Saudi Ties To Terrorism?

This is a blog about Iran, not terrorism, not the Middle East. The point of this blog is to help Westerners understand what's happening. So if you're wondering why I'm posting about an article on the supposed Saudi ties to terrorism, you're asking a good question. The reason why I'm writing about it is because it provides an excellent chance to show how the media is often profoundly flawed in its reporting, and sometimes even irresponsible and sensational.

The article in the NY Times today about Saudi's supposed ties to terrorism is just such a sensational, irresponsible article. It seems more interested in generating hits on their website than in reporting the truth.

Let's begin with the title: "Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists". It's not a quote, it's a title. This is now the claim of the article, not a claim of someone else that the article is reporting on. The article itself is making a claim. The claim is that the documents the author is privy to support the theory that the Saudi government finances terrorism. This is the claim of the title, which makes it the claim of the NY Times. So before you even read the article, you've already been told what to think about it. You are not being presented with evidence and being asked to judge for yourself. You're being told what you should conclude in the very title.

Then you might find it very strange when the article states:

"The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups."

I find that strange. It contradicts the title of the article. The title says that the documents do in fact back the claim that the Saudi government finances terrorism. And yet the body of the article says the exact opposite. Yet most Americans will be able to breeze right by this statement, because the article has already told them what conclusion to draw in the title. It's a conclusion many Americans have wanted very badly to draw since 9/11. And here's an article in a very old, very credible newspaper telling them that it's the appropriate conclusion, and that they've got documents to prove it. Meanwhile, after citing a number of outrageous pieces of evidence from said documents, the article slyly inserts that there's no smoking gun here, so as to be able to claim objectivity. But the truth is, people will still read this article and think that there's definitive proof that the Saudi government is financing terror.

Don't believe what you want to believe, believe what is true. This is my plea, from me to you.

Before we look at the evidence, let's put it into context. Let's understand first that lawyers are behind this. These lawyers have talked the families of 9/11 survivors into suing the Saudi government in US courts. Now, I'm no mind reader. I don't know what the motives of the lawyers are for sure. They may be fully convinced that they're doing the right thing.

But here are the facts. The US government does not have any judicial authority over the government of Saudi Arabia or any other sovereign nation. For people to sue another country in US courts is ridiculous and outrageous. The lawsuit is completely illegitimate. The lawyers know this. It's their job to know this. It keeps getting thrown out by courts at every level. It has now been appealed to the Supreme Court. I for one hope they don't even hear it.

So lawyers have talked victims' families into an outrageously illegitimate and illegal lawsuit that is predicated on the US court system having authority over the government of a sovereign nation. This is scandalous. And not only is the lawsuit scandalous, but the fact that they've talked these poor, vulnerable people into pursuing it, taking advantage of their grief - this is nothing short of heartless and barbaric.

Again, I cannot read the mind of the lawyers. Perhaps they think they're doing the right thing. But I would submit to you that if they DO think they're doing the right thing, then they are profoundly misguided on a number of levels. They are deceived and ignorant. Since they've managed to graduate from law school, no small feat, I tend to think that ignorance isn't what drives them. I tend to think greed, something we all know drives many lawyers, is what is driving them. Who are they suing? A very rich country. If they win the lawsuit, they know that it will possibly be a huge, huge payday for them personally. They are exploiting these victims' families for the sake of dishonest gain through the pursuit of an outrageously illegitimate lawsuit of a foreign nation in the US court system.

Given all of this, I find it highly unlikely that anything they come up with is legitimate and reasonable. Given the context, I would tend to assume that everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I assume everything they're saying is designed to deceive me into helping to make them rich. Public opinion does often play a role in court proceedings.

Next, you'll notice that there are many references to classified information. Notice how the article seems to play on your fears that the government is trying to hide something. Our government is evil, as everyone knows, and they're trying to hide something from us.

That reminds me of an amusing story. When I was in the Marines, during combat training right after bootcampt, there was a young Marine who was about to go to intelligence school to learn to be an intelligence analyst. The poor guy was very nervous about it. So all the young Marines were sitting around talking to the platoon Sergeant one day, asking him questions about what the fleet was like, what the Marine Corps was like. Well, it came time for this young Marine, who was soon to be on the inside of the government's intelligence apparatus, to ask about what it was like to be in intelligence. He asked the Sergeant, what if there are some things I don't want to know? The Sergeant, as only Marine Sergeants can do, took pity on him and comforted him while also mocking his concerns. He said, look, it's not like when you show up at intel school they're gonna pull you aside and say, hey, you wanna know who shot Kennedy?

The Sergeant's point was a very good one. I doubt very much that the intelligence community is so sinister as everyone seems to assume. The fact is, no one but a very few insiders really know for sure. But the American people think they ought to know everything. They think they're the ones who are in power, that they're the ones who govern, and that therefore they have a right to judge for themselves, they have a right to classified information, they have a right to know whatever the government knows, so that they can decide if they're doing a good job or not.

America is not, however, a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic. We elect leaders to be privy to classified information for us. Classified information is classified for a reason. It's not classified to cover up government evils. It's classified to protect the source of the information. That's always the reason why something is classified.

So the article talks about classified financial documents that are claimed to be relevant to the case. Well, if they're classified, then it's because the US government obtained them illegally, meaning that they obtained this information without the consent of the Saudi government. The Saudi government has not decided to allow the US government access to its bank records. There's nothing sinister about that. I don't want the government to look at my bank records either. Everyone has a right to that privacy even in our own country. How much more a sovereign nation? The Saudi government doesn't have any right to look at our finances, does it? If they did, they'd find proof that we supported the Shah of Iran and other brutal dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Looks like we have financed some pretty awful things in our past. I'm not saying that the Saudis have financed terror and that that's ok or anything, I'm just saying that we aren't pure as the driven snow ourselves. He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

Not only is the article playing on fears about classified information, worse, it seems to suggest that the US government is actually covering for the Saudi government. The US government is IN ON IT!!! It's outrageous. The article seems to suggest that not only does the Saudi government finance terrorism, but the US government knows it, has proof of it, and has classified it so that the American people won't know about it!!! Nothing short of nonsense.

Check this out:

"Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material."

And this:

"The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that 'potentially significant foreign relations consequences' would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed."

The suggestion is that the US government thinks our foreign relations with the Saudi government is more important than that justice be done for these families. The suggestion is that the US is protecting the Saudis.

But let's take a look at this "evidence", which isn't a "smoking gun", but yet nevertheless implicates the US government in a conspiracy to cover up the guilt of the Saudi government in the 9/11 attacks. (And by the way, if the Saudis were responsible, they would have made a very nice, very soft, easily conquerable enemy. If they were guilty, we would have had a very nice pretext to go and take them over and get rich in the process. It's not in our best interests to cover such a thing up.)

Out of the "thousands of pages" of "evidence" this is what the NY Times offers:

"Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed 'support for terrorist organizations' at least through 2006."

Like the article says, not exactly a smoking gun. If I give money to Red Cross, and Red Cross gives blankets and water to Taliban soldiers fighting against US troops, am I financing terror? If I send a care package to Iraq to US soldiers, does that mean that I think the entire US Congress made a good decision in going to war there? (After all, the Congress was almost unanimously in favor of going to war in Iraq.) If the Saudi government gives money to a charity that's supposed to provide humanitarian aid to Muslims around the world, that doesn't make the Saudis terrorists, it makes them human. Click the link above. Check out the charity's website. It's all about providing humanitarian aid. They even make their finances publicly available on their website. Does that mean it cannot possibly be a front for terror? No. Anything's possible. But Saudis donating to this organization, which obviously spends a LOT of money on humanitarian aid, does not support the article's claim at all. Yet it is presented as if it does. Where I come from, that's called a lie.

Next, the article states:

"A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself."

This is a joke. I mean, this isn't even remotely responsible journalism. I suppose by "Qaeda" they mean "Al Qaida", the notorious terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Can you imagine? I wish I were a fly on the wall for that interview...

Terrorist: Hi, I'm an Al Qaida operative in Bosnia, and I've flown all the way here to the USA in order to help you lawyers incriminate my organization's biggest sponsor, even though they want to remain anonymous.

Lawyer: As an Al Qaida operative, are you willing to give your life for the cause?

Terrorist: you betcha!

Lawyer: And you're claiming that the Saudis gave a lot of money to the cause?

Terrorist: yup. Say, can I have some more of that filet mignon?

Lawyer: Sure you can. You can have all the filet mignon you want.

It's a joke. It's ridiculous. Preposterous. If he really is a member of a global terrorist organization, why on earth is he allowing himself to be interviewed by lawyers and betraying one of the biggest contributors to the cause for which he would supposedly be willing to give his life? It makes NO sense. The guy is obviously lying. More than likely the lawyers are paying him to say what he's saying, giving him a steak dinner, etc. It's a joke.

Just when you hoped that it wouldn't get any worse because your cheeks hurt from laughing so hard at what's being touted as responsible journalism, the article proceeds to publish this piece of nonsense:

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

Honestly, when I read this all I could think of was this clip from Austin Powers:

A billion riyals? He just handed him the check? But what about all this talk of using charities as front organizations in order to hide the fact that they're sponsoring terrorism? No - this terrorist from Afghanistan, who has never told a lie in his life, has never used drugs, and isn't blood thirsty as Dracula - no, this man was privy to the most secret of meetings, the most delicate of circumstances. He was entrusted with information that could completely destroy US-Saudi relations. He must have been very important in Al Qaida. He must have been Osama Bin Ladin's right hand man! What a joke. A BILLION riyals? And he just handed him the check? Not bloody likely.

The article goes on to talk about more suspicious charitable giving on the part of the Saudi government, but honestly, I doubt anyone's still reading this post. I think I've said enough to prove that this article from the NY Times is nothing short of ridiculous.

Oh, and one more thing. There's a number of pages in the 9/11 report that reportedly speaks to Saudi finances, and the Bush administration (pure evil, as all readers of the NY Times know) chose to keep it classified, even though the Saudis themselves said they wanted it made public. Well, again, it's classified because of the source. The Saudis didn't give the US permission to obtain this information. Pretend the US has a James Bond type guy working in a Saudi bank who managed to get this information. If this information is released, then it'll be easier for the Saudis to find the US agent and...execute him...or at least send him back to the US, his career ruined, never able to work undercover again. If the Saudis themselves want it public they've got nothing to hide. It's no smoking gun.

The fact is, Saudi Arabia is probably our greatest ally in the Arab world. They EXILED Osama Bin Ladin. They kicked him out of the country. Osama Bin Ladin HATES the Saudis and is constantly plotting to remove them from power. He thinks it's deplorable that there's a secular government in control of the country that contains Mecca, the Islamic holy city. Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia are not friends. They're sworn enemies. Saudi Arabia will tell you this. Osama Bin Ladin will tell you this.

.