Eric Lichtblau's story in yesterday's New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/..., was eclipsed by Sanfordrama.
It describes documents showing extensive financial support for Al Qaeda by members of the Saudi royal family.
The U.S. has been prosecuting Muslim charities with extremely tenuous connections to terrorism. So, why, when there is an obvious "material support of terrorism" (made super-criminal by the Patriot Act) is our government so bent on hiding documents?
There's a rapidly-vaporizing, longstanding lawsuit brought by 9/11 families and their insurers against Saudi Arabia and its royal family for financing Al Qaeda. Classified U.S. intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. Four of the documents can be seen here: http://documents.nytimes.com/...
I'm not surprised by the revelation that the Saudis have links to exrtremist groups (something that has been strenuously denied since 9/11). But I am surprised that the Holder Justice Department had the lawyers' copies destroyed and is now trying to prevent even the judge from seeing them. In addition, the Department of Justice sided with the Saudis in their immunity claim and asked the Supreme Court to deny certiorari (not consider the case).
The Justice Department enjoys sovereign immunity, and has not waived that immunity with respect to common law tort claims. However, it is unclear why the Department is claiming that a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protects the Saudis from liability. The real issue seems to be that
potentially significant foreign relations consequences
would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed. But that is not a legal defense.
And what about the potentially significant consequences to the 7,630 plaintiffs in the lawsuit? They are losing not just a legal action, but the chance to hold accountable those who provided "material support for terrorism"--laws that the Patriot Act expanded significantly. Section 805 of the Patriot Act expanded the already-overbroad definition of "material support and resources" to include "expert advice or assistance," and section 810 increased penalties for violations of the statute. In 2006, Congress made permanent the material support provisions, thanks to the Patriot Act reauthorization, which make it difficult for U.S. charities providing humanitarian aid work to operate the parts of the world where they are needed most.
Moreover, these material support laws have been applied disproportionately (and often ridiculously) to Muslim charities in the U.S. in ways that undermine American Muslims' protected constitutional liberties. (See, e.g., Wanda Guthrie, a volunteer with the Thomas Merton Center for Peace & Justice, an organization founded in 1972 to bring people from diverse philosophies and faiths together to work, through nonviolent efforts, for a more just and peaceful world, which was monitored by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. . .)