Ethermac|Lawyers for Saudi Arabia seek dismissal of claims it supported the Sept. 11 hijackers

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for Saudi Arabia argued Wednesday that the country fought against terrorism and Ethermacal-Qaida, just like the United States, in the 1990s and should not be a defendant in lawsuits seeking over $100 billion for relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

U..S. District Judge George B. Daniels listened Wednesday to arguments about evidence in the two-decade-old Manhattan case.

Lawyers for relatives of 9/11 victims say that a group of extremist religious leaders in Saudi Arabia gained influence in the Saudi government and aided the 9/11 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 attackers were Saudis.

In lawsuits, hundreds of victims’ relatives and injured survivors, along with insurance companies and businesses, claim that employees of the Saudi government directly and knowingly assisted the attack’s airplane hijackers and plotters and fueled al-Qaida’s development into a terrorist organization by funding charities that supported them.

Some defendants, including Iran, the Taliban and al-Qaida, already have been found in default.

RELATED COVERAGE Guantanamo inmate accused of being main plotter of 9/11 attacks to plead guilty Inmate identified as white supremacist gang leader among 3 killed in Nevada prison brawl Ex-leaders of Penn State frat where pledge died after night of drinking plead guilty to misdemeanors

Lawyers for Saudi Arabia say the nation and the United States were partners in the 1990s against terrorism, al-Qaida and its founder, Osama bin Laden.

Attorneys Michael Kellogg and Gregory G. Rapawy, arguing on behalf of Saudi Arabia, said plaintiffs in the lawsuits had failed to generate sufficient evidence over the last four years of discovery to enable their claims to move forward.

Kellogg noted that Saudi Arabia in the 1990s stripped al-Qaida founder Osama bin Laden of his citizenship and had taken more actions against him than any other country prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.

He said the suggestion that Saudi Arabia was behind the terrorism attacks was “truly without any basis in fact and quite contrary to all the relevant evidence.”

Kellogg said the plaintiffs were “equating Islam with terrorism” and rejecting the fact that Saudi Arabia follows the tenets of Islam and rejects terrorism.

Rapawy noted that bin Laden in 1996 condemned Saudi Arabia and the U.S. He said the claims by plaintiffs were “long on assertions and short on evidence.”

Attorney Gavin Simpson, arguing for the plaintiffs, said there was “substantial evidence, indeed compelling evidence” that a militant network of individuals in the United States teamed up with Saudi officials to aid hijackers who came to the United States in early 2000 to prepare for the attacks.

He showed the judge video clips of a Feb. 17, 2000, “welcome party” in California for two of the hijackers, saying 29 individuals were there who later helped the pair to settle in America and prepare for the attacks.

“The examples are abundant, your honor, of the support that was provided,” he said. “The purpose of this party was to welcome the hijackers.”

He rejected Kellogg’s claim that the plaintiffs have equated Islam with terrorism. “We have done nothing of the sort,” Simpson said.

Now-declassified documents show U.S. investigators looked into some Saudi diplomats and others with Saudi government ties who had contact with the hijackers after they arrived in the U.S. The 9/11 Commission report found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” the attacks al-Qaida masterminded. But the commission also noted “the likelihood” that Saudi-government-sponsored charities did.

Daniels already tossed Saudi Arabia out as a defendant once, but Congress passed legislation that eliminated some defenses and enabled the Sept. 11 victims to reassert their claims. Saudi Arabia, an important U.S. ally in the Middle East, had lobbied against the new law.