Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : America Under Siege: The End of Innocence -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: art slott who wrote (15646)	5/14/2002 9:12:40 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Respond to of 27666

Sue the Saudis for terror 'til it hurts May 14, 2002 Daniel Pipes National Post The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's massive implication in the death of 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, I argued in February, is reason for the victims and their families to consider suing it for compensation. Three important developments have occurred since then, all of them propelling this idea forward. - No loss of U.S. benefits. A U.S. law passed on Sept. 22, 2001, seemed to stipulate that to share in the open-ended fund allocated by the U.S. government to compensate the victims of 9/11 and their families, they had to give up their right to sue the Saudis or anyone else. Recipients, states the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, have to waive "the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any federal or state court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of Sept. 11, 2001." But Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master in charge of dispensing the open-ended fund (which he estimates will total about US$4-billion), informs me another piece of legislation effectively reversed my interpretation of the law. On Nov. 19, Public Law 107-71 amended the above quote in the following manner: "The preceding sentence does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations, or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act." The effect of this amendment is drastically to narrow the Sept. 22 legislation by distinguishing between 9/11's unknowing participants (such as the airlines or the airports) and knowing ones (such as the terrorists themselves or those who sponsored or financed them). It keeps the former off-bounds but permits suing the latter. In Feinberg's words, any person "in Saudi Arabia (or anywhere else) who provided assistance to the terrorists on September 11 can be sued by claimants participating in the Fund." Or, in his plain-English explanation, claimants can "have their cake and eat it too." This amendment is wonderful news, permitting the families to accept an on-average $1.2-million from the U.S. taxpayer, then sue Saudi Arabia. - More indications of official Saudi sponsorship of terrorism. Recent weeks have turned up some extraordinarily incriminating documents, such as a hard drive seized by U.S. troops in Sarajevo from a computer at the office of the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina. An operative was arrested carrying documents that proved Saudi funding of the Hamas terrorist group to enable it to produce a short-range missile called the Qassam. U.S. intelligence sources have concluded that Saudi princes are spending millions of dollars to help large numbers of al-Qaeda and Taliban members escape the American dragnet. One source told Middle East Newsline that "the money flow to al-Qaeda continues from members of the royal family." To staunch this flow of funds, U.S. authorities are taking the initiative, sometimes close to home. In March, they raided 16 locations, mostly in the Washington, D.C., area, primarily to learn more about two high-ranking Saudis, Khalid bin Mahfouz and Cherif Sedky, and their role in funding al-Qaeda. - Progress against Libya. A Scottish appeals court in March upheld the conviction of a Libyan intelligence agent for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, killing 270, a development that Allan Gerson, a lawyer for many Pan Am families, calls "a giant step" toward making sponsors of terrorism accountable. The Scottish verdict closes 13 years of litigation and permits families of the victims finally to press civil claims against Libya's government, with full U.S. government endorsement: "The President expects Libya to fulfill [its] obligations," says the White House spokesman. "The court has spoken. It's time for Libya to act." Negotiations are indeed underway in Paris, with the families demanding more than $10-billion (or about $40-million per death). Together, these three developments suggest that 9/11 claimants are on solid legal, factual, and political grounds in seeking compensation from the kingdom. Should Riyadh reject their claims, they can demand per death as much as the Lockerbie families, which would bring their claim to over $100-billion. It's hard to think of a better way for ordinary Americans to help fight terrorism than for the 9/11 families to bring home to the Saudis the costs of sponsoring this hideous behavior. Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum.