h1

Overlooked Saudi Arabia ruling: off the hook

August 8, 2012

This is what we get for reading the mainstream media.  Totally missed this report back on March 16 from The Jurist (internal hyperlinks omitted):

Federal judge dismisses motion to reinstate Saudi Arabia as 9/11 defendant

Sung Un Kim

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on Thursday dismissed a motion to reinstate Saudi Arabia as a defendant in the civil compensation lawsuit by victims and commercial insurers against the perpetrators of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Judge George Daniels found no sufficient basis to grant the plaintiffs’ motion, noting that such a motion was already presented to SDNY and rejected in 2005 by Judge Richard Conway Casey, who dismissed Saudi Arabia as a defendant at that time. For grounds to reopen the case, the plaintiffs cited a November decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that allowed a similar claim to proceed against Afghanistan, but Daniels stated that decision does not allow the claim against Saudi Arabia to be reinstated because the case was closed years ago and the recent Second Circuit decision has no bearing. The plaintiffs nevertheless plan to appeal the dismissal. Lawyers for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia noted the claim has already lost on appeal of the 2005 rejection, and the US Supreme Court at that time reviewed but declined to hear the case. The plaintiffs originally sued over 200 entities and governments–about 100 are still listed as defendants, and active litigation concerns less than 10.

The claim against Saudi Arabia was dismissed in 2008 by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit because there was insufficient evidence that the Kingdom’s princes had actual knowledge that their money was going to be used in the 9/11 attacks. Even after 10 years, cases brought by victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack against other governmental entities did not come to an end. In December, Iran denied the allegations that it was actively involved in the terrorist attack after a default judgment in Havlish v. Bin Laden. In June Judge Daniels dismissed 49 other terrorism lawsuits based on lack of evidence.

If the U.S. had named Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism, which in reality it is, that probably would have enabled the case against Saudi Arabia to proceed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: