First Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Filed Since Congressional Override Of Sovereign Immunity Bill

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor.

Osama_bin_Laden_portraitPlaintiff Stephanie Ross Desimone filed suit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia alleging the nation provided material support to Al-Qaida in its terror attacks against the United States on September 11th, 2001. This represents the first of such filings–there–are almost certainly to be many following, since the United States Congress last Wednesday overrode President Obama’s veto of a sovereign immunity bill allowing foreign governments to be sued in the United States for supporting terrorist acts within the US borders.

Stephanie’s husband, Navy Cdr. Patrick Dunn, was murdered when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

The full text of the complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, is attached below:

Civil Complaint Full Document (PDF)

Source: PACER

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

20 thoughts on “First Lawsuit Against Saudi Arabia Filed Since Congressional Override Of Sovereign Immunity Bill”

  1. “On September 11, 2001, nineteen members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda,
    fifteen of whom were citizens of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, hijacked four commercial
    airliners, and used those planes as weapons in a coordinated terrorist attack upon the United
    States and its citizens (the “September 11thAttacks”).”
    Good luck proving that, ’cause it likely didn’t happen that way………

  2. It would be better to have a world that operated under a system of laws, rather than one that operates on a hierarchy of humans based on wealth/weapons.

    1. Absolutely. As the 1st murderer responds to Banquo before they kill him, in Shakespeare’s Macbeth, “Let it come downe.”

  3. I am of two minds on this suit. I think it opens us to suits from other countries, which will be a mess. However, the WH has done nothing to compensate the families of the victims. It will be interesting to follow these suits through the courts. The House of Saud still has enough money to fight them.

    1. Other than the $7 Billion compensation fund?
      The one signed off by John Ashcroft and administered by Ken Feinberg?

  4. It may not result in any great revelations but it is the right direction in which to go. If SA retaliates with valid lawsuits against Americans then so be it. It SA retaliates with bogus lawsuits against Americans then we deal with them as they are. Hopefully in the end some degree of transparency will be achieved. It will be a dog’s breakfast but going in the right direction.

  5. During a trial hidden information often comes out. We also have an agreement with the Saudis to defend them against their enemies both internal and external.

  6. My understanding from listening to Stephen Vladeck (University of Texas School of Law) on the Diane Rehm show last week, is that the Senate gutted this bill just before they passed it. Several amendments were added that set a much higher burden of proof and makes it much harder to collect any money.

    Transcript of the show is here:

    If Prof. Vladeck is correct, the 9/11 families are going to be pissed when they find out this was all for show. Not to mention the ways in which it puts former and present US officials at risk for reciprocal lawsuits.

    1. If American officials have engaged in similar conduct they should be subject to law suits. Obviously our government won’t do anything about it.

  7. I hope the plaintiff wins! I hope everything comes out in a very public trial and that the American people react with fury against those who have facilitate the rise of the power of the Saudis have over our government leaders.

  8. @Doglover, October 2, 2016 at 10:47 pm
    “Why is it that a country that appears to have facilitated 9/11 only gets sued (or not), whereas countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 get decimated and their leaders are assassinated as part of US revenge for 9/11?”

    Because the primary purpose of the attack on 9/11 was to gain sympathy with and support for the US Government’s attacks on those other countries and on Americans’ civil liberties vis a vis the Patriot Act and other repressive legislation, when Americans had been suitably frightened by the threat of terrorism and cowed into accepting aggressive wars abroad and reduction of their liberties at home in the name of “homeland security.”

    Even superficially thoughtful attention to the Government’s official conspiracy theory (that 19 Arabs, overcoming America’s multi-billion dollar military and civilian air defenses, hijacked 4 airplanes, and with them wreaked the enormous damage done on 9/11), reveals that theory as being little short of preposterous, even if several of the alleged hijackers had not turned up alive and well not long after 9/11:

    In short, the attack on 9/11 provided exactly what the neocon* “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC) described as the needed catalyst for the creation of an expanded and even more powerful American National Security State:

    “According to the PNAC report, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000)‘The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time: even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself.’ To preserve this ‘American peace’ through the 21st century, the PNAC report concludes that the global order ‘must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence.’ The report struck a prescient note when it observed that ‘the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event–like a new Pearl Harbor.’ “ [Emphasis added]

    *See at the link the members and history of PNAC, to grasp their take-over of the Executive Branch of the US government and its foreign policy.

  9. Why is it that a country that appears to have facilitated 9/11 only gets sued (or not), whereas countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 get decimated and their leaders are assassinated as part of US revenge for 9/11?

    1. Doglover, I assume your question is rhetorical – and the point is apropos – but the House of Saud is our most-highly secured creditor, er, most important ally. Isn’t it?

    2. Good question. I think it is because our richest and most powerful people have financial ties so deep with the Saudis that they are more important to them that Americans.

Comments are closed.