Saudi Arabia and 9-11 ( Leaked 28 pages?)

 Saudi Arabia and 9-11 ( Leaked 28 pages?) 

(1)>>The still-censored “28 pages” implicating the Saudi government in 9/11, “60 Minutes” last weekend said the Saudi role in the attacks has been “soft-pedaled” to protect America’s delicate alliance with the oil-rich kingdom.When the president leaves for a trip to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday an unresolved issue will go with him: did the Saudis play some role in supporting the hijackers responsible for the attacks on September 11th? My first "reaction" is are you kidding ? (1.2)>>Was this  ever "classified" as " TOP SECRET" ? . Hell no  I remember the Micheal Moore film called  (1.2b) Fahrenheit 9/11  Moore implicated the White House  ( George D Bush ) in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being interviewed at length by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Laden's family  out of the U.S. after September 13." Moore based this statement on the research of Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud, whom he interviewed for the film. Passenger lists were found in the Bush web site back then . We should have already guessed that The Saudi kingdom’s involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government. And the cover up goes beyond locking up 28 pages of the Saudi report in a vault in the US Capitol basement. Saudi Arabia has reportedly told the Obama administration and congressional leaders that it will sell billions of dollars in U.S. financial assets if Congress passes a bill to make the Saudi government legally responsible for any role in the 9/11 attacks.Congress pass a bill that could hold the kingdom responsible for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the New York Times reported on Friday.The  Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir told U.S. lawmakers last month that (1.3)>>"Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in Treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts."The bill, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year, would take away immunity from foreign governments in cases "arising from a terrorist attack that kills an American on American soil." Last year a U.S. judge on dismissed claims against Saudi Arabia by families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, who accused the country of providing material support to al Qaeda. U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said Saudi Arabia had sovereign immunity from damage claims by families of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the attacks, and from insurers that covered losses suffered by building owners and businesses.“The allegations in the complaint alone do not provide this court with a basis to assert jurisdiction over defendants,” Daniels wrote.The victims had sought to supplement their case with new allegations to avoid that result, including based on testimony they secured from Zacarias Moussaoui, a former al Qaeda operative imprisoned for his role in the attacks.

What's in the missing pages? LEAKED.

In 2004, the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence produced an 838 page report outlining the events leading up to the September 11, 2001, attacks.But one giant piece of the puzzle was missing — the final chapter — which was blanked out by the Bush administration for reasons of “national security”.Known to contain vital information pertaining to the attacks, both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have refused to unseal the documents, claiming its release would jeopardise national security. In later years, the FBI would also refuse to unseal the pages.Those sources say the pages missing from the 9/11 congressional inquiry report — which comprise the entire final chapter dealing with “foreign support for the September 11 hijackers” — details “incontrovertible evidence” gathered from both CIA and FBI case files of official Saudi assistance for at least two of the Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego.Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego. It all signals that the (2)>>decades-long bipartisan policy of always keeping the Saudis happy, and never rocking the boat, may be coming to an end. In Sarasota, Florida, a federal judge is reviewing 80,000 pages of documents that relate to a prominent Saudi family and its extensive contacts with three of the hijackers when they attended flight school in Sarasota. The " family"  ( Saudi and Laden ) abruptly left the U.S. for Saudi Arabia a few days before the attacks, leaving dinner on the table and a brand new car in the driveway “as though they’d been tipped something was going to happen, and they’d better not be in the country,” said Graham. One member of the family is described as a high-level adviser to the Saudi royal family. The FBI initially rebuffed a Freedom of Information request about the case, Graham said, prompting him to observe that the “pervasive pattern of covering up” the Saudi role in 9/11 extends to all U.S. institutions.  The New York Post had this to add to the "Leak" :

Some information has leaked from the redacted section, including a flurry of pre-9/11 phone calls between one of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego and the Saudi Embassy, and the transfer of some $130,000 from then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar’s family checking account to yet another of the hijackers’ Saudi handlers in San Diego. An investigator who worked with the JTTF in Washington complained that instead of investigating Bandar, the US government protected him — literally. He said the State Department assigned a security detail to help guard Bandar not only at the embassy, but also at his McLean, Va., mansion.The source added that the task force wanted to jail a number of embassy employees, “but the embassy complained to the US attorney” and their diplomatic visas were revoked as a compromise.Former FBI agent John Guandolo, who worked 9/11 and related al Qaeda cases out of the bureau’s Washington field office, says Bandar should have been a key suspect in the 9/11 probe.“The Saudi ambassador funded two of the 9/11 hijackers through a third party,” Guandolo said. “He should be treated as a terrorist suspect, as should other members of the Saudi elite class who the US government knows are currently funding the global jihad.”But Bandar held sway over the FBI.

However in 2009 WiKi Leaks "obtained" a document is still available about terror financing and accusing  Saudi Arabia  of funding terrorism using "charities"  . The Cable was wired as TERRORIST FINANCE: ACTION REQUEST FOR SENIOR LEVEL ENGAGEMENT ON TERRORISM FINANCE. (source: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09STATE131801_a.html ) 

(1) aggressive action to identify, disrupt and deter terrorist donors, fundraisers and facilitators; (2) appropriate legal measures, including effective prosecution, to hold terrorist financiers and facilitators publicly accountable and to send a strong message of deterrence to current and would-be donors that their actions face significant legal and social repercussions.

The Political Response. 
 Defending his attention-grabbing assertions that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was an enormous mistake facilitated by the George W. Bush administration’s misleading of the American people, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. indirectly referred to 28 classified pages ( see above WiKi Leaks URL ) said to link the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the 9/11 attacks.“It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. We went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran’s taking over…but it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out,” Trump said at a Wednesday campaign event in Bluffton, South Carolina. On the eve of New York’s crucial primary, another prominent Democrat broke ranks with President Obama over a bill to allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia.Mayor de Blasio said Monday that he stands with Sen. Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, who have blasted Obama for trying to scuttle the legislation. Obama told CBS News that we can't allow bipartisan legislation subjecting the Saudis to potential liability for terrorism ... or else other countries could retaliate against the US. Why would the U.S. be worried about retaliation by other countries ... being held accountable for terrorism? Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should get behind 9/11 families and tell Saudi Arabia that if they follow through with their threats, the U.S. will suspend foreign aid and inflict other financial hardship on them

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>The still-censored “28 pages”. In response to heightened media attention to the 28 pages in September 2014, the White House said the president, earlier that summer, tasked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper with conducting an intelligence community review of the 28 pages for potential declassification.Inexplicably, and with essentially no follow-up by national media to date, that review of just 28 pages has already taken far longer than the entire, unprecedented congressional inquiry that produced them. As we reported here last summer, in just six months the 2002 inquiry. The high-profile 60 Minutes segment—which is positioned for high viewership as it follows coverage of the Masters Tournament—comes at a particularly sensitive time for the White House, as the president will visit Saudi Arabia on April 21. 9/11 family members say that, in 2009 and 2011, Obama assured them he would declassify the 28 pages, yet that promise has gone unfulfilled. (1.2)>>Was this  ever "classified" . The question is being raised in the wake of a renewed push to declassify 28 pages of a 838-page congressional report on the worst terror attack on American soil.The so-called "28 pages" are locked away in a secure basement room at the Capitol and although they can be read by members of Congress, the pages remain classified.  (2)>>decades-long bipartisan policy .  Sen . Graham. He's been agitating to release this material since the moment it was classified. Now, though, Senator Chuck Schumer is behind a bill to release what's contained in the 28 papers to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit brought by 9/11 survivors against the Saudi government. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders are supporting Schumer's bill. The White House is opposed to it, alas, and has resorted to some enthusiastic tap-dancing on the topic. (1.3)>>"Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in Treasury securities .  I say let them , who cares , Families who lost loved ones in the terror attacks say President Obama, who is lobbying intensively to derail the bill, according to The New York Times, is on the wrong side of the issue.  (1.2b) Fahrenheit 9/11. In his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore explored the complex ties between Bush administration officials and associates, the Saudi Royal family, and those believed to have carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Form 2013, the New York Post, a property owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch, published an investigative report alleging the involvement of Saudi Arabian government officials in the 9/11 terrorist attacks titled “Inside the 9/11 Coverup.”The thesis of the piece is that the 9/11 hijackers were not only mostly from Saudi Arabia but had received financial and operational support from Saudi government officials and that after the attacks the Saudi government used its political connections in the Bush White House to coverup their involvement.It should if you saw the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 which was endlessly maligned in conservative media outlets, particularly those owned by Rupert Murdoch such as Fox News and the NY Post. But now it seems, almost ten years after ripping the film and calling the filmmaker a conspiracy theorist, the conservative Murdoch media machine is conceding the argument.