The Federal Southern District Court of New York: Iran shares responsibility for the 9/11 attacks
 |
| Southern District Court of New York |
The Federal
Southern District Court of New York: Iran shares responsibility for the 9/11
attacks
Court holds
Iran and Hizbullah provided material support to al Qaeda
Case based
on expert testimony, Iran does not participate*
The Arab media reported
that an American court held Iran responsible, along with al Qaeda, for the 9/11
attacks. There is a large number of
civil cases filed by American citizens against Iran seeking damages for acts of
terrorism around the world. Iran, for example, was held liable for the
kidnapping and killing of American citizens in Beirut in the 1980s and ordered
it to pay millions of dollars to the families of the victims and to the former
prisoners. One of these victims is the former AP reporter Terry Anderson who, according
to the Court, was held by a Hizbullah front group, Islamic Jihad, for 7 years
in the 1980s. Anderson was paid about 6 million dollars from Iranian assets as
compensation for this imprisonment. He wrote a book, Den of Lions: A Startling
Memoir of Survival and Triumph about his experience. Another of the hostages,
Reverend Terry Waite also wrote a memoir, Taken on Trust, about his years of
captivity and also accused Hizbullah, Iran and the late Hizbullah top
operational man, Imad Moghnieh, of being behind his ordeal.
Countries or states as they are
referred to in international law, have sovereign immunity. How is anyone able to sue a sovereign
country? What did the Court find Iran liable for? What is the evidence? A case
from the Southern District of New York, Havlish v. Bin Laden, et al. answered
these questions. Iran did not
participate in the proceedings. The
judge decided the case mainly on expert testimony.
Below are excerpts from the case. The
questions are mine and the answer is an excerpt from the Court’s Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law.
*How does an American court have
jurisdiction over Iran, a sovereign country?
Pg. 3, #1: The
court’s jurisdiction over Iran and the agency instrumentality Defendants is
grounded in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. 1602, et seq. Section 1605A of the FSIA also
serves as the basis for liability claims asserted by plaintiffs who are United
States nationals.
*We see much Sunni-Shiite tensions in
the world today. Why and how did the
Court find that Iran was working with Sunni terrorists who are known as anti-
Shiite?
Pg. 16, #2: In
the early 1990s, casting aside the historic bitterness between the Sunni and
Shi’a sects of Islam, Sudanese religious-political leader Hassan al Turabi and
Iran’s political leaderships and intelligence connections, beginning a united
Sunni-Shiite front against the United States and the West. Ex. 6, Lopwz-Tefft
Affid. 132-33; Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd Affid. 48.
*The controversial Sunni Islamist
leader Hassan al Turabi, who passed away recently, was fingered by the Court.
What role did he play in bringing Iran and Sunni terrorists together?
Pg. 16, #2: While
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were headquartered in Sudan in the early 1990s,
Hassan al Turabi fostered the creation of a foundation and alliance for
combined Sunni and Shi’a opposition to the United States and the West, an
effort that was agreed to and joined by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri,
leaders of al Qaeda , and by the leadership of Iran. 9/11 REPORT, pp. 60-61; Ex. 6, Lopez-Tefft
Affid. 132; Ex. 3, Byman Affid. 23; see
also 18-22, 24-28.
*The Court claimed that Iran provided
much material support for al Qaeda, support without which the Court held it
would have been harder for al Qaeda to attack the US on 9/11 and kill three
thousand Americans. What is an example of that material support?
Pg. 20, #3:
U.S., Saudi, and Egyptian political pressure on the Sudanese eventually forced
them to expel Osama bin Laden in May 1996. Radical Afghan Sunni warlord
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a strong Iranian ally, invited bin Laden to join him in
Afghanistan. Hekmatyar and bin Laden had known each other during the 1980’s
Afghan mujaheddin-Soviet war. Osama
bin Laden then relocated to Afghanistan with the assistance of the Iranian
intelligence services. Ex. 15, U.S. embassy (Islamabad) Cable, November 12,
1996; Ex. 7, Bergman Affid. 64; Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd Affid. 99; see also 9/11 REPORT at pg. 65.
*The Saudis blame al Qaeda for the Khobar Tower attack that killed
Americans. How was Iran involved in that attack?
Pg. 20, #4:
The 9/11 Commission examined classified CIA documents establishing that IRGC-Qods Force commander Ahmad Vahidi
planned the Khobar Towers attack with Ahmad al Mugassil, a Saudi-born al Qaeda
operative. 9/11 REPORT, p. 60, n. 48. See Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd
Affid. 85-86.
A U.S. district court held that Iran
was factually and legally responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing. Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466
F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006).
*Did Iran provide logistical support
to al Qaeda, as to travel? Was Hizbullah part of that support? How?
Pg. 24, #5: The
second way in which Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11
attacks was that a terrorist agent of Iran and Hizballah helped coordinate
travel by future Saudi hijackers. As found by the 9/11 Commission, “[i]n
October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to
coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi
Arabia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and
Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved.” 9/11 REPORT at pg. 240.
*The Court connected the Lebanese Shiite
Hizbullah to al-Qaeda. What role did Hizbullah play in the al Qaeda 9/11
attacks? What are the connections between the two groups that America calls
terrorist organizations?
Pg. 25, #6: The
actions of the “senior Hizballah operative,”Imad Mughniyah, and his “associate”
and a “top commander” of Hizballah, in escorting 9/11 hijackers on flights to
and from Iran, and coordinating passport and visa acquisition activities in
Saudi Arabia also constituted direct and material support for the 9/11
conspiracy. 9/11 REPORT, pp. 240-41; Ex. 4, Kephart Affid. passin and specifically 3-5, 66, 70, 78; Ex. 6, Lopez-Tefft Affid.
104-07, 112-20, 264, 277; Ex. 3, Byman Affid. 32; 46-47, 49-50; Ex. 2,
Timmerman 2nd Affid. 118-24; Ex. 7, Bergman Affid. 17; Ex. 8,
Clawson Affid. 48-49, 59.
Link to the Havlish decision: http://information.iran911case.com/Havlish_Findings_of_Fact_and_Conclusions_of_Law_Signed_12-22-11.pdf
* Forum and Link. 4/7/2016. www.forumandlink.com
Comments