posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 06:03 PM
I just want to note a couple of things in regard to the recent court ruling that puts Saudi Arabia back into the position of defendant in the 9/11
victims' families' civil suit for damages.
As the Broward Bulldog article states:
The 16-page order by a three judge appellate court panel is a labyrinth of legal argument. Its essence, however, is that the court’s own
conflicting rulings about how to apply the law in different 9/11 lawsuits led to an “error of law” by a lower federal court judge in New York,
George B. Daniels, who wrongly let the Saudis off the hook for potentially billions of dollars in civil damages.
I haven't read the judgement, but I do not believe that it means that the US government has designated Saudi Arabia a "state sponsor of terrorism".
The legal ramifications of such a designation would probably be more severe than simply being named defendant in a lawsuit. I believe that such a
designation would allow the freezing of Saudi assets in the United States. That would be a very serious rupture in US/Saudi relations and might well
be a prelude to an invasion of Saudi Arabia.
The attorney representing Saudi Arabia has made a statement that is undoubtedly true and important in the overall context of 9/11 truth.
But Michael K. Kellogg, a Washington, D.C. attorney who represents Saudi Arabia, called the decision “contrary to settled law.”
. . . . .
“It is also important to recognize that the Second Circuit’s decision has nothing to do with the facts of the case and does not find that the
plaintiffs’ allegations are meritorious or even plausible.”
That is sobering enough, but there is a more interesting and troubling aspect to this story.
The ruling comes amid a parallel push in Congress to pass the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would ensure that victims
of terrorism on U.S. soil have the opportunity to hold its foreign sponsors accountable in U.S. courts.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, introduced JASTA in the Senate in September. Co-sponsors include seven Democrats and five Republicans. An identical bill
in the House has similar drawn similar bipartisan support.
When Schumer introduced the bill, he said JASTA was needed “due to flawed court decisions that have deprived victims of terrorism on American soil,
including those injured by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, of their day in court.”
Could it be that in reinstating the Saudis as defendants in the current lawsuit, the "powers that be" are actually attempting to prevent possible
adjudication of this kind of case against the Saudis under terms of the new JASTA legislation, which might create a legal structure more favorable to
the 9/11 victims' families'?
The Broward Bulldog article should be read in its entirety.
Hanging the 9/11 attack on the Saudis, if it gets a lot of victims' families' off the government's back might be an effective way for the government
to punt this whole issue to the sideline and finally run out the clock on 9/11 for all effective law enforcement purposes.
If I were giving the Saudis legal advice, I would say, "Settle out of court."
Not doing so is fraught with pitfalls.
There are no dependable actors in all of this.
edit on 15-1-2014 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)