”

The plaintiffs are survivors of the attacks, family members of the dead, businesses and insurance companies.

Saudi Arabia’s filing responded to their 100-page amended complaint brought in March against the kingdom and its official charity, the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The complaint followed Congress’s passage last year – over a veto by President Obama – of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which allows Americans to sue foreign states for acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

Earlier, a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court had dismissed Saudi Arabia and the Saudi High Commission from the case after determining they were protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. JASTA removed that protection.

The new court filings show the Saudis are relying heavily on the findings of the FBI’s secretive 9/11 Review Commission to discredit the plaintiffs’ claims that the kingdom is liable for the deaths, injuries and destruction caused by the September 2001 terrorist attacks. Nearly 3,000 people died in the attacks and thousands more were injured.

The 9/11 Review Commission – also known as the Meese Commission after its most prominent member, Reagan-era Attorney General Ed Meese – was authorized by Congress to conduct an “external review” of the FBI’s post-9/11 performance, and to assess new evidence. As Florida Bulldog has reported, however, the commission held no public hearings, had no subpoena power and was largely spoon-fed information by the FBI. Meese and the two other commissioners were chosen and paid by the FBI.

Meese Commission discredits report

The Meese Commission issued a 127-page report in March 2015, which among other things sought to discredit an April 2002 FBI report that said agents had found “many connections” between Saudis living in Sarasota and individuals involved in the 9/11 plot and requested further action be taken.

The April 2002 report, released to Florida Bulldog by the FBI in 2013 amid ongoing Freedom of Information litigation, corroborated a September 2011 Florida Bulldog story that disclosed the existence of the FBI’s Sarasota investigation and reported the FBI had kept it secret from Congress. The story was co-reported by Irish author Anthony Summers, who obtained the initial information about the Sarasota probe.

FBI Director James Comey, second from right, is flanked by 9/11 Review Commissioners Tim Roemer, right, Ed Meese and Bruce Hoffman, far left, on March 23, 2015. Photo: FBI

The FBI told the Meese Commission the 2002 report “was ‘poorly written’ and wholly unsubstantiated.” The commission’s report, however, offered no explanation of the basis for that conclusion. Likewise, the commission apparently never heard directly from the agent who wrote the report, relying instead on the FBI’s characterization of what he had to say.

“The FBI told the Review Commission that the (report) was apparently based solely on unsubstantiated reports from others and there was no documentation supporting its allegations,” the commission’s report says.

No other FBI records to support or explain the commission’s work were made public.

Florida Bulldog sued the FBI and the Department of Justice in June 2016 for access to all Meese Commission transcripts, reports and the like after the bureau failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request. The lawsuit forced the FBI to review 1,858 pages of records and to release parts of 713 pages. The FBI withheld 1,145 pages.

Florida Bulldog and its attorneys believe the FBI has not acknowledged the existence of many additional pages of commission records.

Among the released records was a heavily censored Oct. 5, 2012 FBI report emblazoned with a logo that depicts the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers inside a pentagon against a backdrop of an American flag. The FBI considered the report so sensitive that even its title was classified “in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.”

The 2012 FBI report

Declassified portions, however, show that at that time federal prosecutors and FBI agents in New York were zeroing in on an apparent U.S. support network for Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, two of the five 9/11 hijackers who were aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Among other things, the report discusses how in June 2012 a team of New York investigators traveled to London “to exploit evidence seized in 2001 in New Scotland Yard’s searches of Omar al Bayoumi’s residences and offices.”

At the time of its release in December, Sean Carter, a Philadelphia attorney for the plaintiffs, called the 2012 report “a powerful and important disclosure.” Carter appended a copy to the 9/11 victims’ amended complaint when it was filed March 17.

Attorneys Michael K. Kellogg, left, and Sean Carter.

The 91-page Saudi response memorandum filed last week by Washington, D.C. attorney Michael Kellogg attacks the 2012 FBI report as unreliable, noting that the names of its authors are redacted.

The memo says the FBI report “contains hearsay statements” about a pair of Saudis – Omar al-Bayoumi and Fahad al-Thumairy – who are identified as “main subjects” of the probe of  “individuals known to have provided substantial assistance” to Hazmi and Mihdhar in Southern California following their arrival in the U.S. in January 2000.

The FBI report says Bayoumi, a suspected Saudi agent; Thumairy, a Saudi diplomat and imam at the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles, and a third person whose name was kept secret on grounds of national security “provided (or directed others to provide) the hijackers with assistance in daily activities, including procuring living quarters, financial assistance, and assistance in obtaining flight lessons and driver’s licenses.” The investigation was seeking to prove the trio knew that Hazmi and Mihdhar “were here to commit an act of terrorism.”

“A statement that an investigator ‘seeks to prove’ a legal conclusion is neither an appropriate allegation nor competent evidence,” the Saudi memo says. “That is especially so here because the investigator’s attempt failed: the 9/11 Review Commission later found as of March 2015 that new evidence available to the FBI was ‘not sufficient’ to support the conclusion that plaintiffs advocate.”

But the commission did not release the 2012 report when it issued its report, nor does its report assess the 2012 disclosures except to note it said al-Thumairy “immediately assigned an individual to take care of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar during their time in the Los Angeles area.”

Status of 2012 probe unknown

Likewise, the outcome of the 2012 investigation is not known. No other documents released by the FBI address it.

Said former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who co-chaired Congress’s Joint Inquiry into 9/11: “If the decision was not to proceed, why? And if it was to proceed, what’s the status?”

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 memo also attacks as unreliable and insufficient two other documents about 9/11 the plaintiffs rely on, “the 28 pages” and “Document 17.”

The 28 pages refers to a long-suppressed chapter of the Joint Inquiry’s 2002 report about apparent Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers. The 28 pages were ordered released last summer by President Obama. Among other things, they showed that Saudi Prince Bandar – who on 9/11 was his country’s ambassador to the U.S. – had connections to a major al-Qaeda figure now detained in Guantanamo Bay and others suspected of helping hijackers Hazmi and Mihdhar.

Document 17 is a set of 2002 work plans for staffers of the original 9/11 Commission detailing issues and outstanding questions regarding possible Saudi links to the attacks. It was declassified and released by the National Archives in 2015.

Among other things, Document 17 disclosed that when Guantanamo detainee Ghassan al-Sharbi was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002, FBI agents found a buried cache of documents that included “an envelope from the Saudi embassy in Washington that contained al-Sharbi’s (U.S.) flight certificate.”

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.”

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

By Dan Christensen, FloridaBulldog.org 

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

Saudi King Salman with President Obama at Erga Palace during a January 27 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.

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.

Newsletter

Notify me by email when new stories are published.