Sept 11th Families Can Now Sue Saudia Arabia

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ahtman**

Sauce

Families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks today celebrated a federal court's ruling that allows relatives of people who died in the 9/11 terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

Most of the hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 were from Saudi Arabia, and the complaint states that much of the funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists came from Saudi Arabia.

An attempt to Saudi Arabia in 2002 was blocked by a federal court ruling that said the kingdom had sovereign immunity. That ruling was reversed Thursday by a three-judge federal panel.

"I'm ecstatic.... For 12 years we've been fighting to expose the people who financed those bastards," said William Doyle, the father of Joseph Doyle, 25, a Cantor-Fitzgerald employee who was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

"Christmas has come early to the 9/11 families. We're going to have our day in court," he told ABCNews.com.

The ruling struck down an earlier decision that found Saudi Arabia immune from lawsuits. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it's in the "interests of justice" to allow them to proceed.

Families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks and insurers who lost billions of dollars covering damaged businesses have alleged Saudi Arabia bankrolled al-Qaeda, knowing the money would be used for terrorism.

The lawsuit, filed a decade ago by the Philadelphia firm Cozen O'Connor, accuses the Saudi government and members of the royal family of serving on charities that financed al-Qaeda operations.

**whembly**

Good luck with this.

Has there been any verifiable facts that the Saudi directly/indirectly banked roll Al Qaeda?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Has there been any verifiable facts that the Saudi directly/indirectly banked roll Al Qaeda?

The US State department certainly believes so.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
Has there been any verifiable facts that the Saudi directly/indirectly banked roll Al Qaeda?

The US State department certainly believes so.

Well then...

Sue away.

Anyone call dibs on this one yet?

**marv335**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

QFT.
People in glass houses.......

**Breotan**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

I would assume that if individual contributions to the IRA can be proven, lawsuits can commence.

marv335 wrote:
QFT.
People in glass houses.......

We're perfectly fine airing our dirty laundry. Just look at the copious number of threads on Dakka where we do it. Makes us a stronger country for doing so. We're also fine for airing other countries' dirty laundry, too. Don't whine just because today the shorts on the flagpole have arabic writing on them.

**Ahtman**

marv335 wrote:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Thats fantastic!

But will the families of the IRA's victims now be able to sue the USA for financing Irish terrorism?

If not, then this decision smacks of hypocrisy.

QFT.
People in glass houses.......

If you are curious you would have to check with your own government, as these people have. If the British court system will allow you to sue the United States for that then go for it. I personally think suing the entire country is a bit daft, but that hasn't stopped lesser cases from going to trial.

**hotsauceman1**

I say we can all sue them, for when 9/11 happened, we all loss something that day.

**marv335**

I'd just like to point out that despite the flag that appears on my posts, I'm only working in Saudi.
I'm ex British military, who did tours of duty in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

**motyak**

marv335 wrote:
I'd just like to point out that despite the flag that appears on my posts, I'm only working in Saudi.
I'm ex British military, who did tours of duty in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Looks like the Union Jack to me...

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I say we can all sue them, for when 9/11 happened, we all loss something that day.

Oh how I hope you are joking

**hotsauceman1**

I am, IT is some stuff I have heard from people though. Like way to much.

**marv335**

motyak wrote:
marv335 wrote:
I'd just like to point out that despite the flag that appears on my posts, I'm only working in Saudi.
I'm ex British military, who did tours of duty in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Looks like the Union Jack to me...

How about now

I have an ISP blocker on my laptop so I can avoid the strict internet censorship out here.
If I have it switched on, I get a UK flag, Switched off, Saudi.

**motyak**

marv335 wrote:
motyak wrote:
marv335 wrote:
I'd just like to point out that despite the flag that appears on my posts, I'm only working in Saudi.
I'm ex British military, who did tours of duty in Northern Ireland during the troubles.

Looks like the Union Jack to me...

How about now

I have an ISP blocker on my laptop so I can avoid the strict internet censorship out here.
If I have it switched on, I get a UK flag, Switched off, Saudi.

...so you are saying you are a wizard and we must burn you at the stake, since you seem to be able to teleport from country to country?

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:

If you are curious you would have to check with your own government, as these people have. If the British court system will allow you to sue the United States for that then go for it. I personally think suing the entire country is a bit daft, but that hasn't stopped lesser cases from going to trial.

Yeah, I mean, what do they really hope to gain here? Even if the plaintiffs manage to win the case, it isn't like the Saudi state is going to pay any form of restitution, and it is highly unlikely that this case will materially affect US-Saudi relations.

So, I guess in that case, if it makes them feel better let them have their day in court.

**WarOne**

If Saudi Arabia can get sued for the hijackers, how about the US government for money and training spent on training Osama Bin Laden?

**djones520**

WarOne wrote:
If Saudi Arabia can get sued for the hijackers, how about the US government for money and training spent on training Osama Bin Laden?

*face palms*

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
If Saudi Arabia can get sued for the hijackers, how about the US government for money and training spent on training Osama Bin Laden?

*face palms*

Yeah, that argument is a non-starter. Though the support for the Taliban is probably not.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
If Saudi Arabia can get sued for the hijackers, how about the US government for money and training spent on training Osama Bin Laden?

*face palms*

Yeah, that argument is a non-starter. Though the support for the Taliban is probably not.

The Taliban didn't even exist as an entity until 1994. So even that argument is really a non-starter.

**MRPYM**

Never going to win or get to trial.

How are they even going to prove the saudi gov had anything to do with it as a whole?

**Maddermax**

So... Does this mean all those affected by drone strikes in Pakistan can sue the US government? Also, how do they plan to make Saudi Arabia pay up in a way that won't attact reprisals from the Saudis?

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
The Taliban didn't even exist as an entity until 1994. So even that argument is really a non-starter.

Does the fact that the mujahideen hadn't yet changed picked a snappier band name really strike you as a meaningful distinction to the base point: that the United States provided substantially financial and military support in the past to the people that were ultimately responsible for multiple attacks on US assets and soil?

**Imposter101**

djones520 wrote:
WarOne wrote:
If Saudi Arabia can get sued for the hijackers, how about the US government for money and training spent on training Osama Bin Laden?

*face palms*

Welcome to the wonderful world of giving Islamic Extremists millions of dollars to fight a Communist 'invasion' (the Russian's had been invited in by the communist goverment to deal with the insurgents) as well as training, and when the countries left in ruin and war is said and done, doing nothing to assist in the rebuilding process and allowing the veterans of this conflict to establish a state which could only occur if such a power vacum existed.

Also, this is Saudia Arabia we are talking about, the amount of momey these people have to defend themselves with is ludircous. It's going to be very difficult to succesfully sue them.

**motyak**

Why would they (the Saudi's) even need to show up if it is a U.S. court? It was individuals/families/etc that would have financed them, not 'Saudi Arabia' as a whole, right? So if there is a court case of 'Victims of 9/11 v. Saudi Arabia' why on earth would they bother to show up to defend themselves against it? It'd be a farce.

**Ouze**

motyak wrote:
why on earth would they bother to show up to defend themselves against it? It'd be a farce.

Because if they didn't show up and the victims won a default judgement; they could put liens on any related Saudi assets and holdings in the US. I mean, it's not going to happen, but there is an avenue here.

**motyak**

Ouze wrote:
motyak wrote:
why on earth would they bother to show up to defend themselves against it? It'd be a farce.

Because if they didn't show up and the victims won a default judgement; they could put liens on any related Saudi assets and holdings in the US. I mean, it's not going to happen, but there is an avenue here.

But that's exactly it, it won't happen. It isn't even possible to say the hypothetical of them doing whatever that is, without qualifying that it would never happen like you did. So it really just seems like a nothing case, that'll amount to nothing apart from a bunch of people yelling at a bunch of other people, and possibly doing a bit of damage to international relations in the meanwhile. Really pointless.

**Ouze**

motyak wrote:
[But that's exactly it, it won't happen.

Well, that doesn't stop the sales of millions of lottery tickets daily.

**Maddermax**

Ouze wrote:
motyak wrote:
why on earth would they bother to show up to defend themselves against it? It'd be a farce.

Because if they didn't show up and the victims won a default judgement; they could put liens on any related Saudi assets and holdings in the US. I mean, it's not going to happen, but there is an avenue here.

And Saudis would just extract that by taking American assets in Saudi Arabia, kicking off a diplomatic flap with one of Americas oldest allies in the middle east. If they felt like it that is. There is no way Saudi Arabia ends up out of pocket without choosing to do so.

**motyak**

Ouze wrote:
motyak wrote:
[But that's exactly it, it won't happen.

Well, that doesn't stop the sales of millions of lottery tickets daily.

Are you trying to tell me that I'm not going to win the jackpot tomorrow? You're on!

**Ouze**

You can't win the Lotto, Motyak - that's how I'm planning to retire! I've spent a lifetime not saying anything for my old age because I'm that confident