9-11 families can sue Saudi Arabia, court rules

[Deleted]

A federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated Saudi Arabia as a defendant in lawsuits claiming it provided support to al-Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said restoring Saudi Arabia was necessary to be consistent with a ruling by a different 2nd Circuit panel that allowed another lawsuit to go forward in which a man sued Afghanistan and other defendants for the death of his wife in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2nd Circuit and a lower court had previously ruled that Saudi Arabia was protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can't be sued in American courts. But in its latest ruling, the 2nd Circuit said a legal exception existed that would allow Saudi Arabia to remain as a defendant, just as Afghanistan remained in the similar case.

"The procedural history of this case produced inconsistent results between two sets of plaintiffs suing for damages based on the same incident," the appeals court said in a decision written by Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub. "We conclude that the circumstances here are 'extraordinary' and warrant relief."

An attorney representing Saudi Arabia said the panel's decision is "contrary to settled law" and will only result in a lower court throwing the case out for other reasons. The attorney cited the dismissal of identical allegations against other Saudi government agencies that the 2nd Circuit itself already upheld.

"It is extremely unfortunate and burdensome that a sovereign nation and ally of the United States will continue to have to litigate this matter more than 10 years after it was filed," attorney Michael Kellogg said.

The lawsuits were brought in 2002 and afterward against countries, companies and organizations accused of aiding al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They sought billions of dollars in damages.

In the lawsuits, lawyers argued that the Sept. 11 attacks, which destroyed the World Trade Center and killed thousands of people, had been planned for years by a network of Islamic militants with the assistance of banks, governments and individuals.

Lawyers in the Sept. 11 cases have frequently cited the report by the Sept. 11 Commission. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said the commission supported their argument that Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding, while lawyers for Saudi Arabia have argued that the commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded al-Qaida.

Kellogg said the panel's decision has nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.

"The government of Saudi Arabia has long asserted, and the United States 9/11 Commission has found, that those allegations are categorically false," Kellogg said.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs called Thursday's ruling "an eminently correct decision which brings these defendants back into the case and may finally give the 9/11 victims their day in court."

"We are confident in our ability to prove our case against them," attorney Stephen Cozen said in an email.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ia-court-rules

[Caliph]

A federal appeals court on Thursday reinstated Saudi Arabia as a defendant in lawsuits claiming it provided support to al-Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said restoring Saudi Arabia was necessary to be consistent with a ruling by a different 2nd Circuit panel that allowed another lawsuit to go forward in which a man sued Afghanistan and other defendants for the death of his wife in the Sept. 11 attacks.

The 2nd Circuit and a lower court had previously ruled that Saudi Arabia was protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can't be sued in American courts. But in its latest ruling, the 2nd Circuit said a legal exception existed that would allow Saudi Arabia to remain as a defendant, just as Afghanistan remained in the similar case.

"The procedural history of this case produced inconsistent results between two sets of plaintiffs suing for damages based on the same incident," the appeals court said in a decision written by Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub. "We conclude that the circumstances here are 'extraordinary' and warrant relief."

An attorney representing Saudi Arabia said the panel's decision is "contrary to settled law" and will only result in a lower court throwing the case out for other reasons. The attorney cited the dismissal of identical allegations against other Saudi government agencies that the 2nd Circuit itself already upheld.

"It is extremely unfortunate and burdensome that a sovereign nation and ally of the United States will continue to have to litigate this matter more than 10 years after it was filed," attorney Michael Kellogg said.

The lawsuits were brought in 2002 and afterward against countries, companies and organizations accused of aiding al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. They sought billions of dollars in damages.

In the lawsuits, lawyers argued that the Sept. 11 attacks, which destroyed the World Trade Center and killed thousands of people, had been planned for years by a network of Islamic militants with the assistance of banks, governments and individuals.

Lawyers in the Sept. 11 cases have frequently cited the report by the Sept. 11 Commission. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said the commission supported their argument that Saudi Arabia had long been considered the primary source of al-Qaida funding, while lawyers for Saudi Arabia have argued that the commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded al-Qaida.

Kellogg said the panel's decision has nothing to do with the merits of the plaintiffs' claims.

"The government of Saudi Arabia has long asserted, and the United States 9/11 Commission has found, that those allegations are categorically false," Kellogg said.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs called Thursday's ruling "an eminently correct decision which brings these defendants back into the case and may finally give the 9/11 victims their day in court."

"We are confident in our ability to prove our case against them," attorney Stephen Cozen said in an email.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ia-court-rules

What did Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia have to do with 9/11? By that reasoning the families can sue the USA for training, arming, and creating Osama Bin Laden.

[Deleted]

What did Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia have to do with 9/11? By that reasoning the families can sue the USA for training, arming, and creating Osama Bin Laden.

There is a lot of evidence that Saudi Arabia harboured them for a long time despite knowing their agenda, Not to mention 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi themselves.

[Lefrog]

Can't wait for the U.S. to follow its own example and pay out to the families of civilians targeted by drones.

[Xeones]

There is a lot of evidence that Saudi Arabia harboured them for a long time despite knowing their agenda, Not to mention 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi themselves.

So people can sue the government any time a criminal happens to be a citizen of the US?

[Deleted]

So people can sue the government any time a criminal happens to be a citizen of the US?

They can try.

[rohendar]

So Afghan/Pakistani citizens can now sue the US for all deaths by drone attacks? How seriously stupid are these judges?

[Deleted]

So when can Japan sue 'Murica for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? (Maybe I should check if they haven't attempted already first xD)

[Xarkan]

So Afghan/Pakistani citizens can now sue the US for all deaths by drone attacks? How seriously stupid are these judges?

They should be able to, the drone attacks are done by order of the US government so if those attacks hit innocent civilians the US should be able to be held accountable (as should any country when innocent civilians become the victims of their actions.. including my own country obviously, we have allowed bad things to happen and should pay for our misdeeds)

[Bigbamboozal]

I wonder how that cost is going to break down if it does go through?

- - - Updated - - -

So when can Japan sue 'Murica for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? (Maybe I should check if they haven't attempted already first xD)

I'd say about now...mind you, I doubt the Japanese are the sort of country who'd bother.
It's like they mastered the art of moving forward.

[Tierbook]

I'm pretty sure that people hit by drone strikes are allowed to sue the government

[Deleted]

I can see a can of worms opening up with this one. But hey, more power to the people. Sue King Abdullah for as much as you want, that ducker has more money than Donald Trump, he can afford to loose some....

[Caliph]

They should be able to, the drone attacks are done by order of the US government so if those attacks hit innocent civilians the US should be able to be held accountable (as should any country when innocent civilians become the victims of their actions.. including my own country obviously, we have allowed bad things to happen and should pay for our misdeeds)

This american agrees. I don't want this can of worms to open but these super smart judges just opened it. unbelievable.

[Bigbamboozal]

I'm pretty sure that people hit by drone strikes are allowed to sue the government

lol "Hey Billy! Now that your entire body has been reduced down to fit in a match box, feel free to sue us, OUR BAD!"

[Bakis]

Would rather look how FBI handled it given precise warnings about air liners used as flying bombs by both Germany and one more country, think it was Spain.
Now there is something wort suing.

[Lumineus]

So when can Japan sue 'Murica for Nagasaki and Hiroshima? (Maybe I should check if they haven't attempted already first xD)

They wouldn't really have a leg to stand on because of their unconditional surrender. The countersuit for Pearl Harbor would probably bankrupt them anyway. I wonder what the inflation adjusted value of 80% of America's naval forces and a huge chunk of Hawaiian real estate circa 1942 is...

[Bigbamboozal]

Would rather look how FBI handled it given precise warnings about air liners used as flying bombs by both Germany and one more country, think it was Spain.
Now there is something wort suing.

They got hung up trying to contact Bruce Willis....

- - - Updated - - -

They wouldn't really have a leg to stand on because of their unconditional surrender. The countersuit for Pearl Harbor would probably bankrupt them anyway. I wonder what the inflation adjusted value of 80% of America's naval forces and a huge chunk of Hawaiian real estate circa 1942 is...

Pretty sure it doesn't matter as America did (afaik) give aid to them to help clean up after....oh the duality of it all.

[Deleted]

They'll never get a penny...

[Garnier Fructis]

Does anyone seriously expect Saudi Arabia to pay up? Seems like a waste of money on the part of the plaintiffs.

[Deleted]

Does anyone seriously expect Saudi Arabia to pay up? Seems like a waste of money on the part of the plaintiffs.

People said the same thing when that fat woman dropped coffee on herself then sued McDonald's for selling it hot.