SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
28 Pages Raise 'Scores of Troubling Questions' on US-Saudi Ties
Just-released documents 'point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia,' but White House says its assessment has not changed
Jul 16, 2016
The just-released 28 pages of a 2002 congressional report into Saudi Arabia's possible ties to the 9/11 hijackers have stirred speculation about the U.S. government's continued relationship with the Gulf kingdom.
Amnesty International criticized the White House's statement that the pages, hidden from public view for 13 years, have not changed the government's assessment that "there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda."
"We stand with survivors of this crime against humanity: They deserve justice and the whole truth," the human rights group tweeted.
As Murtaza Hussein wrote for The Intercept, the 28 pages "redacted in parts, detail circumstantial evidence of ties among Saudi government officials, intelligence agents, and several of the hijackers," including by providing financial and housing assistance to those living in the U.S.
The report also offers new information about the connections between alleged 9/11 masterminds and members of the Saudi royal family, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former ambassador to the U.S. and close friend of the Bush family. The report details money transfers of at least $15,000 from Bandar's bank account in Washington to a suspected Saudi government spy, as well as phone logs between Bandar and suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who led the charge to publish the documents, said the findings "point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia," and Congressman Rick Nolan, who also pushed for the pages to be released, said they "confirm that much of the rhetoric preceding the U.S. attack on Iraq was terribly wrong."
Among the new revelations is the fact that Saudi officials apparently refused to cooperate with U.S. investigators seeking information about the attack.
Hussein wrote:
As the report notes, "In testimony and interviews, a number of FBI agents and CIA officers complained to the [inquiry] about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11th attacks."
Referencing a May 1996 Director of Central Intelligence memo, the report cited agency beliefs that "the Saudis had stopped providing background information or other assistance on Bin Ladin because Bin Ladin had 'too much information about official Saudi dealings with Islamic extremists in the 1980s for Riyadh to deliver him into U.S. hands.'"
The Guardian's Philip Shenon added:
Although much of the evidence in the report is described as preliminary and was later discounted or dismissed by the independent 9/11 commission, the congressional report will raise new concern that U.S. officials, determined to preserve Washington's diplomatic and financial ties to the Saudi Arabia, attempted to cover up evidence that might have implicated the Saudis.
And national security expert Marcy Wheeler noted:
One really damning detail that I didn't know, however...is that it wasn't until the Joint Inquiry focused on the Saudis that FBI established task force to look into Saudi Arabia's role in the attack.
That means over a year elapsed before the FBI really started investigating this angle. It goes on to reveal FBI was not focusing any counterintelligence resources on Saudis before 9/11, because "FBI received 'no reporting from any member of the Intelligence Community' that there was a [redacted] presence in the United States." A very heavily redacted passage implies that's because they were an "ally" [scare quotes original].
Saudi Arabia seemed to welcome the documents' release.
"We hope the release of these pages will clear up, once and for all, any lingering questions or suspicions about Saudi Arabia's actions, intentions, or long-term friendship with the United States," Ambassador to the U.S. Abdullah al-Saud said on Friday.
But the advocacy group 28pages.org, which demanded the release of the documents for years, wrote on Twitter that the "fight for transparency isn't over: The 28 pages prompt scores of troubling questions and the people of the world deserve answers."
The group later added:
John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission, said the 28 pages show it's "time for a complete reappraisal of our relationship with the Saudis."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The just-released 28 pages of a 2002 congressional report into Saudi Arabia's possible ties to the 9/11 hijackers have stirred speculation about the U.S. government's continued relationship with the Gulf kingdom.
Amnesty International criticized the White House's statement that the pages, hidden from public view for 13 years, have not changed the government's assessment that "there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda."
"We stand with survivors of this crime against humanity: They deserve justice and the whole truth," the human rights group tweeted.
As Murtaza Hussein wrote for The Intercept, the 28 pages "redacted in parts, detail circumstantial evidence of ties among Saudi government officials, intelligence agents, and several of the hijackers," including by providing financial and housing assistance to those living in the U.S.
The report also offers new information about the connections between alleged 9/11 masterminds and members of the Saudi royal family, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former ambassador to the U.S. and close friend of the Bush family. The report details money transfers of at least $15,000 from Bandar's bank account in Washington to a suspected Saudi government spy, as well as phone logs between Bandar and suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who led the charge to publish the documents, said the findings "point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia," and Congressman Rick Nolan, who also pushed for the pages to be released, said they "confirm that much of the rhetoric preceding the U.S. attack on Iraq was terribly wrong."
Among the new revelations is the fact that Saudi officials apparently refused to cooperate with U.S. investigators seeking information about the attack.
Hussein wrote:
As the report notes, "In testimony and interviews, a number of FBI agents and CIA officers complained to the [inquiry] about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11th attacks."
Referencing a May 1996 Director of Central Intelligence memo, the report cited agency beliefs that "the Saudis had stopped providing background information or other assistance on Bin Ladin because Bin Ladin had 'too much information about official Saudi dealings with Islamic extremists in the 1980s for Riyadh to deliver him into U.S. hands.'"
The Guardian's Philip Shenon added:
Although much of the evidence in the report is described as preliminary and was later discounted or dismissed by the independent 9/11 commission, the congressional report will raise new concern that U.S. officials, determined to preserve Washington's diplomatic and financial ties to the Saudi Arabia, attempted to cover up evidence that might have implicated the Saudis.
And national security expert Marcy Wheeler noted:
One really damning detail that I didn't know, however...is that it wasn't until the Joint Inquiry focused on the Saudis that FBI established task force to look into Saudi Arabia's role in the attack.
That means over a year elapsed before the FBI really started investigating this angle. It goes on to reveal FBI was not focusing any counterintelligence resources on Saudis before 9/11, because "FBI received 'no reporting from any member of the Intelligence Community' that there was a [redacted] presence in the United States." A very heavily redacted passage implies that's because they were an "ally" [scare quotes original].
Saudi Arabia seemed to welcome the documents' release.
"We hope the release of these pages will clear up, once and for all, any lingering questions or suspicions about Saudi Arabia's actions, intentions, or long-term friendship with the United States," Ambassador to the U.S. Abdullah al-Saud said on Friday.
But the advocacy group 28pages.org, which demanded the release of the documents for years, wrote on Twitter that the "fight for transparency isn't over: The 28 pages prompt scores of troubling questions and the people of the world deserve answers."
The group later added:
John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission, said the 28 pages show it's "time for a complete reappraisal of our relationship with the Saudis."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
The just-released 28 pages of a 2002 congressional report into Saudi Arabia's possible ties to the 9/11 hijackers have stirred speculation about the U.S. government's continued relationship with the Gulf kingdom.
Amnesty International criticized the White House's statement that the pages, hidden from public view for 13 years, have not changed the government's assessment that "there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda."
"We stand with survivors of this crime against humanity: They deserve justice and the whole truth," the human rights group tweeted.
As Murtaza Hussein wrote for The Intercept, the 28 pages "redacted in parts, detail circumstantial evidence of ties among Saudi government officials, intelligence agents, and several of the hijackers," including by providing financial and housing assistance to those living in the U.S.
The report also offers new information about the connections between alleged 9/11 masterminds and members of the Saudi royal family, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan, a former ambassador to the U.S. and close friend of the Bush family. The report details money transfers of at least $15,000 from Bandar's bank account in Washington to a suspected Saudi government spy, as well as phone logs between Bandar and suspected al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.
Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who led the charge to publish the documents, said the findings "point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia," and Congressman Rick Nolan, who also pushed for the pages to be released, said they "confirm that much of the rhetoric preceding the U.S. attack on Iraq was terribly wrong."
Among the new revelations is the fact that Saudi officials apparently refused to cooperate with U.S. investigators seeking information about the attack.
Hussein wrote:
As the report notes, "In testimony and interviews, a number of FBI agents and CIA officers complained to the [inquiry] about a lack of Saudi cooperation in terrorism investigations both before and after the September 11th attacks."
Referencing a May 1996 Director of Central Intelligence memo, the report cited agency beliefs that "the Saudis had stopped providing background information or other assistance on Bin Ladin because Bin Ladin had 'too much information about official Saudi dealings with Islamic extremists in the 1980s for Riyadh to deliver him into U.S. hands.'"
The Guardian's Philip Shenon added:
Although much of the evidence in the report is described as preliminary and was later discounted or dismissed by the independent 9/11 commission, the congressional report will raise new concern that U.S. officials, determined to preserve Washington's diplomatic and financial ties to the Saudi Arabia, attempted to cover up evidence that might have implicated the Saudis.
And national security expert Marcy Wheeler noted:
One really damning detail that I didn't know, however...is that it wasn't until the Joint Inquiry focused on the Saudis that FBI established task force to look into Saudi Arabia's role in the attack.
That means over a year elapsed before the FBI really started investigating this angle. It goes on to reveal FBI was not focusing any counterintelligence resources on Saudis before 9/11, because "FBI received 'no reporting from any member of the Intelligence Community' that there was a [redacted] presence in the United States." A very heavily redacted passage implies that's because they were an "ally" [scare quotes original].
Saudi Arabia seemed to welcome the documents' release.
"We hope the release of these pages will clear up, once and for all, any lingering questions or suspicions about Saudi Arabia's actions, intentions, or long-term friendship with the United States," Ambassador to the U.S. Abdullah al-Saud said on Friday.
But the advocacy group 28pages.org, which demanded the release of the documents for years, wrote on Twitter that the "fight for transparency isn't over: The 28 pages prompt scores of troubling questions and the people of the world deserve answers."
The group later added:
John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission, said the 28 pages show it's "time for a complete reappraisal of our relationship with the Saudis."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.