HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017864.jpg

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 799 Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d_ 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) proximate cause, and in tort law, a defen- dant will be held liable only for those injuries that might have reasonably been anticipated as a natural consequence of the defendant’s actions.” Jd. at 1012. Plain- tiffs submit the court’s decision in Boum— that the ATA was designed “to extend liability to all points along the causal chain of terrorism’—supports the finding that Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s conduct caused the attacks on September 11, 2001. Id. at 1011. Plaintiffs exert much effort outlining the connections between al Qaeda and the De- fendant charities that Prince Sultan and Prince Turki supported. Plaintiffs argue that the indirect nature of the Princes’ contributions to al Qaeda is not fatal to their claims since they allegedly knew that funds they donated to the Defendant chari- ties were being diverted to al Qaeda. See Bierstein Aff. in Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss, Exs. 1-24. The Court has reviewed the exhibits on which Plain- tiffs rely and finds only a handful relate to Plaintiffs’ arguments. Exhibit 11 is a report allegedly prepared for the President of the U.N. Security Council regarding a Saudi connection to terror financing. The report mentions Prince Sultan once in his role as the head of the Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs and does not conclude or suggest that he had any knowledge that charities to which he allegedly donated were funneling mon- ey to al Qaeda. Exhibit 12 is a statement by the former French Minister of the Interior in which he claims to have met with Prince Sultan, Prince Turki, and other members of the Saudi Royal family in November 1994 and to have raised the “question of financial aid furnished by Saudi charitable organiza- tions enjoying state support ... to Islam- ist movements or terrorist groups.” The only charity he names in his statement is the World Islamic League, not one of the charities to which the Princes allegedly donated. Exhibits 21-24 are excerpts from The Muslim World regarding Prince Sultan’s donations to ITRO and the Joint Saudi Committee for Relief of Kosovar Refugees (“JSCR”). There is no indication in these exhibits that IIRO or JSCR was funneling donations to al Qaeda. Even construing these allegations and exhibits in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, and drawing all inferences in their favor, none of these exhibits amount to admissible evidence that Prince Sultan or Prince Turki knew the charities they supported were fronts for al Qaeda. Alternatively, Plaintiffs argue that, since Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda made no effort to hide their hatred for the United States, Prince Sultan and Prince Turki had to have been aware that the United States was a target, making the atrocities of Sep- tember 11, 2001 a foreseeable result of their actions. See, e.g., Bierstein Aff. in Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to Dismiss, Exs. 2-10, 14, 15, 18, 20 Gincluding reports and fatwas summarizing Osama bin Lad- en’s and al Qaeda’s repeated public threats to and denouncement of the United States). There is no question that in the years leading up to the September 11 at- tacks, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were increasingly vocal in their hatred of the United States and its interests. The ques- tion remains, however, whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Prince Sul- tan’s and Prince Turki’s specific acts aided and abetted those terrorists. Both Prince Sultan and Prince Turki claim Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate their alleged tortious activity caused Plaintiffs’ injuries. They argue that Plaintiffs ignore that Osama bin Laden also targeted the Saudi Royal family. See, e.g., Bierstein Aff. in Opp. to Prince Sultan’s Motion to HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017864