Why didn’t we torture Saudi Princes who funded 9/11?

     In Federal Insurance Co. v. Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, a suit filed by several insurance companies who sought to recover over $300 billion for losses incurred by the 9/11 attacks, the following men are named as defendants.

   Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, president of SHC, who was warned in 2000 of his organization’s ties to al Qaeda;

   Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the designated successor to King Abdullah, who received warnings as early as 1994 that some Muslim charitable groups were fronts for al Qaeda;

   Prince Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who as Saudi Minister of the Interior monitors and controls the charities operating in Saudi Arabia;

   Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who was the director of the Kingdom’s Department of General Intelligence (“DGI”) until August 2001; and

   Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud, who unlike the other princes named is not a government official but a bank manager alleged to have knowingly provided material sponsorship to international terrorism.



    When the crown prince and successor to the throne of Saudi Arabia is warned back in 1994 that charities his family supports are funneling money to terrorist organizations, and then those groups attack America, you would think that somebody in the executive branch would find that interesting.

    But not Bush/Cheney. They spent every minute between the Inauguration and 9/10/2001 trying to find a way to attack Iraq. Defending America from terrorism was not very interesting until after the attack had already occurred.

    This is not the only evidence that the royal family and absolute rulers of Saudi Arabia directly aided Al Qaeda before and up to the attacks against America on September 11th. This evidence is well documented, and yet it went ignored.

    Why was this evidence ignored? I will not speculate on that point, rather, here is more evidence. You may decide for yourself.



By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 02, 2008

WASHINGTON – Saudi Arabia remains the world’s leading source of money for Al Qaeda and other extremist networks and has failed to take key steps requested by U.S. officials to stem the flow, the Bush administration’s top financial counter-terrorism official said Tuesday.


    Still need more proof that the royal family of Saudi Arabia played an integral role in funding and planning the 9/11 attacks? Well, there is plenty of proof within the 9/11 commission’s report on Terror Financing. Inside the 155 pages document anyone who is interested could find information linking Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq, to Al Qaeda.


    Before the September 11th attacks, the Saudi Government resisted cooperating with the United States on the al Qaeda financing problem.

~ snip ~

    . . . since the al Qaeda bombings in Saudi Arabia in May and November of 2003 and the delivery of a more consistent and pointed U.S. message, it appears that the Saudis have accepted that terror financing is a serious issue and are making progress in addressing it.

– 9/11 commission

    By this I interpret it as saying that Saudi Arabia would not stop funding terrorists despite our warnings both before 9/11 and after 9/11 until they themselves were attacked by al Qaeda. Mind you, the 9/11 report does everything it can to point out that Saudi Arabia was not a state sponsor of al Qaeda, despite the fact that al Qaeda was sponsored by Saudi charities that are approved and paid for by the Saudi Royal Family. The 9/11 commission does it’s own part in burying the link between Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda, and one has to wonder if this was done on purpose in order to build momentum for the link being between Iraq and al Qaeda, a myth we all know has as much validity to it as other Republican talking points like “Country First” and “Mission Accomplished”.

    With all of this evidence of Saudi Arabia’s role in funding al Qaeda’s operation, I wonder why no one thought to imprison Saudi royal family members who financed al Qaeda. Why did no one think that a Saudi Prince who knows about charity or bank funds being used to launder money to al Qaeda were not valuable sources of information that should be interrogated? Why did they not use harsh interrogation methods on Prince Mohamed al Faisal al Saud, the man who is accused of knowingly laundering moeny for al Qaeda?

    So, just to update the memo, Bush/Cheney tortured prisoners to extract false connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, all the while knowing that Saudi Arabia was proven to have links to al Qaeda that reached all the way up to the Crown Prince of the royal family.

    We need a Special Prosecutor, and we need one now. Eric Holder needs to get off of his ass and name a Special Prosecutor, and, while he is at it, maybe he should have some one check up on the Saudi Royal family and their more recent charitable contributions.

    I think one of the only things worse than manufacturing false evidence about a security threat is ignoring the one’s that you do not want to see. Why push Saudi Arabia links to al Qaeda when you would just rather make it look like Iraq did it.

    Petition Badge
Get Badge

    War Crimes. Investigate. Prosecute.

    Without the rule of law, how much different is a President from a Prince?

Is the Pony/Pie/Hide rating system too cutsie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Skip to comment form

  1. and with allies and trading partners like the Saudi royal family, who needs international terrorist organizations?

    • Edger on June 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    and against 9//1 families in their lawsuits…

    Obama administration sides with Saudis on 9/11 suit, May 31, 2009

    Members of 9/11 victims’ families, who filed a lawsuit seeking to pin blame on the Saudi royal family for financing attacks against the United States, just acquired a significant new opponent: the Obama administration.

    A Department of Justice brief (PDF link) filed with the Supreme Court on Friday argues that the Saudi royal family is party to a sovereign state and cannot be sued in American courts.

    Fifteen of the 19 alleged 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, according to the FBI. Former President George W. Bush waited six years to acknowledge this in public.

    “Several lower courts have dismissed the lawsuit,” noted the Associated Press.

    “Lawyers for the Saudi family said that they were heartened by the department’s brief and that it served to strengthen their hand before the court, which has not decided whether to hear the case,” reported The New York Times.

    What hold do the Saudis have on the US Government and on the Obama Administration? And why is Obama continuing another Bush policy of supporting the people who funded 9/11?

  2. because I have no idea what or who “al Qaeda” is, but I can say for certain that the Taliban recieves direct funding from wealthy individuals in the Gulf States.

    Talibani religious “scholars” make their rounds to various mosques and private homes, collecting cash for jihad. This has been going on for years, long before 9/11 in fact, all the way to the days when the Taliban was fighting the Russians.

    I was told that it costs virtually nothing to support a jihadi in the field, so it doesn’t take a lot of money to create a whole bunch of mayhem.

    • jamess on June 2, 2009 at 2:26 am

    I was not aware the Saudi Arabia – al Qaeda funding connections,

    were so straight forward.

    You raise some excellent Questions, MoT.

    The Actions of the BushCo, regarding the Saudi connection,

    have all the earmarks of a “bait and switch” operation to me.

    How long before they Un-ReDact the Saudi portions of those files?

    Who’s “National Security”, are they protection, anyways?

Comments have been disabled.