So many of you noticed this story and passed along various versions of this story, that I have to talk about it, for it would seem the (Out)House of Saud is pleading the fifth, in that inimitable way that tyrants and mediaeval butchers plead the fifth. You'll recall that I've blogged about the story that former U.S. Senators Bob Graham has been pressing for the release of still classified 9/11 documents that implicate the Saudis as having a role in that day's events:
Of course, what's intriguing here is why the (out)House of Saud would resort to such blatant blackmail tactics. Granted, it's to be expected from this type of regime. But the oddity of it won't go away for all that. Most everyone who has studied 9/11 in depth has come to the reasonable conclusion that there was a Saudi role, at some deep level (though, I would aver, not at the deepest level). What is odd is why, by this action alone, the Saudi's would seek to confirm it.
The second linked article above, by Russia's RT, contains an interesting observation when seen in context:
The warning was delivered by Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir last month during a visit to Washington, the New York Times reported. He said his country would sell up to $750 billion in US treasury securities and other assets before the bill puts them in jeopardy.
The newspaper said Riyadh's resolve to actually deliver on the threat is dubious, since selling off those assets would be technically challenging and would damage the dollar, against which the Saudi national currency is pegged.
Under the current US law, foreign nations have a degree of immunity from being sued in American courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 is one of the reasons why families of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks largely failed to bring to court the Saudi royal family and charities over suspicion of financially supporting the attacks.
The bill introduced in the Senate would waiver the immunity for cases involving terrorist attacks that kill US citizens on US soil. Introduced by Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer, it managed to overcome partisan divisions in the US legislation and passed without dissent through the Judiciary Committee in January.
“As our nation confronts new and expanding terror networks that are targeting our citizens, stopping the funding source for terrorists becomes even more important,” Senator Cornyn said last month.(Emphasis in the original)
Thus, lurking behind all the rhetoric about allowing soverign immunity to be suspended in cases of international terrorism, is an attempt to get at the source of funding for international terrorism, and as has been long known, the Saudis are an epicenter of funding of radical Wahhabist types of madrasas, and they in turn are linked to terrorism. So again, why draw attention to the fact by such a blatant maneuver? As the article points out, the Obama Administration is opposed to the bill:
... it would make foreign nations retaliate by passing similar legislation and target American citizens and corporations in their national courts. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”
In other words, American companies could be sued in, say, Iraqi courts (and who could blame them?). So why such bluster from Riyadh, why a round-about and tacit admission that the suspicions about Saudi participation in the 9/11 events are true, for the Saudi action can be construed as nothing other than that. What has made Riyadh uncharacteristically fall on its own sword? My suspicion, and high octane speculation, is that the Saudis are being pressured to do this, that they are acting as someone else's catspaw in the whole matter, for if the Saudi regime's role were exposed by declassification of documents, or in a court case, this might lead to even deeper, and murkier, connections, connections that would implicate far more powerful players than Riyadh. Just who that might be is anyone's guess, though I have a few suspicions. There are, for example, the close ties of a certain American political dynasty associated with plants, with the Saudis. But that shubbery also hides a multitude of other very odd ties too. And we've also seen those strange Fed references to "third parties" lately, that do make one wonder just what actor or actors on the world stage might be being referred to.
TIme, of course, will tell, but in the meantime, Riyadh's lips are closed. Thus, it's not when the Saudis start threatening to sell off US treasuries that I get concerned. The time for concern is when the Saudis, as they increasingly seem to understand, realize they're "on the menu," and threaten to start talking.
See you on the flip side...