Executive Intelligence Review

May 25, 2016 (EIRNS)--Tuesday's House Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing on Saudi involvement in international terrorism had some extraordinary moments that demonstrated that at least some Members of Congress have been listening to LaRouche's exposes of the British ownership of the Saudi Monarchy and regime.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Cal.), a strong advocate for the release of the 28 pages, responded to a question about whether the United States could get the Saudis to stop sponsoring jihadist terrorism, by making the point that the Saudis listen to the British, and never defy British demands.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher openly stated that the Saudis ``had to have'' known in advance about the looming 9/11 attacks. He reported that he had had sources close to the Taliban leaders inside Pakistan telling him four months before Sept. 11, 2001, that a big attack against the United States was coming, then asked whether anyone believed for a moment that the Saudi Royal Family did not know in advance of the 9/11 attacks. He said that the Saudis are directly financing terrorism; that the intent was not just to kill 3,000 people, but to kill 50,000-100,000 people. He reminded the attendees of the Boston Marathon bombing and San Bernardino attack as but two incidents in this pattern. Rohrabacher actually asked the four witnesses to raise their hands if they believed the Saudi Royals knew in advance about the planned 9/11 attacks, and two of them, including former Rep. Tim Roemer, a member of the 9/11 Commission, raised their hands in agreement.

This week, five additional Members of Congress signed on to H. Res. 14, demanding the release of the 28 pagers: Ryan Zinke (R--Mt.), Peter DeFazio (D-Or.), Ileana Ross-Lehtinen (R-Fl.), David Cicilline (D-RI), and Al Green (D-TX).

The Saudis are plainly hysterical over the momentum that has been built around both the JASTA bill and especially the juggernaut for release of the 28 pages and all of the remaining classified material from the two official investigations.

Not only have the Saudis been circulating a 104-page dossier, {The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Counterterrorism}, claiming that Saudi Arabia is in the lead of the fight against ISIS, Al Qaeda, and all of the jihadist groups, and is America's number-one partner in the Global War on Terrorism. The Saudis have one of their big PR firms circulating a 38-page white paper, claiming to refute the evidence of their role in 9/11. It is a pathetic, sophistic cut-and-paste of all of the statements from the earlier court rulings, and highly selective fallacy-of-composition quotes from the 9/11 Commission findings, and quotes from people like John Brennan, and turncoats Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean. The lobbying firm that produced and is circulating the document is Qorvis MSLGroup.

Qorvis has been on the Saudi pad since the original Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The firm was hired at a fee of $200,000 a month to repair the Saudi reputation in Washington, after 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were revealed to have been Saudi nationals. They have been retained ever since, at higher pay. In December 2002, Philip Shenon, who would later author a devastating expose of the role of Philip Zelikow as the Bush Administration mole assigned to sabotage the work of the 9/11 Commission in his book {The Commission}, wrote in the {New York Times} that three executives of Qorvis had resigned, largely in protest over the firm's work for the Saudis, covering up evidence of the Kingdom's role in promoting and financing jihadist terrorism. Qorvis also is the official registered agent of Bahrain, a virtual colony of Saudi Arabia. As the probes into 9/11 got closer to the role of the Kingdom and leading princes and government officials, Qorvis hired Matt Lauer to handle the Saudi account. Lauer headed the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy at the State Department before joining Qorvis.

Watch hearing here:

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-hearing-the-U.S.-Saudi-Arabia-Counterterrorism-Relationship

NEW YORK POST

Opinion

The Truth About the 9/11 Victims' Bill
By Terry Strada, Curtis F. Brewer, Jim Kreindler, Sean Carter and Bob Haefele May 25, 2016 | 8:43pm

We are the family members of 9/11 victims, alongside the legal counsel for thousands of others 9/11 families. We write to address numerous mischaracterizations and omissions in Paul Sperry's fairytale column from Wednesday's Post as it relates to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which ran under the sensational and inaccurate title "Schumer Upends Saudi 9/11 Suit Bill at 11th Hour."

This column was completely unfair to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a terrible misrepresentation of what the senator and all of us are fighting for. To be clear:

--The stay provision included in JASTA does not de-fang the bill.

--The stay provision was not offered by Sen. Schumer, but rather by Republican members who had raised objections to the bill.

In fact, Sen. Schumer has been the steadfast champion of JASTA since he initially introduced the bill nearly seven years ago, and he has fought since that time to ensure that victims of terrorist attacks on US soil, including the 9/11 families and victims, have access to our courts to hold all sponsors of terrorism accountable, including foreign governments.

The bill passed by the Senate last week - because of Sen. Schumer's work - will do just that, and its unanimous passage by the Senate last week is a confirmation of the heroic efforts of its sponsors.

JASTA's so-called "stay" provision is in no way a "loophole." It gives courts the discretion to stay suits brought under JASTA, but only if the Executive Branch certifies and provides substantial evidence that it is engaged in good-faith negotiations with the foreign state defendant about a fair resolution of the disputes, and was approved by us as representatives of the 9/11 families

It can operate to stay a case only for as long as the Executive Branch is actively and productively engaged in working to fairly resolve the dispute, and simply could not be employed to effect an indefinite stay.

As we explained to Mr. Sperry in writing in response to an inquiry, the authority of the president to resolve disputes involving foreign governments already exists under our Constitution.

We also advised Mr. Sperry in writing that the State Department was advocating vigorously for the inclusion of a draconian and foolish "waiver" provision that would allow the Executive Branch to unilaterally waive the applicability of JASTA in a particular case.

Sen. Schumer and Republican Sen. John Cornyn, along with other Senate sponsors properly saw that idea as entirely unacceptable and bad policy.

As for the circumstances under which the stay provision came to be included in the bill, as we attempted to explain, it was not "slipped in at the last minute" but rather the product of careful negotiations over several months specifically to resolve objections raised initially by Republican members and not Chuck Schumer.

We were kept informed of those negotiations throughout and fully endorsed the inclusion of the stay provision to resolve the asserted objections and as good policy. Had Senators Schumer and Cornyn not resolved those objections, JASTA might have died in the Senate.

Finally, Mr. Sperry is wrong in suggesting that the 9/11 families feel betrayed.

To the contrary, Sen. Schumer's work in passing JASTA has finally brought the families one step closer to the justice they have been seeking for the last 15 years.

To boot, the senator achieved all this without the White House's support - a feat proving just how deeply he cares about this issue, our families, and his duty as New York's senator.

This statement was written by 9/11 families and their counsel, including: Terry Strada, widow of Tom Strada, who died in the World Trade Center's North Tower, Curtis F. Brewer, widower of Carol Demitz, who was killed in the South Tower, Jim Kreindler, counsel; Sean Carter, counsel; and Bob Haefele, counsel.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/25/the-truth-about-the-911-victims-bill/

-###-

Executive Intelligence Review