You read that right, there’s no spin involved. A circuit court held up a ruling made by a district judge that, despite all available evidence, the Saudi government simply cannot be sued for their complicity with the attacks of 9/11. No matter what.
In its ruling, the judges said it would have to dismiss the case against the princes even if it were proven that they were aware of bin Laden’s public vows to harm the United States.
“Even if the four princes were reckless in monitoring how their donations were spent, or could and did foresee that recipients of their donations would attack targets in the United States, that would be insufficient,” the three-judge panel said.
The reasoning all comes down to one document: the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, FSIA, of 1976. Not to be confused with FISA, the FSIA explains how the United States can and cannot bring about lawsuits against foreign governments. There are some exceptions, the main one being if the given nation is a sponsor of terrorism and the act in question happened in the United States. Unfortunately, the US State Dept has not designated Saudi Arabia as such, which is disgusting in and of itself.
Now let’s take a moment to collate our info. Saudi Arabia can’t be sued for sponsoring a terrorist attack on the United States, because they’re protected by an act that does not apply when the country in question sponsors terrorists that attack the United States, because the State Department didn’t designate them as such. And the ruling said even if it could be proven that they did, it wouldn’t matter.
Did I get that right? Because I’m almost hoping I didn’t.
I normally have a policy not to give a crap what Michelle Malkin has to say, much for the same reason I ignore Ann Coulter: at some point someone becomes so stupid you just can’t let their stupidity bother you.
