TerrorismSaudi Arabia will face 9/11-related lawsuits in U.S.
A federal judge in New York has denied Saudi Arabia’s request to dismiss lawsuits claiming that Saudi Arabia materially assisted the 9/11 attackers. Saudi Arabia had enjoyed broad immunity from 9/11-related lawsuits in the United States, but that changed in 2016 when the U.S. Congress overrode a veto by President Barack Obama to allow such cases to proceed.
U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan on Wednesday rejected Saudi Arabia’s bid to dismiss lawsuits claiming that it helped plan the 9/11 attacks and should pay billions of dollars in damages to victims.
The judge said that the plaintiffs’ allegations “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis” for him to assert jurisdiction under a federal law called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
Daniels said the plaintiffs could try to prove that Saudi Arabia was liable for the alleged activities of Fahad al Thumairy, an imam at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California, and Omar al Bayoumi, said to be an intelligence officer.
They were accused of helping two hijackers settle in the US and begin preparing for the attacks.
“We’re delighted that Judge Daniels denied Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss,” said James Kreindler, a lawyer for many of the plaintiffs, in a phone interview.
“We have been pressing to proceed with the case and conduct discovery from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that the full story can come to light, and expose the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks,” he added.
Saudi Arabia had enjoyed broad immunity from 9/11-related lawsuits in the United States. That changed in 2016 when the U.S. Congress overrode a veto by President Barack Obama to allow such cases to proceed (see “Congress overrides Obama’s veto of law allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia,” HSNW, 29 September 2016).
The Saudi government has adamantly denied any involvement in the attacks.
The Independent notes that Judge Daniels has overseen litigation against Saudi Arabia by the families of those killed, roughly 25,000 people who suffered injuries, and a variety of businesses and insurers.
In two earlier decisions, Daniels dismissed claims by various plaintiffs against several other defendants. He said that he lacked jurisdiction (see “U.S. district court dismisses 9/11 victims’ case against Saudi Arabia,” HSNW, 30 September 2015).
Among those defendants were the Saudi Binladin Group, a construction company controlled by the bin Laden family and two Saudi banks, National Commercial Bank, and Al Rajhi Bank. They were accused of knowingly providing material support to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, in the form of funds and financial services, to carry out the attacks.
Lawyers for Saudi Arabia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Last year survivors of the 9/11 attacks wrote to British prime minister Theresa May urging her to make public a British government report into the extent of Saudi Arabia’s funding of Islamist extremism in the United Kingdom.
The report was commissioned by her predecessor, David Cameron, as part of a deal to obtain political support for a parliamentary vote on UK airstrikes on Syria, but the Home Office said it was not published “because of the volume of personal information it contains and for national security reasons.”
