9/11 Victims’ Families Continue to Seek Justice

“The covert militant network with an anti-United States Mission, created, funded, directed and supported by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its affiliated organizations and diplomatic personnel within [the] United States.” – plaintiffs’ attorney, Gavin Simpson

September 11th, 2024

Nearly a quarter century since the devastating attacks against the United States of America, which occurred on September 11, 2001, the families of the victims are still awaiting justice. While the mastermind, Osama bin Laden, leader of the terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, was killed in 2009, and prior to that other co-conspirators arrested with legal battles continuing, the Saudi government, long suspected of providing funding, aid, and surreptitious support to Al Qaeda before the attacks. This was allegedly part of a deal in which the murderous terror group spared the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from attacks, focusing their attention on the West – the USA, in particular.

According to a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims and survivors, the long touted position of the US government that Al Qaeda acted alone, and had no state sponsor is a blatant lie.

The covert, militant network with an “anti-United-States mission,” plaintiff attorney Gavin Simpson said during the July 31 hearing, was “created, funded, directed and supported by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its affiliated organizations and diplomatic personnel within [the] United States.”
Indeed, a court filing in may the lawsuit brought by the families of 9/11 victims against the government of Saudi Arabia alleges that al-Qaeda had significant, indeed decisive, state support for its attacks. Officials of the Saudi government, the plaintiffs’ attorneys contend, formed and operated a network inside the United States that provided crucial assistance to the first cohort of 9/11 hijackers to enter the country.

The 71-page document, released in redacted form, summarizes what the plaintiffs say they’ve learned through the evidence obtained in discovery and recently declassified materials.

According to an article in the Atlantic Monthly published in May, the plaintiffs allege that Saudi officials—most notably Fahad al-Thumairy, an imam at a Los Angeles mosque and an accredited diplomat at Saudi Arabia’s consulate in that city, and Omar al-Bayoumi, posing as a student but identified by the FBI as a Saudi intelligence operative, were not rogue were acting on orders from the Saudi intelligence establishment in conjunction with the Saudi embassy in Washington and senior government officials in Riyadh.

“The plaintiffs argue that Thumairy and Bayoumi organized safe reception, transportation, and housing for hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, beginning upon their arrival in California on January 15, 2000. (Both Thumairy and Bayoumi have denied aiding the plot. Bayoumi, along with Saudi Arabia, has also denied that he had any involvement with its intelligence operations.) The filing further argues that Thumairy and Bayoumi introduced the pair to local sympathizers in Los Angeles and San Diego who catered to their day-to-day needs, including help with immigration matters, digital and phone communications, and receiving funds from al-Qaeda by wire transfer. Saudi officials also helped the two al-Qaeda operatives—both Saudi nationals with little education or command of English, whose experience abroad consisted mostly of training and fighting for jihadist causes—to procure a car as well as driver’s licenses. This support network was crucial.

The filing comes amidst a Saudi motion to dismiss the case, filed in the United States Southern District of New York, where the twin towers, which were destroyed in the attack, were located.
The Atlantic cited the 9/11 Commission Report, which referenced numerous contacts between Bayoumi and Thumairy, but described only “circumstantial evidence” of Thumairy as a contact for the two hijackers and stated that it didn’t know whether Bayoumi’s first encounter with the operatives occurred “by chance or design.” But the evidence assembled in the ongoing lawsuit suggests that the actions Thumairy and Bayoumi took to support the hijackers were actually deliberate, sustained, and carefully coordinated with other Saudi officials.

In addition to the documents showing financial and logistical support, the evidence includes several videotapes seized by the U.K. during raids of Bayoumi’s properties there when he was arrested in Birmingham in September 2001. One video—a more complete version of a tape reviewed by the 9/11 Commission—shows Mihdhar and Hazmi at a welcome party arranged by Bayoumi after they moved to San Diego. The full video, the filing claims, shows that the party was organized by Bayoumi and Thumairy “to introduce the hijackers to a carefully curated group of likeminded community members and religious leaders.” The U.K. police also found, according to the filing, a notepad on which Bayoumi had sketched “a drawing of a plane, alongside a calculation used to discern the distance at which a target on the ground will be visible from a certain altitude.”

The article continues:

“Another seized video contains footage of Bayoumi in Washington, D.C., where he met with Saudi religious officials posted as diplomats at the embassy and visited the U.S. Capitol. In the video, according to the filing, Bayoumi “carefully films and notes the Capitol’s structural features, entrances, and security posts,” addressing his narration to his “esteemed brothers.” The Capitol was the likely fourth target of the 9/11 attacks, the one that was spared when passengers aboard United Flight 93 wrestled with the hijackers and the plane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

If Thumairy and Bayoumi were the front end of the support network for the hijackers, their control officers in the U.S. would have been in Washington at the Saudi embassy. In the pre-9/11 years, Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs had a sizable presence in the embassy, as well as at the consulate in Los Angeles. The ministry’s representatives oversaw the many Saudi imams like Thumairy in Saudi-supported mosques in the U.S., and posted Saudi “propagators” to Muslim communities in the United States. The Islamic Affairs offices and personnel appeared to operate according to different procedures than the other units within the embassy. And the support network for the hijackers had powerful backing in the Saudi capital. The FBI found evidence that when the Saudi consul general in Los Angeles sought to fire a member of the support network, who had been storing jihadist literature at the consulate, Thumairy was able to use his influence to save his job. As the new filing also documents, there was extensive phone traffic between Thumairy, Bayoumi, and the embassy during crucial moments when the hijackers needed and received support.”

It’s a frustrating process for the victims. Terry Strada, the national chair of 9/11 Families United, a coalition of victims’ families and survivors pursuing transparency, told CNN that “Never Forget” is a constant reminder to push for the truth about the tragedy that led to the death of her husband and nearly 3,000 others so the country is safer for her grandkids’ generation.

“It’s not just one time a year to remember those that were lost or murdered that day. It’s a pledge to ensure that the truth is told,” Strada told CNN. “There’s just so much more to it than just never forget them. It’s never forget what happened so we can prevent it from happening again.”
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which led to the deaths of nearly 3,000 people and caused immense global upheaval, continue to cast a long shadow over international relations. Central to the ongoing debate and litigation surrounding these attacks is the question of Saudi Arabia’s involvement or complicity. Legal battles have persisted for years, fueled by allegations that elements within the Saudi government or its affiliates may have had a role in facilitating the attacks. This article explores the intricacies of the case against Saudi Arabia, the legal and diplomatic ramifications, and the broader implications for U.S.-Saudi relations.

Terry Strada (C), who lost her husband Tom Strada, stands with others who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks listens during a press conference about the September 11th Transparency Act on Capitol Hill August 5, 2021, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP)

The allegations against Saudi Arabia primarily are not new but weren’t adequately investigated in th wake of the tragedy.  The 9/11 Commission Report, published in 2004, found no conclusive evidence that the Saudi government or senior officials knowingly supported al-Qaeda. However, it did note that the group received support from individuals with connections to Saudi Arabia.

The controversy has been further fueled by the release of previously classified documents and lawsuits filed by victims’ families and other plaintiffs. These documents have highlighted potential links between Saudi nationals and the hijackers, leading to renewed calls for accountability.

In recent years, the legal landscape regarding the September 11 attacks and Saudi Arabia has been marked by several significant developments:

1. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA): Passed in 2016, JASTA allows victims of terrorism to sue foreign governments in U.S. courts if they are found to have supported the terrorists. This legislation provided a new avenue for legal action against Saudi Arabia, which had previously enjoyed immunity from such lawsuits.
2. Lawsuits and Court Cases: Victims’ families and other plaintiffs have filed numerous lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, arguing that the country should be held liable for the attacks. These lawsuits have faced numerous legal hurdles, including questions of evidence and jurisdiction. While some cases have been dismissed, others are ongoing and continue to attract significant attention.
3. Release of Classified Documents: Over the years, various documents related to the 9/11 investigations have been declassified and made public. These documents have been scrutinized for any evidence of Saudi involvement, though they have often provided ambiguous or inconclusive findings.
4. Saudi Arabia’s Denials and Diplomatic Repercussions: The Saudi government has consistently denied any involvement in the attacks and has expressed frustration with the legal actions taken against it. Diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have occasionally flared as a result of these allegations, impacting broader bilateral relations.

The case against Saudi Arabia has faced several challenges:

1. Burden of Proof: Plaintiffs must demonstrate a direct link between Saudi Arabia and the September 11 attacks, a task complicated by the difficulty of establishing concrete connections between state actors and terrorist operatives.
2. Political and Diplomatic Considerations: The legal case against Saudi Arabia intersects with broader geopolitical considerations. The U.S.-Saudi relationship is complex, involving extensive economic, military, and strategic ties. Legal actions and diplomatic disputes can have far-reaching consequences for both nations.
3. Evidence and Transparency: The nature of classified information and intelligence reports has made it challenging to present clear evidence in court. While some documents have been released, others remain classified, leading to accusations of selective transparency and undermining trust in the legal process.

The ongoing legal and diplomatic struggle surrounding Saudi Arabia and the September 11 attacks reflects broader themes of justice, accountability, and international relations. As legal proceedings continue, the case may have significant implications for U.S.-Saudi relations and for how nations address issues of terrorism and state sponsorship.
Looking ahead, the resolution of the case against Saudi Arabia will likely involve a combination of legal, diplomatic, and political factors. The quest for justice for the victims of September 11 remains a poignant and contentious issue, with potential impacts on global diplomacy and international legal standards.

The September 11 case against Saudi Arabia is a complex and evolving matter that intertwines legal, diplomatic, and political dimensions. As the legal battles continue and new evidence emerges, the quest for accountability and justice for the victims of the attacks remains a significant and sensitive issue. The outcome of this case will likely shape the future of U.S.-Saudi relations and provide important precedents for how nations address the sponsorship of terrorism and the pursuit of justice on the international stage.