Saudia Arabia helped 9/11 hijackers

[AzibLala007]

i do no know that why everyone is targeting the saudia arabia for 9/11 attacks and thay say that saudia helped hijackers in those attacks but there governament has already explained that they have nothing to do with those attacks.

[Spendulus]

I heard and read a lot regarding this theory and still didn't find or see one concrete evidence for such claim.
Of course, this conspiracy theory sounds interesting and people like to talk about it but we can't judge whole country based on speculations only.
Yes, Bin Laden and some other attackers was from Saudi Arabia and probably some people from this country like terrorist and supporting them but still this is not enough to say that Saudi Arabia is behind this attack.
After all, what will be their motivation, their goal for something like this?

It's only a guess, but my idea is that "some or a few" of the "royal family" helped Al Queda.  Problem is there are some 10,000 princes in that bunch.  Assume for an example that just one of those was actively pro Al Queda and was unabashedly helping them.

Should that enable the families to sue the Saudi government? 

It's a valid question.

[BADecker]

I heard and read a lot regarding this theory and still didn't find or see one concrete evidence for such claim.
Of course, this conspiracy theory sounds interesting and people like to talk about it but we can't judge whole country based on speculations only.
Yes, Bin Laden and some other attackers was from Saudi Arabia and probably some people from this country like terrorist and supporting them but still this is not enough to say that Saudi Arabia is behind this attack.
After all, what will be their motivation, their goal for something like this?

It's only a guess, but my idea is that "some or a few" of the "royal family" helped Al Queda.  Problem is there are some 10,000 princes in that bunch.  Assume for an example that just one of those was actively pro Al Queda and was unabashedly helping them.

Should that enable the families to sue the Saudi government? 

It's a valid question.

Right! After all, the NSA, CIA, and FBI wouldn't have allowed any of us to help Al Queda, right?

 

[kelsey]

summary; Obama doesn't want the Saudi sued over the few thousand killed in 9/11 as it opens the USA to being sued buy the millions its recently and currently killing or displacing in protecting its own interest; makes sense.

[Spendulus]

summary; Obama doesn't want the Saudi sued over the few thousand killed in 9/11 as it opens the USA to being sued buy the millions its recently and currently killing or displacing in protecting its own interest; makes sense.

No, it doesn't "open the USA up" or any such thing. 

Sovereign nations under English common law have immunity from lawsuits.  This carries over and down into states, and even counties and cities having similar immunities.

What is interesting is a question about the immunity of (hypothetical) a single Saudi Prince. 

I think he's not able to piggyback on the immunity from lawsuits enjoyed by his nation.

Simplifying it a bit.

Say a Saudi prince goes to England, shoots a man in cold blood, then returns to Saudi Arabia.

Is he immune from prosecution in England?

I'm not an attorney but I think NO.

[eye-level]

Business as usual.

[kelsey]

summary; Obama doesn't want the Saudi sued over the few thousand killed in 9/11 as it opens the USA to being sued buy the millions its recently and currently killing or displacing in protecting its own interest; makes sense.

No, it doesn't "open the USA up" or any such thing. 

Sovereign nations under English common law have immunity from lawsuits.  This carries over and down into states, and even counties and cities having similar immunities.

What is interesting is a question about the immunity of (hypothetical) a single Saudi Prince. 

I think he's not able to piggyback on the immunity from lawsuits enjoyed by his nation.

Simplifying it a bit.

Say a Saudi prince goes to England, shoots a man in cold blood, then returns to Saudi Arabia.

Is he immune from prosecution in England?

I'm not an attorney but I think NO.

sorry but your waffle missed my entire point 

[Rasa009]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A

It,s not help you. everywhere some good and some bad. What are you proving? Saudia Arabia help 9/11 hijackers or they hijack 9/11?

[Farhad801099]

some news for you, the jews who run america don't care if a few thousand of your citizens have to get killed to further their interests, your blood doesn't matter to them unless they're drinking it. the saudis are your allies because they help perpetuate a dark age ideology that keeps arabs and muslims backward and stupid and they help destabilise moderate regimes in the region who were making real progress against the global zionism rather than just preaching sermons about how much they hate the west and causing the odd explosion here and there to stay in the news

the neocons in bush's cabinet said they wanted a new pearl harbour and the saudis gave them it

It,s not helping. Everyone knows America want a issue to attack Saudia Arabia. sometimes I think hijackers are inside of America.

[Spendulus]

summary; Obama doesn't want the Saudi sued over the few thousand killed in 9/11 as it opens the USA to being sued buy the millions its recently and currently killing or displacing in protecting its own interest; makes sense.

No, it doesn't "open the USA up" or any such thing. 

Sovereign nations under English common law have immunity from lawsuits.  This carries over and down into states, and even counties and cities having similar immunities.

What is interesting is a question about the immunity of (hypothetical) a single Saudi Prince. 

I think he's not able to piggyback on the immunity from lawsuits enjoyed by his nation.

Simplifying it a bit.

Say a Saudi prince goes to England, shoots a man in cold blood, then returns to Saudi Arabia.

Is he immune from prosecution in England?

I'm not an attorney but I think NO.

sorry but your waffle missed my entire point 

it's not a waffle, and your point seemed to be that damage from war could be solved with lawsuits, which is ridiculous on it's face value.

[BADecker]

summary; Obama doesn't want the Saudi sued over the few thousand killed in 9/11 as it opens the USA to being sued buy the millions its recently and currently killing or displacing in protecting its own interest; makes sense.

No, it doesn't "open the USA up" or any such thing. 

Sovereign nations under English common law have immunity from lawsuits.  This carries over and down into states, and even counties and cities having similar immunities.

What is interesting is a question about the immunity of (hypothetical) a single Saudi Prince. 

I think he's not able to piggyback on the immunity from lawsuits enjoyed by his nation.

Simplifying it a bit.

Say a Saudi prince goes to England, shoots a man in cold blood, then returns to Saudi Arabia.

Is he immune from prosecution in England?

I'm not an attorney but I think NO.

sorry but your waffle missed my entire point 

it's not a waffle, and your point seemed to be that damage from war could be solved with lawsuits, which is ridiculous on it's face value.

In America, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and a few other countries that have juries, any person can bring any claim before the court in jury trial. The jury has the right and duty to judge according to its conscience. The jury could require damages from another country, and require the nation to go to war to retrieve those damages. If the nation didn't appeal it and get it changed by another jury, it would be against the law to not go to war after the damages.

[Spendulus]

In America, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and a few other countries that have juries, any person can bring any claim before the court in jury trial. The jury has the right and duty to judge according to its conscience. The jury could require damages from another country, and require the nation to go to war to retrieve those damages. If the nation didn't appeal it and get it changed by another jury, it would be against the law to not go to war after the damages.

A jury can require a country to go to war.



It's a very interesting alternate universe you live in.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

    The traditional rule is that the government or sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. This doctrine prevented citizens from bringing actions against the government to redress wrongs allegedly committed against them by the government.

    The government retains sovereign immunity in order to protect the Treasury and its discretionary governmental functions.

    Waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued can only be granted by an act of Congress. In giving its consent, Congress may impose such conditions and restrictions as it deems proper. Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894).

[Jasad]

Why are these guys considered allies of the US?  They sell us oil?


Obama Reveals Why Terror Victims Can’t Sue Saudi Arabia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZXq9w5CCmw

President Obama was asked to discuss a bill that passed the Senate committee earlier this year that would allow the family members of individuals who were killed in terrorist attacks sponsored by foreign governments, to then sue those foreign governments.  Currently you are not allowed to do that.  This bill aims to change that and here is what Barack Obama thinks about it:

And what about this legislation in the congress that allow families to sue the Saudi government and other governments and different circumstances.

Obama: Exactly.  I'm opposed because of that second clause in your sentence, and that is, this is not just a bilateral US-saudi issue this is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries.  If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening of the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries.  And that would be a bad precedent, because we're the largest superpower in the world, and we are everywhere, and we are in people's business all the time.  And if we are in a situation where we're suddenly being hauled into various courts, because of the claim that in some individuals been harmed, then that will tie us up and it could harm you US servicemen US diplomats

I think a family member of someone who died in 9/11, when they believe that there is good evidence that the Saudi's sponsored it.  Now we don't necessarily have access to that evidence because it has been redacted in the 9/11 Commission Report, which we're going to have video for you on that in just a second.  But we know from former US Senator Bob Graham was seen the pages as intelligence committee chair the pages that we don't have access to, he told 60 minutes that he believes the Saudi government did help the 9/11 hijackers, and so if that were the case not being able to get any sort of at least legal justice would be incredibly frustrating I would imagine what it does open up the door to a lot of other sorts of lawsuits if if or families and we had we lost three thousand people in 9/11

i never hear about this,if this true,so why country like indonesia who have so many resources and oil,not free from hijackers,its can be some weird fact if this true.

[Evildrum]

Is it my imagination or do we suddenly have a Saudi propaganda group in this forum. Have counted three Jr. members so far that pretty much seem off topic and the point is always America is wrong in some way. Just a thought now back on topic.
====================================================================

So individuals can not sue a Country but big companies will be able to do so under these new trade agreements!
Does this not make things clear that government is not for the people and is toxic at the core;its disgusting the route we are going now.
Think its in the publics interest to see these documents because it could give a lot of countries reason to pull out of the middle east and let the middle east settle their own issues. Some of the reason we are there in the first place stems from Iraq and then this 9/11 aspect. So Iraq is done with and if the Saudis are responsible they can pay for all the damages and proceed to clean up their own mess,instead of hiding behind other groups.
Imagine all the postivie that could come from this as we could out the Saudis for who they really are!
They would face restrictions as a terrorist country and it would strangle them to the effect of losing all sway.

[hasan7779]

I heard and read a lot regarding this theory and still didn't find or see one concrete evidence for such claim.
Of course, this conspiracy theory sounds interesting and people like to talk about it but we can't judge whole country based on speculations only.
Yes, Bin Laden and some other attackers was from Saudi Arabia and probably some people from this country like terrorist and supporting them but still this is not enough to say that Saudi Arabia is behind this attack.
After all, what will be their motivation, their goal for something like this?

I agree with U. That,s miens  someone is background and he helped 9/11 hijackers. And he tried to incline Saudia Arabia. 

[Spendulus]

I heard and read a lot regarding this theory and still didn't find or see one concrete evidence for such claim.
Of course, this conspiracy theory sounds interesting and people like to talk about it but we can't judge whole country based on speculations only.
Yes, Bin Laden and some other attackers was from Saudi Arabia and probably some people from this country like terrorist and supporting them but still this is not enough to say that Saudi Arabia is behind this attack.
After all, what will be their motivation, their goal for something like this?

I agree with U. That,s miens  someone is background and he helped 9/11 hijackers. And he tried to incline Saudia Arabia. 

Saudi Arabia is home to the Wahibbi brand of Islam, and subsects of Wahibbi are most of violent Islam.  For example, Sayyad Qutb and his sect formed the Muslim Brotherhood.  Bin Laden came from that basic group.

It's not unreasonable to think if some few princes in Saudi believed in these extreme ideas, they may have directly or indirectly helped in the 911 events.

I don't believe any evidence of this has ever been presented, though.  It's also possible that a Saudi prince might give money to a group and not know of it's actual evil intentions.

[ZOOM007]

i do not think that saudia arabia is helped the 9/11 hijackers. because saudia arabia has nothing to do with these terror attacks. and they have openly said many times that they did not help the hijackers. how can saudia will help the hijackers? the hijackers have no links with saudia arabia.

[BADecker]

In America, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and a few other countries that have juries, any person can bring any claim before the court in jury trial. The jury has the right and duty to judge according to its conscience. The jury could require damages from another country, and require the nation to go to war to retrieve those damages. If the nation didn't appeal it and get it changed by another jury, it would be against the law to not go to war after the damages.

A jury can require a country to go to war.



It's a very interesting alternate universe you live in.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

    The traditional rule is that the government or sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. This doctrine prevented citizens from bringing actions against the government to redress wrongs allegedly committed against them by the government.

    The government retains sovereign immunity in order to protect the Treasury and its discretionary governmental functions.

    Waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued can only be granted by an act of Congress. In giving its consent, Congress may impose such conditions and restrictions as it deems proper. Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894).

It is very interesting that you missed the part about "If the nation didn't appeal it ..."

Jury rules if there is no appeal, and maybe even after, if the appeal fails.

It's amazing how you would promote anti-freedom by suggesting that the jury doesn't have power.



EDIT: In addition, do you think that Saddam Hussein invited the U.S. into his country to take him to America to be tried and executed? "We" went in there and did what we did against all kinds of our own laws and international laws.

[Spendulus]

In America, Canada, Britain, and Australia, and a few other countries that have juries, any person can bring any claim before the court in jury trial. The jury has the right and duty to judge according to its conscience. The jury could require damages from another country, and require the nation to go to war to retrieve those damages. If the nation didn't appeal it and get it changed by another jury, it would be against the law to not go to war after the damages.

A jury can require a country to go to war.



It's a very interesting alternate universe you live in.

Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

    The traditional rule is that the government or sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. This doctrine prevented citizens from bringing actions against the government to redress wrongs allegedly committed against them by the government.

    The government retains sovereign immunity in order to protect the Treasury and its discretionary governmental functions.

    Waiver of sovereign immunity and consent to be sued can only be granted by an act of Congress. In giving its consent, Congress may impose such conditions and restrictions as it deems proper. Schillinger v. United States, 155 U.S. 163 (1894).

It is very interesting that you missed the part about "If the nation didn't appeal it ..."

Jury rules if there is no appeal, and maybe even after, if the appeal fails.

It's amazing how you would promote anti-freedom by suggesting that the jury doesn't have power.



EDIT: In addition, do you think that Saddam Hussein invited the U.S. into his country to take him to America to be tried and executed? "We" went in there and did what we did against all kinds of our own laws and international laws.

Relevant part bolded.  Read the Schillinger case.

[Losvienleg]

There wasn't any plane, so no hijacker at all. This is a Jewish-made explosion, from the interior of the building.