John Burgess of Crossroads Arabia has spent the week attending the 15th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference, held in Washington, DC and has ably reported the presentations, results, and tone of the conference to us. Check out his reports:
15th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference Part I
15th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference Part II
NCUSAR Conference: Lunchtime Speech by Amb. Turki Al-Faisal
15th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference Part III
15th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference Part IV
15th Annual Arab-US Policymakers Conference Parts V and VI
NCUSAR Conference: Concluding Luncheon and Wrapup
The conference was far-reaching and John’s reports are interesting. Pay particular note to the post on the luncheon and wrapup: in the years ahead we will have our work cut out for us.
Cross-posted at The Glittering Eye
{ 9 comments }
Saudi Ambassador to the US, Pr. Turki Al-Faisal, delivered an address to the attendees of the Conference.
Some facts about the Saudi Ambassador to the United States:
- He’s met Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants on at least five occasions. He calls bin Laden “quite a pleasant man.”
- The relatives of more than 600 victims of the 9/11 attacks believe Turki was connected to their loved ones’ deaths.
- Al-Faisal was also named in the $1 trillion lawsuit filed by hundreds of 9/11 victims’ families, who accused him of funding bin Laden’s network. That lawsuit was dismissed, not because Turki was proven innocent, but because of his ‘diplomatic immunity’
- He personally managed Riyadh’s relations with Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar. Anyone else who had dealings with even a fraction of terrorists Turki has worked with would never make it past a U.S. immigration counter
Via Global security:
:::::
On 15 August 2002, he was one of three Saudi princes sued for allegedly helping to finance the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001, the other two being Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz and Prince Mohammed bin Faisal. The lawsuit sought damages from members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks and Saudi corporations, who had extensive financial holdings in the US. Among the defendants were two prominent members of the Saudi royal family, Prince Sultan bin Abdelaziz al-Saud, the defense minister, and Prince Turki bin Faisal, Saudi ambassador to Britain. The suit alleges that Prince Sultan “publicly supported and funded several Islamic charities that were sponsoring Osama bin Laden” and that Prince Turki negotiated a deal in which Al Qaeda agreed to end efforts to subvert the Saudi monarchy in exchange for a Saudi promise not to extradite terrorist leaders.
During the consultations with official agencies investigating 11 September attacks, Sheikh Dr Abdullah bin Abdul Mohsin Al Turki [no relation], secretary general of the World Islamic League and former Saudi religious affairs minister, stated that “those in authority (the wulat al-amr) are the ulema and the political leaders”, appearing to equate the royal family and the religious establishment.
Prince Turki Al Faisal responded that ” … the Sheikh’s comment struck me as strange. Never before has such an opinion been expressed in our country. In the Shi’ite world this is the equivalent of Imam Khomeini’s questionable teachings about velayat-e faqih. But I do not subscribe to this view, since power resides in the political leadership, and the ulema serve solely in an advisory capacity.”
Prince Turki commented in the independent, pro-government, English-language, Arab News (18 September 2002): “Saudi Arabia has worked with the United States for the past 70 years. Both countries have benefited from this enduring partnership. Remember that we face the same threat: Bin Ladin targeted Saudi Arabia before he targeted America. Al-Qa’ida has thousands of followers from more than 60 countries, including those of many U.S. allies. That he chose 15 Saudis for his murderous gang, many of whom, he boasted, did not even know the ultimate goal of their mission, can only be explained as an attempt to disrupt the close relationship between our two countries…. There are those in America who condemn all Saudi Arabians as uncivilized, close-minded and barbaric. But such blanket accusations are not worthy of the American people…. Let us deny extremists the victory of undermining our partnership. Instead, let us remain strong, and, whatever shortcomings we see in each other, let us confront them and overcome them together in a spirit of mutual respect and openness.”
In 2002, he was appointed the Ambassador of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and took up his post on 28 January 2003.
In March 2004 it was reported that information assembled by German intelligence analysts revealed that a pair of private Saudi companies linked with suspected Al Qaeda cells in Germany and in Indonesia also had connections to the Saudi Arabian intelligence agency and its longtime chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal.
On 19 January 2005 a US federal judge dismissed Saudi Arabia from 9/11 suits. Richard Casey ruled that Saudi Arabia, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan Prince Turki al-Faisal, and the country’s ambassador to Britain HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal, all had immunity from the litigation.
On 20 July 2005 the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques issued his orders to start the process of nominating HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal for the post of Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States of America.
::::::::::::
The fact that we let that turd into the country, and the fact that we treat Turki with respect is proof that we have our work cut out for us.
Dave, could you tell us which of these half a dozen links is the most useful to get the bottom line? You’re asking a lot of readers here.
By all means read the last link.
It depends on your interests.
The first session was devoted to an assessment of U. S.-Saudi relations. The second was largely about oil as was the third.
The fourth was “What Went Wrong, What Went Right, and the Way Forward…Mistakes Made and Lessons Learned”. The fifth and sixth were devoted to the GCC, Iraq, and Iran.
I found the fourth and the last the most interesting. But the post on the fifth and sixth was interesting, too, especially since I like Anthony Cordesmann.
Mary: Truly sorry your views are so unrepresented by your government. It must be miserable knowing you’re right and they’re wrong.
Of course Turki met Bin Laden many times. Turki provided Saudi gov’t coordination and funding to some elements of mujahidiin in Afghanistan while the US was working with others. That was his job, which was coordinated with the USG.
That 600 victims of 9/11 believe Turki is somehow personally culpable is unpersuasive. Thousands believe the Jews did it. Is the number of believers our determinant of truth?
Yes, Turki was sued and yes the cases were thrown out of court for lack of jurisdiction and because government actors have certain kinds of legal immunity.
But do you really think that the USG would have accepted him as ambassador if he had American blood on his hands?
Would Congress have said not much of anything? The media? There were markedly few complaints about his appointment and the USG had ample opportunity to deny him the position.
Informally, the USG could have denied agrement, killing his nomination before it became public. Formally, it could have refused to accept his credentials. The USG saw the value in having him as ambassador because he was seen as a particularly helpful person, especially in the war against terror. He’s also considered to be in the mix as a possible future king.
Turki is actually a pretty nice guy, and he’s way smart. Your terming him a “turd” says a lot more about you than him. You’ve groundless accusations to toss about, coupled with ill-informed animus. Good going!
Ron: What you find most interesting will depend on what interest you.
I think Parts 1-4 are the most interesting, 5-6 much less so. Turki’s luncheon speech is pretty good. The last one showed a formerly good diplomat slipping over the edge of BDS.
But do you really think that the USG would have accepted him as ambassador if he had American blood on his hands?
Why are you asking for my opinion? Trust the facts, which, if presented in a proper trial, would have answered your question.
Of course, there was no proper trial.
Turki is actually a pretty nice guy, and he’s way smart
There are thousands, maybe millions of people who disagree with you.
Maybe that’s just because a <i>plausible</i> story isn’t the same as a <i>true</i> story? Or maybe it’s just because Congress, the Administration, the Courts, and the Media were all bought off?
There was no “proper trial” because there was no proper court in which to conduct the kangaroo proceedings that some were anticipating. I most certainly hear the clacking of knitting needles when I see the “off with his head” mob lining up the tumbrils… “punishment first, trial second.” No wonder the Founding Fathers feared mob rule….
Your terming him a “turd” says a lot more about you than him. You’ve groundless accusations to toss about, coupled with ill-informed animus. Good going!
There was no “proper trial” because there was no proper court in which to conduct the kangaroo proceedings that some were anticipating. I most certainly hear the clacking of knitting needles when I see the “off with his head” mob lining up the tumbrils.
Why, John, you’re usually so level headed, so diplomatic. But now, here you are, wild-eyed with rage and frothing at the mouth, defending your prince from the horrors of American mob and the evils of a democratic civil court. I’m sensing some love here, real love.
No love for our courts, or any for the 9/11 victims, or for the average American of course, but you do love the prince. Must be his smoky bedroom eyes…
In any case didn’t include half of the dirt the world has on this creep. Since you’re so interested in the prince, maybe you can answer some more questions.
Like, why was he abruptly removed from his post as head of Saudi intelligence 10 days before the 9/11 attacks?
As head of Saudi intelligence, was he responsible for torturing British citizens who were arrested for smuggling liquor?
Also, from the Observer:
:::
Legal papers in the case obtained by The Observer make it clear that the allegations are serious and lengthy.
Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden’s network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.
Kakshar’s statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. ‘Mullah Kakshar’s sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,’ the papers said.
Turki’s link to one of al-Qaeda’s top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda’s top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.
Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was ‘instrumental’ in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports.
Turki did not respond to phone calls and a letter sent by The Observer to the Saudi embassy in London.
But his lawyers will have to respond in court. The case is expected to begin in May and experts think it could go on for four of five years. If it rules against him, Turki may face enormous compensation payments and the seizure of his financial assets. It would also cost him his post as ambassador.
::::
But, our government saved him from that fate.
As I said before, if Turki shot President Bush dead on national television on Christmas day, the first thing people like you would be thinking is ‘we’re going to have to work extra hard on maintaining our friendship with the Saudis after this”
9/11 proved that shits like Turki can get away with anything. Now, he can kill anyone he wants, when he wants to. It’s like Springtime for Hitler
You gotta love that wacky hun.
To answer your questions, not your rants:
It is indeed a question about why Turki was replaced as head of Saudi Intelligence. The generally accepted (by the USG) answer is that he got crosswise with Pr. Nayef, Min. of Interior, who is a hyper-reactionary. Taking advantage of the rudderless state of the Saudi state at the time (when Fahd was only notionally in control and Abdullah could not exercise full powers as he was only regent), Nayef was able to push Turki out. Their roles in assessing intelligence matters clashed, much as CIA and FBI clash. Nayef had the power and position to make things fall his way.
That it happened when it did is a factor of when Nayef was able to shove him out. It’s proximity to 9/11 makes for great conspiracy fodder, but there’s nothing to suggest more than that. Coincidences really do happen.
As far as the Brits go, you can look to Nayef for that one, too. He’s responsible for internal affairs and enforcing Saudi laws. He’s also a great denialist, as proved by his refusal to acknowledge any Saudi role in 9/11 for years afterward. I don’t doubt that he’s still in denial, but was finally told to shut up about it.
The Observer piece you note–three years old, by the way–is heavy with weasel words: “link”, “allege”, “instrumental”. They can mean as little or as much as you care to make them mean.
I confess to being a bit surprised that you find The Observer a reputable source. It’s essentially the Sunday edition of The Guardian, that home of America-bashing leftists. I guess they’re more reputable if they say something you’re prejudiced to believe…
Were Turki to somehow assassinate Bush, I wouldn’t be supporting him. I wouldn’t even support his assassination of Kerry, Clinton (either), or Pelosi.
I am amazed, though, that you’d think that the USG would just give Turki a walk if he’d had American blood on his hands. Does everyone in the USG like Turki? Well, no, there are certainly some who don’t like him for various reasons. But that’s not all that surprising, either; there’s no unanimity in the USG about the color of the sky.
Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t you write Turki and ask him your questions directly? A polite letter might even produce a response from him directly.
The Observer piece you note–three years old, by the way–is heavy with weasel words: “link”, “allege”, “instrumental”. They can mean as little or as much as you care to make them mean.
Speaking of weasel words, why do you keep asking me what I think of Turki’s guilt? His guilt or innocence can only be determined by a trial. The trial never took place, due to the actions of the US government. The fact is, Turki will never be able to prove he’s innocent and the US government found a loophole to keep him from being proven guilty. Asking me what I think proves nothing.
Were Turki to somehow assassinate Bush, I wouldn’t be supporting him.
I didn’t say you would. I said that if Turki did assassinate Bush, your first priority would be to maintain our friendship with the Sauds.
I’m surprised by your misinterpretation.
I’m not surprised that you consistently ignore the most damning piece of evidence, Turki’s link to one of al-Qaeda’s top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, Turki’s accountant. Again,
“Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda’s top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.”
“I am amazed, though, that you’d think that the USG would just give Turki a walk if he’d had American blood on his hands.”
And I’m amazed that you’re also ignoring this:
Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden’s network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.
Kakshar’s statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. ‘Mullah Kakshar’s sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,’ the papers said.
Which means that Turki has the blood of the Americans killed in the USS Cole bombing on his hands. He also has the blood of the 257 people killed and over 4,000 wounded in the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam on his hands. He doesn’t just have blood on his hands, he’s soaking in it. And our government is proud to honor him.
Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t you write Turki and ask him your questions directly? A polite letter might even produce a response from him directly.
Maybe I’m talking to him now.* After all, no one but Turki could ever love Turki.
* joking..
Comments on this entry are closed.