Case against countries accused of links to Sept. 11 attacks ‘expected to fail due to lack of evidence’

NEW YORK: A lawsuit against governments linked to the Sept. 11 attacks will flounder on a lack of evidence and hurt American interests by opening the door to copycat cases overseas, analysts told Arab News on Thursday.
On Wednesday, US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan rejected Saudi Arabia’s bid to dismiss lawsuits claiming that it helped to plan the strikes on New York and Washington and should pay billions of dollars in damages to victims.
Sigurd Neubauer, a Washington-based analyst, said the ruling on the lawsuit, which was made under a federal law called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), threatened US interests down the road.
“The problem with the JASTA law and this suit is that it is the thin end of the wedge. It sets a worrying precedent for prosecutions and lawsuits against foreign governments in the US that were previously immune to these actions,” Neubauer said.
“The US has long sought to protect its servicemen from being prosecuted overseas, whether by the International Criminal Court or another mechanism. This case erodes one of the safeguards against this from happening.”
The Saudi government has long denied involvement in the attacks in which airplanes hijacked by Al-Qaeda crashed into New York’s World Trade Center, the Pentagon outside Washington and a Pennsylvania field. Nearly 3,000 people died.
Ellen Wald, author of “Saudi, Inc: The Arabian Kingdom’s Pursuit of Profit and Power,” which will be published on April 3, said the case will likely flounder through a lack of evidence connecting Saudi officials with the attacks.
The 9/11 Commission, and the so-called “28 pages” of a report from the 2002 investigation released in 2016 after being classified for years, effectively cleared Saudi officials of any wrongdoing, Wald said.
“When the 28 pages were released, they didn’t show any evidence linking the Saudi state conclusively to those behind the 9/11 attacks and I think that the major issue going forward is that there doesn’t seem to be evidence to make the case.
District Judge Daniels’ decision covers claims by the families of those killed, about 25,000 people who suffered injuries, and many businesses and insurers, with claims amounting to billions of dollars.
The judge also dismissed claims that two Saudi banks, Al-Rajhi Bank and National Commercial Bank, and Saudi Binladin Group, a construction firm run by the bin Laden family, helped to finance the attacks, saying he lacked jurisdiction.
For a long time, Saudi Arabia had immunity from Sept. 11 lawsuits in the US. That changed in September 2016, when the US Congress overrode President Barack Obama’s veto of JASTA, allowing such cases to proceed.
Obama had warned that the law could expose US firms, troops and officials to lawsuits overseas.
“It was easy for Republicans and Democrats to pass this law at the end of Obama’s second term, but we’re in a very different context now in which Saudi Arabia could be surpassing even Israel as America’s most important ally in the Middle East,” Neubauer said.
Judge Daniels said the plaintiffs could try to prove that Riyadh was behind the alleged activities of Fahad Al-Thumairy, an imam at King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California, and Omar Al-Bayoumi, said to be an intelligence agent.
They were accused of helping two hijackers acclimate themselves to the US and prepare for the attacks. Riyadh argues that the plaintiffs could not show that any Saudi official, staffer or agent planned or carried out the strikes.