Quote :

"Saudi Arabia wins 9/11 court battle Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda group has said it carried out the 9/11 attacks [EPA] A US court has ruled that Saudi Arabia and four of its princes are immune from legal action by victims of the September 11 attacks in the US alleging they provided material support to al-Qaeda. A Saudi banker and a charity were also to be given immunity from prosecution, a federal appeals court in New York ruled on Thursday. The ruling, by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld a 2006 ruling dismissing a claim against the Saudis. The victims and their families said that because the defendants gave money to charities that in turn gave money to al-Qaeda, they should be held responsible for helping to finance the attacks. The appeals court found that the defendants were protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court also said exceptions to the immunity rule do not apply because Saudi Arabia has not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the US state department. About 3,000 people were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington which has been claimed by al-Qaeda."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/08/2008814222933412142.html

There's a LOT that could be said about this, since this one issue kind of touches on the entirety of US foreign policy for the past couple of years.

The thing that sticks out in my mind the most though is how SA seems to have been more involved with 9/11 than either Afghanistan or Iraq, and yet we're still good friends with them. You don't even hear anything about them in our news media. The reasons are obvious, but it puts a sickeningly bright spotlight on the fact that the anti-terror saber-rattling the gov. likes to do is not about terror at all, but about $$$.

8/15/2008 12:50:37 AM

While I agree that Saudi Arabia usually gets the wave by the US government, I don't really disagree with this court decision. There's no real evidence that those individuals knew that the money would be used for 9/11.

8/15/2008 1:52:12 AM

Quote :

"There's a LOT that could be said about this, since this one issue kind of touches on the entirety of US foreign policy for the past couple of years."

rofl...gtfo

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 3:01 AM. Reason : try 30 years nig]

8/15/2008 3:01:21 AM

Quote :

" The thing that sticks out in my mind the most though is how SA seems to have been more involved with 9/11 than either Afghanistan or Iraq"

hey man keep your commie liberal hippy crap to your self. Just admit it you hate USA even though we are #1 and you hate our freedom.

8/15/2008 3:07:05 AM

Quote :

"I don't really disagree with this court decision. There's no real evidence that those individuals knew that the money would be used for 9/11."

8/15/2008 9:02:36 AM

This could be okay, but the details of their "immunity" seem sketch. So they got cleared on the issue of that money, could have just said that. But this seems like it could be more like a blanket immunity in case we later find some direct involvement by them.

Naturally, I would not be a fan, but it doesn't seem like that's the intention of this. So, it's probably cool. probably.

8/15/2008 10:05:33 AM