Article

2009-06-03 Fifth Column

Justice Dept supporting Saudi Princes over 911 victims

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2009-06-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 The Justice Department contends that the Saudi royal family cannot be sued in a US court.

Neither ACORN activists, nor Soody royals.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-06-03 05:32|| 2009-06-03 05:32|| Front Page Top

#2 I disagree, Steve.
As a staunch conservative, I view it as their right to sue the Saudis, just as other victims have sued Iran. Our gov is in bed with the royals and it has less to do with oil than simple money & politics, and this ruling, unless specific existing US laws prohibit it, is a perfect example of their influence.
Saudi Arabia is at least one state the US needs to break off relations with for so many reasons I care not to list them.
Let them sue...it's their money. Besides, it sends a message to the politicians and, though with limited impact, to the Sauds as well.
This story really is simply about lawyers defending politicians' donors, and, notwithstanding the obvious 9/11 issues, is an outrage and is anethema to conservatism.

Posted by logi_cal 2009-06-03 07:59|| 2009-06-03 07:59|| Front Page Top

#3 I also disagree. There's no reason that members of the Saudi Royal family shouldn't be held to account for their personal actions. It might be a somewhat thornier issue if they were acting solely in an official capacity as agents of the Saudi government but there's no indication of that being the case. Besides, aren't there something on the order of ten thousand Saudi princes & pincesses? That's an awful lot of folks to be given free passes to support terrorists.

Posted by AzCat 2009-06-03 09:44|| 2009-06-03 09:44|| Front Page Top

#4 I know most are aware, but it warrants a reminder. I all fairness, our government's... 'slobbering love affair' with the Saudi Royals, Bandar, etc, did NOT start under the Obama Regime.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-06-03 10:17|| 2009-06-03 10:17|| Front Page Top

#5 "Besides, it sends a message to the politicians and, though with limited impact, to the Sauds as well."

logi_cal ,
As much as I agree with your overall sentiment, using civil courts as tool for eradicating extremism is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Here we have an amorphous money trail that fails to connect to the specific operation. Even if it were allowed to go to court it would most likely fail based on lack of merit. However, there is no doubt about the negative diplomatic impact that would result. Their host country would be less susceptible to concessions. Further, theres not much evidence to support the notion that the threat of a lawsuit motivates terrorist financiers to quit their evil deeds. If a diplomatic solution cant be achieved, a better course would be to first use the criminal justice system to indict the five individuals. Moreover, if it was proven that they acted in their capacity as government officials then list their native country as a state sponsor of terrorism. (Neither seems likely in this case.) So it seems the best course is to continue the military solution. Capture or kill the bastards (and their minions) at every available opportunity.

Posted by DepotGuy 2009-06-03 10:26|| 2009-06-03 10:26|| Front Page Top

#6 yeah we want our governtment too lean on the saudi gov real hard. Well lets see, Nobama is kissing the saudi kings ass as we speak, al jizz released new bin laden tape at the moment he landed in saudi arabia and I say we will be attacked again in the next month. Wonder if wonder boy will be in the middle east at the time?

Posted by funky skunk 2009-06-03 10:42|| 2009-06-03 10:42|| Front Page Top

#7 'slobbering love affair' with the Saudi Royals, Bandar, etc, did NOT start under the Obama Regime.

Nope. Probably FDR. Foreign concession granted in 1933 & first discovery in 1938. BIG discoveries were not until after WWII though. Pretty much every Western leader (including US Presidents) has been on their knees to the Saudis ever since. At first it was on behalf of the Big Oil companies (in return for unstated behind-the-seens benefits from those companies to those politicians), then since the late sixties because we needed their oil and we needed it cheaply, and 'kneeling' was cheaper than war.

Posted by Glenmore 2009-06-03 12:55|| 2009-06-03 12:55|| Front Page Top

#8 I just don't see or hear of any evidence that our government is leaning on the Soddies at all. Snuggling under the covers is what it looks like to me.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2009-06-03 13:00|| 2009-06-03 13:00|| Front Page Top

#9 Besides the new OBL tape threatening attacks on America, Fox also reported an AQ plot to smuggle anthrax or other bioterror plots through the Mexican border. Something about sprinkling the agents on the White House lawn but I didn't catch the source or whole plot. I definitely do not feel safer nor do we have much recourse with the Obama Admin. in power. I hope Darth Vader has some secret nefarious plans we don't know about.

Posted by Lumpy Elmoluck5091 2009-06-03 13:49|| 2009-06-03 13:49|| Front Page Top

#10 Even if they won, there'd be no way to collect. The Saudis would refuse to recognize any US court-ordered payout.

Posted by mojo 2009-06-03 14:35|| 2009-06-03 14:35|| Front Page Top

#11 As I understand it, cases won against Iran were awarded assets that were seized and held by the US Gov. In court cases such as this, should the plaintiffs prevail, the aim is to seize assets of the defendants.
This is NOT a case of combating extremism, but simply making amends financially to the insurance companies that also suffered, allegedly as a direct result of the financial support afforded personally by these princes.
Even with this case, I still do not support the so-called Int'l Criminal Court, but the plaintiffs have every right to seek recourse.

That's all I was really getting at...

Also, IMHO, extremism is a euphemism for tolerance of a religion that clearly seeks submission of everything else to 'it' and outlines violent methods to achieve it.
I disagree with the use of the words 'Islamic' and 'extremism' together; they are redundant, as they are 'the same'.

As well, I didn't note that anyone here was asserting that AliBama began this love affair with the oil sheiks...he's simply exacerbating it with all this 'warming up' crap to Islam and his Apology Tour. News reports are that the WH, State & the 'state-run' media have accepted some rather draconian rules for the media coverage while the One (heil-O) is meeting with his handlers...

Posted by logi_cal 2009-06-03 15:35|| 2009-06-03 15:35|| Front Page Top

#12 Not a good plan. They should be sued because we can't hang them at ground zero...

Posted by Icerigger 2009-06-03 18:43|| 2009-06-03 18:43|| Front Page Top

#13 The Saudis would refuse to recognize any US court-ordered payout.

Lots of Saudi owned mosques to seize. That's a win-win.

Posted by ed 2009-06-03 23:03|| 2009-06-03 23:03|| Front Page Top

#14 True. The army could use them for ammo storage... to uphold the tradition

Posted by European Conservative 2009-06-03 23:29|| 2009-06-03 23:29|| Front Page Top

23:58 Richard of Oregon
23:41 OldSpook
23:40 OldSpook
23:39 trailing wife
23:38 European Conservative
23:37 trailing wife
23:36 OldSpook
23:35 KBK
23:33 49 Pan
23:29 trailing wife
23:29 European Conservative
23:27 European Conservative
23:20 Barbara Skolaut
23:03 ed
22:59 ed
22:32 DMFD
22:27 Eric Jablow
22:21 JosephMendiola
22:18 DMFD
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:11 JosephMendiola
22:08 DMFD
22:06 JosephMendiola
22:01 ed