James Baker's firm represented Saudi Princes sued by 911 families: doesn't

[DesEtoiles]

this create a conflict-of-interest for him regarding the Iraq Study Group?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/17/saudis.lawsuit/index.html

Saudi princes seek immunity against 9/11 lawsuits

Victims' families say they knew donations went to al Qaeda

Friday, October 17, 2003 Posted: 8:56 PM EDT (0056 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Lawyers representing two Saudi princes argued Friday that their clients have immunity from lawsuits relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, because they are diplomatic officials.
...

The $1 trillion lawsuit says members of the Saudi royal family paid protection money to Osama bin Laden's group to keep it from carrying out terror attacks in Saudi Arabia.

...

The 15-count suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by more than 900 family members, plus some firefighters and rescue workers.

...

Bill Jeffriss, representing Prince Sultan, said that the contributions made to Islamic charities that may have funneled money to bin Laden amount to "an exercise by a foreign official of discretion to decide which international Islamic charity and what relief operations by Islamic organizations the country's going to support."

...


------------------------------------------------------------

FAHRENHEIT 9/11: More than 500 relatives of 9/11 victims filed suit Saudi Royals and others. The lawyers the Saudi Defense Minister hired to fight these 9/11 families was the law firm of Bush family confidant James A. Baker.

“James Baker, whom Bush recently sent abroad seeking help to reduce Iraq's debt, is still a senior counselor for the Carlyle Group, and Baker's Houston-based law firm, Baker Botts, is representing the Saudi defense minister in Motley’s case.” New York Times, “A Nation Unto Itself,” March 14, 2004

[DesEtoiles]

1. More

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067906/

A Legal Counterattack
Saudis hire some of the toniest U.S. law firms to defend them against the landmark $1 trillion lawsuit on behalf of the victims of 9-11. So why is the plaintiff’s counsel ecstatic? Plus, new heat on radical imam

Newsweek Web Exclusive

April 16 - After months of working below the radar, a huge U.S. legal team hired by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has sprung into action and begun a major counteroffensive against a landmark lawsuit seeking $1 trillion in damages on behalf of the victims of the September 11 terror attacks.

...

But in laying out their arguments, Sultan’s U.S. lawyers also presented highly detailed new evidence of the Saudi government’s role in funneling millions of dollars to a web of Islamic charities that are widely suspected by U.S. officials of covertly financing the operations of Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups.

...
But lawyers for the families of 9-11 victims sounded positively ecstatic over the filing. In their view, Sultan’s high-priced legal team had handed them powerful ammunition to argue that the Saudi defense minister, at a minimum, has turned a blind eye to a mountain of evidence that international terrorists had penetrated charities like the IIRO and subverted them for their own purposes.

...


...
Baker Botts, Sultan’s law firm, for example, still boasts former secretary of State James Baker as one of its senior partners. Its recent alumni include Robert Jordan, the former personal lawyer for President Bush who is now U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

,,,

But legal sources say some high-priced firms and their senior partners have been wary of the Saudi overtures—despite offers of retainers that, in some cases, have ranged as high as $5 million. One former Clinton administration official at a big law firm said he was personally approached to represent a high-ranking Saudi prince in the case but turned it down. “I kept asking myself, ‘do I want to be representing the Saudis against the 9-11 families—especially after all the trouble we had getting cooperation from the Saudis on terrorism’,” the official said. “I finally just said no.”

[DesEtoiles]

5. Case still pending

http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/000737.php

$1 trillion 9/11 case against Saudis is languishing
June 25, 2006

Terence J. Kivlan, Staten Island Advance

Write an email about this article
View the source for this article (may require registration or a fee).
Fair Use

WASHINGTON --

...
Their attorneys now estimate that it could be another several years before the lawsuit goes to trial.

...
The biggest court setback for the 9/11 suit came in January 2005 when Manhattan U.S. District Court Judge Richard Casey dismissed as defendants three key Saudi royal family members -- Prince Mohammed Al-Faisel Al-Saud, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, and Prince Turki Al Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and current ambassador to Great Britain.

...


...Still, some of the plaintiffs are growing increasingly frustrated at the slow progress of the case, and blame it on the U.S. government's refusal to release relevant information, such as a 28-page discussion on foreign involvement in 9/11 included in the congressional intelligence committee's 2003 report on the 2001 terrorist hijackings.

The section of the report, which is believed to lay out evidence of possible Saudi financial aid to al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorist group, was classified and blacked out at the insistence of the Bush administration. White House officials said its release would compromise ongoing investigations.

..."Why not release the 28 pages and let the public decide," said Doyle.
...

Michael Cinelli, a Houston spokesman for Baker and Botts, the firm representing Prince Sultan and several other defendants, declined to comment on the lawsuit except to agree that "it will take years to resolve."

[DesEtoiles]

8. more detail: US official admits Saudi Ambassador had ties to al qaeda

August 21, 2005: Saudis Pick New Ambassador with Controversial Past

Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the US since 1983, steps down and is replaced by Prince Turki al-Faisal. It is said that Prince Bandar had been suffering health problems and is not close to the new Saudi King Abdullah (see August 1, 2005). Prince Turki was Saudi intelligence minister from the late 1970s until about one week before 9/11 (see August 31, 2001). Then he served three years as Saudi ambassador to Britain. Prince Turki has had a controversial past. He was considered a mentor to bin Laden, and encouraged him to represent Saudi Arabia in the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union. There are allegations that Prince Turki took part in a series of secret meetings between bin Laden and the Saudis over a period of many years (see Summer 1991; May 1996; Spring 1998; June 1998; July 1998; July 4-14, 2001). There are also allegations that he went falcon hunting in Afghanistan with bin Laden during much of the 1990s (see 1995-2001). In the wake of his appointment as ambassador, US officials try to downplay his past. One unnamed US official says, “Yes, he knew members of al-Qaeda. Yes, he talked to the Taliban. At times he delivered messages to us and from us regarding Osama bin Laden and others. Yes, he had links that in this day and age would be considered problematic, but at the time we used those links.” The official adds that Prince Turki seems to have “gotten out of that business” since 2001 and “he understands that times have changed.” He was sued in 2002 by a group of 9/11 victims’ relatives for allegedly supporting al-Qaeda, but his name was dropped from the suit because of diplomatic immunity (see August 15, 2002).
Entity Tags: Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, Bandar bin Sultan, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a081502saudisuit

[autorank]

2. NormaR, a thing of beauty. K&R

Of course it's a conflict of interest. You really nailed it. What a bad move this is and
how insensitive they are to not only the famliies, the entire nation.

These arrogant folks are on their last legs.

Lets see if Corporate Media picks this one up.

[Mythsaje]

4. The corporate media is so firmly in bed with this administration

they couldn't pick up anything.

"Up the Media."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2739623&mesg_id=2739623

[Vexatious Ape]

3. Wouldn't it be nice if the media that the Right wing blowhards

call "liberal" actually where liberal? If the media really was on our side they would be all over the fact that James Baker--the Bush family crony-- took the side of the Saudi's, against the 911 family's. They'd be covering that story like was the OJ trial.

[DesEtoiles]

6. yes, this has barely seen the light of day

[DesEtoiles]

7. Does Baker obtain info from gov't stints that pertains to this existing lawsuit?

Has he been "firewalled" from the existing case? Do you think that Baker is providing zero input to support such a high-profile client of the firm - a client that chose Baker Botts because of Baker?