Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up and receive the biggest story as soon as it’s published.
More than 20 years after the victims of the 9/11 attacks began trying to hold the Saudi Arabian government responsible for supporting Qaeda terrorists who carried out the plot, a federal judge ruled that civil cases against the kingdom could be brought to justice.
Thursday’s decision represents a key victory for the 2,977 murdered attacks and a survivors of the parent by Judge George B. Daniel of Manhattan’s Southern District of New York.
“It’s a historic victory for the family,” said a spokesman for Brett Eagleson, a family member whose father was killed at the World Trade Center. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be held responsible.”
Fahad Nazer, a spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington, did not respond to a request for comment on the judge’s ruling.
The Saudi Kingdom, which has long rejected the plaintiffs’ claims, could still appeal Daniels’ decision under the special protections given to foreign governments under federal law, legal experts said. However, they added that the Saudi Arabian government may be willing to consider a settlement with the plaintiffs to avoid scrutiny of major trials and the vast discovery of the information it brings.
The information already revealed by the plaintiffs has rewritten the history of the September 11 plot, presented years after the attack by the George W. Bush administration and the bipartisan 9/11 committee.
Most importantly, the plaintiff’s evidence undermines the conclusion that two Saudi officials in Southern California, one part-time spy and the other religious official with diplomatic status, acted “unconsciously” when they helped the first Qaeda hijacker to arrive in the United States.
In an email, the FBI also declined to comment on the judge’s decision.
It has long been established in the years before 9/11 that some members of the Saudi royal family and some powerful Saudi officials supported the militant Islamist movement, gave money to Islamic charities, which helped raise funds for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.
However, both the FBI and CIA were highlighted in the aftermath of the attack that the Saudi royal family was the enemy of al-Qaeda and its exiled leader Osama bin Laden, and government officials were not supporting the group.
The New York lawsuit focused on the role of two lower-level Saudi officials living in the United States. For one, Omar al-Bayowmi is a middle-aged graduate student in San Diego and worked for Saudi Arabia’s Civil Aviation Authority for a long time. Another Fahad Al-Tumairi was a religious official serving as an imam in a new Saudi-funded mosque in Los Angeles and as a diplomat for the Saudi consulate.
The FBI quickly determined that Baiuumi had met the first two hijackers near the mosque shortly after he jumped into Los Angeles in January 2000, and that he helped him rent an apartment in San Diego, open a bank account and buy a car.
Baiumi also introduced two jihadists – no one in the US knew, but they essentially spoke no English and had no experience living in the West – to a group of Muslim men who provided important support over the months they lived in the city.
Baiumi moved her family to Birmingham, England in the summer of 2001. Within days of the attack, he was detained and questioned by British police at the request of the FBI before being allowed to return to Saudi Arabia.
Looking for Bayoumi’s home, British authorities found documents, notebooks, videotapes and computer files they shared with the FBI, officials said. However, only in the last two years, the family lawyers on 9/11 have won much of that cash. And only from the UK government.
From the start, US investigators were skeptical of the Baiumi account. However, in the end, the FBI primarily accepted his claim that he had happened to meet two Qaeda operatives, helping them like his fellow-brothers, and unaware of their terrorist plans. Both the Baiumi and the Saudi government have repeatedly argued that it has no connection with Saudi Arabia’s intelligence news.
Despite efforts by a small group of FBI agents to pursue the case, they were eventually shut down by the bureau. The civil lawsuit nearly died in 2016 when President Barack Obama cleared an exception to the immunity of foreign governments and rejected a law that allowed families to sue the Saudi Kingdom. However, Congress overturned that veto and allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
President Donald Trump later blocked his families from obtaining government documents classified in the 9/11 investigation, claiming they were the state’s secrets. President Joe Biden later reversed stance and declassified documents, including reports confirming that Baiuumi is a part-time agent for Saudi Arabia’s intelligence reporting agency.
The evidence that the plaintiff’s lawyers obtained from the UK government has proven even stronger.
It included videotapes of a Bai-Umi touring Washington before the 9/11 attack with two visiting Saudi religious staff who had extensive ties with extremists. On one of the tapes, he filmed the U.S. Capitol, explaining its layout and security to an unidentified audience. The plaintiff’s lawyers suggested that Baiumi and his associates were “cased” the Kaida Plotter target. The Saudi Arabian government has argued in court that it was a video of tourists.
In his ruling, Daniels noted that both sides have different interpretations of almost all of the evidence. However, he approved the plaintiff’s views on several important exhibits, including illustrations of planes found in one of the Baiumi notebooks. Citing an aviation expert, the plaintiff’s lawyer said the drawings and calculations beside it showed how the plane would impact an object on the ground. A Saudi lawyer suggested that Baiumi drew it while her son helped with his homework.
At least two Saudi officials may have intentionally supported the 9/11 hijacker, new evidence suggests
Daniels said the plaintiff’s evidence produced “high probability of Tumilie’s role in the Bai Sea and Hijacker’s plan and related roles of the Saudi Arabian government.” “In many cases, it appears that the Bai seaweed has actively injected themselves,” he added.
Family spokesman Eagleson noted during the lengthy pretrial lawsuit that plaintiffs were permitted to pursue only limited discoveries about Baiumi, Chumuary and other Saudi Arabia.
“We did all this by tying it behind our back,” he said.
