Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

QUENTIN

VIP Member
Dec 4, 2008
964
203
78
Texas
Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits | Raw Story

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The suits were filed by thousands of family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.

But Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer published Tuesday, the mother of a man who was killed on United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania said he didn't know why Kagan argued that the case not even be heard. By keeping the case off the dockets, the Saudis were spared scrutiny of their finances.

"We had hoped she would be with us so that we could have our day in court," Beverly Burnett said.

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, another family member whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, said at the time. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

The Obama Administration's decision to intervene in the Saudi-al Qaeda case so irritated two Republican senators that they introduced legislation aiming to ensure that Americans have the ability to sue foreign governments.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a proposal to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Kagan cited as one reason the Saudi case should not be heard. Both senators said that US citizens should be able to sue foreign governments if they are found to be supporting terrorist activity.

Specter, who has since become a Democrat, was unusually blunt.

"She wants to coddle the Saudis," he said.

Specter and Graham can suck my taint, but the precedent being set here that a completely legitimate court case with ample merit can be dismissed because it has the potential to harm an international relationship is a totally dangerous one antithetical to the rule and purpose of the law.

Kagan was only acting in her capacity as Solicitor General where she has to advance whatever case the Obama Admin makes, but I find the fact that she'd do this, as well as invoke "state secrets" so broadly to block cases by people falsely detained, and a million other awful stances they've taken, certainly makes her seem unprincipled.
 
I don't know - sounds to me like she was simply arguing existing policy. She may well have disagreed with it on a personal level. Don't like the policy? Fine. But don't shoot the messenger.
 
You mean those lawsuits are still ongoing? Something smells with that article...
 
Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

Nuff said on THAT one. Next?
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: blu
Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

Nuff said on THAT one. Next?

Thank you, Maggie. I'm sure the OP will be around shortly to acknowledge his gaffe and to apologize for publishing false information.
 
Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

Nuff said on THAT one. Next?

nice job! rep!
 
Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

Nuff said on THAT one. Next?

Kagan was only acting in her capacity as Solicitor General where she has to advance whatever case the Obama Admin makes, but I find the fact that she'd do this, as well as invoke "state secrets" so broadly to block cases by people falsely detained, and a million other awful stances they've taken, certainly makes her seem unprincipled.

So what were you saying?

First, if you're going to claim to have solved and discredited something, you should provide a link. I'm surprised two other people just took your word for it without you even explaining anything much less sourcing any evidence.

Anyway, yes, she was just doing her job, I said that. As SG, she has to make whatever argument the Admin decides is it's position, no matter how atrocious.

But this is an atrocious position, barring a lawsuit with legitimate grounds and considerable merit -there is ample evidence the Saudi royal family helped illegally fund Al Qaeda, a recognized terrorist organization http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html - not because it's frivolous or without due cause but because of the “potentially significant foreign relations consequences.” The DOJ has put forth the argument that our good relations with the Saudis supersede the right of 9/11 victims to sue those Saudis for illegally funding the terrorists who killed their families and have claimed a broad immunity to shield their crimes from view. As SG, Kagan played a critical role in advancing and defending that argument. Certainly she was just doing her job, but I think someone with principle (rather than loyal careerism) in mind would refuse to argue that or attempt to persuade the DOJ that the law is not at the whim of diplomatic relationships or any other political consideration.

It's also of note that this wasn't just the decision of the Supreme Court or even DOJ as you claim, but rather "The Supreme Court asked on the 23d of February the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to weigh in on whether a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia charging that it was a source of terrorist financing before the 9/11 attacks should move forward. "US Supreme Courts asks Solicitor General to weigh in on Saudi Arabia 9/11 suit The Lift – Legal Issues in the Fight against Terrorism She weighed in and suggested it not go forward because of our delicate relationship with the Saudis.

As a potential Supreme Court justice, I think it reflects poorly on her.

So again now, the case was ongoing while she was Solicitor General, it was the Saudi government and royal family being sued, she suggested they be shielded which the S.C. agreed to, and after extensive searching and reading up on the subject I've found zero indication the U.S. government was being sued so you're going to have to back that one up.

Your pithy, unsourced, and as far as I can tell inaccurate claim is quite far from "enough said" on the subject. I'd love to debate this, but you're going to have to bring facts to the table. So let's try that again.

What Maggie?
 
Thank you, Maggie. I'm sure the OP will be around shortly to acknowledge his gaffe and to apologize for publishing false information.

What gaffe? What false information? What's the basis for your claim that the information is false?

nice job! rep!

Maybe Maggie has a reputation here for being an unimpeachable font of wisdom and fact, I don't know, but you guys sure were quick to just take her word for it without a smidgen of evidence, especially considering it doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of the case at all.
 
Last edited:
Nothing, huh? Yeah, that figures. What you posted wasn't true.

Probably because this wasn't posted on Prison Planet or the other radical websites you visit.

See Page 8:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/08-640-federal-insurance-co-usac-petition.pdf

I just went to "Prison Planet" for the first time based on this mention, it's run by Alex Jones who is an absolute whacko obsessed with outlandish conspiracy theories. Looks nuts.

Perhaps you should check out this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/117444-false-labeling-stifles-meaningful-debate.html

It addresses some of this false labeling on display here. Jones is a paleoconservative, I'm a progressive, we couldn't be further apart and that's certainly not a place I get my news.

Anyway, I just read the entirety of that amicus brief and it demonstrates that you were wrong.

You said:

Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

The US government was not being sued. The only people cited in the claim were:

* Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
* Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
* Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
* Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, and
* Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud, who unlike the other princes named is not a government official but a bank manager

9/11 Families Angered As U.S. Backs Saudis - CBS News

Again, the US government was not being sued, as you claimed, only members of the Saudi royal family were. Page 9 of the amicus brief makes clear that "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovena (SHC), and four Saudi princes" are the people being sued, the U.S. simply was not. That was a false claim on your part and the only "evidence" you proffered to demonstrate this was somehow inaccurate "disinformation."

As I noted in my first post, "Kagan was only acting in her capacity as Solicitor General where she has to advance whatever case the Obama Admin makes" so that addresses your "She was doing her JOB" thing. But the idea that this is "disinformation" or that the US were being sued are just not accurate, as the facts now demonstrate.

And in fact, she wasn't merely representing an existing DOJ position but as I noted the Solicitor General's office (her office) was asked for its opinion and their brief concludes that the case should not go before the court. As I noted previously, the concern of the Administration was of the “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” (a Kagan quote in her brief) of the case moving forward, so they argued that FSIA, which applies to official government acts by foreign sovereign nations and their leaders but not commercial activity and not actions taken by individuals of a foreign country acting on a non-official basis. Individual donations to charities or other organizations meet an exception to FSIA (which is what the claimants case argued, that donations to terrorist front groups are an example that meet the exception to immunity of "When the plaintiff's claim is based upon an act by the foreign state which is performed outside the U.S. in connection with commercial activity outside the U.S. and which causes a direct effect in the U.S." - 9/11 being a pretty direct effect) and this is doubly true for Mohamed al Faisal al Saud who is not an "agent of the government" acting in official capacity but a banker acting as an individual and not protected.

Just as the "state secrets" privilege has been successfully evoked to block all cases of rendition and torture from Supreme Court review for political reasons, FSIA was evoked to block the case from Supreme Court review for political reasons. This despite the fact that there is ample and compelling evidence that the members acting in a non-official capacity were funding Al Qaeda. But their primary concern was not upsetting the Saudis, rather than seeing justice served.

There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that FSIA applies and shields most of the defendants with immunity (certainly it shields the Kingdom itself, though certainly not al Saud since he is not an agent of the Saudi Arabian government but was acting as an individual of a foreign state making commercial transactions which had a direct effect on the U.S.) and that's one thing. But claiming that this is all disinformation, and moreover that the U.S. was being sued in the case, is itself disinformation.
 
Last edited:
That's nothing, Bush rounded up Bin Laden's family and helped them get out of "town" without even being interviewed by the FBI or CIA. Bin Laden's family! Because his family and Bin Laden's family have been close friends for years.

Next, they'll be telling us she's a "lesbian" because she plays baseball or she is anti military even though she followed the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing, huh? Yeah, that figures. What you posted wasn't true.

Probably because this wasn't posted on Prison Planet or the other radical websites you visit.

See Page 8:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/08-640-federal-insurance-co-usac-petition.pdf

I just went to "Prison Planet" for the first time based on this mention, it's run by Alex Jones who is an absolute whacko obsessed with outlandish conspiracy theories. Looks nuts.

Perhaps you should check out this thread: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/117444-false-labeling-stifles-meaningful-debate.html

It addresses some of this false labeling on display here. Jones is a paleoconservative, I'm a progressive, we couldn't be further apart and that's certainly not a place I get my news.

Anyway, I just read the entirety of that amicus brief and it demonstrates that you were wrong.

You said:

Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

The US government was not being sued. The only people cited in the claim were:

* Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
* Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
* Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,
* Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, and
* Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud, who unlike the other princes named is not a government official but a bank manager

9/11 Families Angered As U.S. Backs Saudis - CBS News

Again, the US government was not being sued, as you claimed, only members of the Saudi royal family were. Page 9 of the amicus brief makes clear that "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Saudi High Commission for Relief to Bosnia and Herzegovena (SHC), and four Saudi princes" are the people being sued, the U.S. simply was not. That was a false claim on your part and the only "evidence" you proffered to demonstrate this was somehow inaccurate "disinformation."

As I noted in my first post, "Kagan was only acting in her capacity as Solicitor General where she has to advance whatever case the Obama Admin makes" so that addresses your "She was doing her JOB" thing. But the idea that this is "disinformation" or that the US were being sued are just not accurate, as the facts now demonstrate.

And in fact, she wasn't merely representing an existing DOJ position but as I noted the Solicitor General's office (her office) was asked for its opinion and their brief concludes that the case should not go before the court. As I noted previously, the concern of the Administration was of the “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” (a Kagan quote in her brief) of the case moving forward, so they argued that FSIA, which applies to official government acts by foreign sovereign nations and their leaders but not commercial activity and not actions taken by individuals of a foreign country acting on a non-official basis. Individual donations to charities or other organizations meet an exception to FSIA (which is what the claimants case argued, that donations to terrorist front groups are an example that meet the exception to immunity of "When the plaintiff's claim is based upon an act by the foreign state which is performed outside the U.S. in connection with commercial activity outside the U.S. and which causes a direct effect in the U.S." - 9/11 being a pretty direct effect) and this is doubly true for Mohamed al Faisal al Saud who is not an "agent of the government" acting in official capacity but a banker acting as an individual and not protected.

Just as the "state secrets" privilege has been successfully evoked to block all cases of rendition and torture from Supreme Court review for political reasons, FSIA was evoked to block the case from Supreme Court review for political reasons. This despite the fact that there is ample and compelling evidence that the members acting in a non-official capacity were funding Al Qaeda. But their primary concern was not upsetting the Saudis, rather than seeing justice served.

There is, perhaps, an argument to be made that FSIA applies and shields most of the defendants with immunity (certainly it shields the Kingdom itself, though certainly not al Saud since he is not an agent of the Saudi Arabian government but was acting as an individual of a foreign state making commercial transactions which had a direct effect on the U.S.) and that's one thing. But claiming that this is all disinformation, and moreover that the U.S. was being sued in the case, is itself disinformation.

Well smack my face. :bowdown: However, all your efforts to prove you right and me wrong doesn't belie the fact that the U.S. government was a friend of the court, which automatically incorporated it into the complaint, and which means that Elena Kagan, as Solicitor General, was doing her JOB in preparing the amicus brief (which is the question here). The way the OP reads, one would think that she just jumped in out of nowhere to "defend" the 911 attackers. (Of course there's almost ALWAYS more to stories that scream such headlines, which is why I Googled and found Prison Planet to be one of those sites trying to promote that false impression, among many others.)
 
Well smack my face. :bowdown: However, all your efforts to prove you right and me wrong doesn't belie the fact that the U.S. government was a friend of the court, which automatically incorporated it into the complaint, and which means that Elena Kagan, as Solicitor General, was doing her JOB in preparing the amicus brief (which is the question here). The way the OP reads, one would think that she just jumped in out of nowhere to "defend" the 911 attackers. (Of course there's almost ALWAYS more to stories that scream such headlines, which is why I Googled and found Prison Planet to be one of those sites trying to promote that false impression, among many others.)

I appreciate the admission you were wrong or mistaken. Hopefully blu reads this thread as he neg repped me for it, and anyone else who assumed based on your post that the story was somehow fabricated or misleading.

What do you mean the U.S. government was a "friend of the court"? The Supreme Court? The Supreme Court wasn't being sued either, they were just considering whether to hear the case. I'm not sure what you mean by "incorporated into the complaint." Are you suggesting when one party sues another, the court ruling on the case automatically becomes a defendant? That's clearly not true but I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say.

She was certainly doing her job as S.G., which I said in my first post, and I don't think that's the question here or ever has been since no one has ever disagreed with that obvious and irrefutable fact.

The question is whether she did a good job at her job, and to me, putting a greater priority on diplomatic relations with a foreign country than on a fair shake at a trial for a legitimate lawsuit with ample and substantive grounds and using a loophole that doesn't really apply to justify it does not reflect well on someone who is going to be on the Supreme Court where she'll have the responsibility of being an ultimate arbiter of the law and expected to uphold it regardless of any political calculations. It suggests to me that she's capable enough at advancing the government's (her boss) position, but she lacks the principle and convictions about justice I want to see in anyone trusted with such power.

Also, I really don't think it's accurate or fair to say the O.P. reads as though "she just jumped in out of nowhere to "defend" the 911 attackers." It very plainly says the opposite and explains exactly what happened - that acting in her role as Solicitor General she filed an amicus brief defending the Saudi royal family from prosecution for donating money to Al Qaeda front groups. Seriously, how do you suggest it reads any other way. Here it is again:

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits | Raw Story

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The suits were filed by thousands of family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.

But Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer published Tuesday, the mother of a man who was killed on United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania said he didn't know why Kagan argued that the case not even be heard. By keeping the case off the dockets, the Saudis were spared scrutiny of their finances.

"We had hoped she would be with us so that we could have our day in court," Beverly Burnett said.

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, another family member whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, said at the time. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

The Obama Administration's decision to intervene in the Saudi-al Qaeda case so irritated two Republican senators that they introduced legislation aiming to ensure that Americans have the ability to sue foreign governments.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a proposal to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Kagan cited as one reason the Saudi case should not be heard. Both senators said that US citizens should be able to sue foreign governments if they are found to be supporting terrorist activity.

Specter, who has since become a Democrat, was unusually blunt.

"She wants to coddle the Saudis," he said.

Specter and Graham can suck my taint, but the precedent being set here that a completely legitimate court case with ample merit can be dismissed because it has the potential to harm an international relationship is a totally dangerous one antithetical to the rule and purpose of the law.

Kagan was only acting in her capacity as Solicitor General where she has to advance whatever case the Obama Admin makes, but I find the fact that she'd do this, as well as invoke "state secrets" so broadly to block cases by people falsely detained, and a million other awful stances they've taken, certainly makes her seem unprincipled.

What part of that is "disinformation" and how does it read like she jumped to defend the 9/11 attackers? I can't speak for what may have been posted at Prison Planet or elsewhere, but that's not what I posted and not what the article or thread says.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top