Good News! Saudi’s Immune In 9/11 Material Support Case

What would we do without our wonderful courts? Liberals must be in a quandary. They have complained non-stop about most of the 9/11 hijackers, not to mention Bin Laden, being Saudi’s (yet would never step up to the plate saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia,) and we should “do something.” On the other hand, the majority of courts seem to have a liberal bent. Which do they support?

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, four princes and other Saudi entities are immune from a lawsuit filed by victims of the September 11 attacks andtheir families alleging they gave material support to al Qaeda, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

The ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan upheld a 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey dismissing a claim against Saudi Arabia, a Saudi charity, four princes anda Saudi banker of providing material support to al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.

Unfortunately, the Court found that the Islamists were covered by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and also that since Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism, there can be no exception.

Islamists 1 – Families of 9/11 victims 0. Thanks, 2nd Circuit Court!

As a sidebar, this is exactly why the USA needs to not only commence a massive program of drilling, but implementing more nuclear, coal, naturalgas, wind, and solar projects, so that we are not beholden to folks like the radicals in the House of Saud and other Islamists who control foreign oil.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Good News! Saudi’s Immune In 9/11 Material Support Case”

  1. Silke says:

    Teach said: yet would never step up to the plate saying we should have attacked Saudi Arabia…

    Why would they? It would have been a stupid thing to say. Seriously…this is a criticism?

  2. That was there talking point in 2003/2004, that we should have been attacking Saudi Arabia, rather then Iraq. I’m dead serious.

  3. Silke says:

    I thought your comment above meant they didn’t go quite that far to say we should attack Saudi Arabia.

    Can you give an example of a prominent liberal who said we should have attacked Saudi Arabia?

  4. No, Silke, I can’t, because the talking points were appearing in comments and threads, including headers, at places like the Liberty Forum, Democratic Underground, political forums, etc. I wasn’t even in to blogs back then. You are welcome to look for them yourself, and you can either accept what I wrote or not. I saw them, I debated them in a few places.

  5. Silke says:

    Teach, there’s a difference between saying “it makes about as much sense to attack Saudi Arabia as it does to attack Iraq” (i.e. we shouldn’t attack either) and saying “we should attack Saudi Arabia.” That’s why I’m asking you for an example. It’s also why I asked for a prominent liberal. You always pick the most extreme position of a few liberals and then paint all of them with the same brush. There are nut-jobs out there on both sides of the political spectrum. Why waist your time on them?

Pirate's Cove