Friday the Guardian reported Prince Bandar bin Sultan (a.k.a. "Bandar Bush") "threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations" involving British defense contractor BAE Systems were dropped.

BAE is alleged to have deposited £1bn into Swiss accounts for Bandar and/or his family and/or members of the kingdom's leadership.

During the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, Bandar allegedly flew to London on December 2006 and threatened former Prime Minister Tony Blair with another 7/7 attack by cutting off Saudi intelligence. Blair caved in and the investigation was stopped.

BAE is said to have cooperated with the Saudis first by saying they need to bribe foreign governments to stay competitive in a global market, and then by urging the case be dropped for "national security" reasons.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice has taken up the case "under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act into the British money received in the U.S. by Bandar while he was ambassador to Washington."

More links:
A cover-up laid bare: court hears how SFO inquiry was halted
BAE inquiry 'put lives at risk'
The BAE files

Agree or disagree: With friends like these, who needs enemies?


Are the Saudis protecting BAE, is BAE protecting a business partner, or something else?


Will the Department of Justice follow through with a serious investigation and not hem to political pressure?

Agree or disagree: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Agree- lets state some facts here:

1) Saudi Arabia still provides the most men and money to Al-Quaida, worldwide.

2)Saudi Arabia is the #1 state sponsor of muslim extremism and terrorism, both in money and men

3) Saudi Arabia is one of the most brutal and horrific regimes in the world today- perhaps only second to Kim Il Jong, and since Kim is contained- I would say that Saudi Arabia is the #1 most autocratic, brutal and horrific regime in power today. Far worse to women, especialy, and a far worse people in power than Saddam and his sons.




Are the Saudis protecting BAE, is BAE protecting a business partner, or something else?

They are just corrupt, have always been, will always be corrupt and evil, and there is no real seperating the two.


Will the Department of Justice follow through with a serious investigation and not hem to political pressure?

Not as long as GW is in power will there be a meaningful attempt at investigating these people- they are merely an extension of the Bush family.

We have seen how little the republicans and GW appointed justice types prioritize investigation into anything that might tarnish GW. And the Dems are too big of wussies to force the issue.

Agree or disagree: With friends like these, who needs enemies?
I'll have to read more into this, I've only given your links a cursory reading.

Are the Saudis protecting BAE, is BAE protecting a business partner, or something else?
This isn't the first scandal I've heard involving the defunct Riggs bank. This is applicable to your question as Riggs Bank was an intermediary for BAE and American fiscal transactions. Yes Lesly, the military industrial complex is alive and well as it promotes the WOT and then sells weapons out the back door turning the entire thing into a cynical sales pitch.

Will the Department of Justice follow through with a serious investigation and not hem to political pressure?
Umm no. There is too much money at stake from too many high profile companies which would prompt too many inconvenient questions. This would lead to a break in the holy-schmoly w.o.t.

This is a really unpleasant development of this story and, perversely, makes me think (slightly) less badly of the British government for caving in and (even) more disgustedly about the Sauid government for blackmailing on an international scale.

When the story first broke, I thought it was just about jobs and revenue - that the Saudis wouldn't place an order for the Typhoon Eurofighter with British Aerospace if the British Serious Fraud Office (or the Serious Farce Office, as the magazine Private Eye[/]i calls it) pursued their investigation. Standard-issue political cowering before a threat to jobs in constituencies held by members of the governing party.

If that was as far as it went, all we needed to do was wait a few years until they are out of office, and then the new Government (and recent Opposition) would have happily restarted the investigation to make political hay and rub their defeated opponents' noses in the scandal. Par for the course, really. (Google "Jeffrey Archer Perjury" if you don't believe me).

However, these recent revelations that a prominent member of the Saudi government, and suspected recipient of £1 billion of "secret payments" i.e. bribes, went directly to the British Prime Minister and threatened to withdraw security cooperation about some militant Muslims, at a time when some militant Muslims are a significant terrorist threat to British lives and interests, if the prosecution was not withdrawn.

While it still doesn't cover Blair and his cronies in glory, I'm not sure I can condemn this decision outright. I'm not sure what I would have done if - as an insider - I knew how many possible terror attacks had been prevented based on information coming from the Saudi security services, and then they suddenly said "we will withdraw this information unless you do X, Y and Z". If Z, Y and X didn't threaten any lives, I daresay I would have seriously considered them.

How would I look voters in the eye after the next big terror attack and say "I could have prevented these 100/1,000/10,000 deaths by stopping a court case that would have resulted in nothing but fines and some jail times for a few British corporate bigwigs and some embarrassment for foreign dignitaries. But that would have been cheating justice, so all these deaths are worthwhile sacrifices for the protection of ethical standards in international business"? That would have been the [i]correct thing to do, but would it have been the right thing to do? I doubt very much that the British public, or any maimed survivors or bereaved relatives would have said so.

That sort of decision is why I will never stand for public office.

Agree or disagree: With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Friends like the Saudis - agree entirely.

Friends like us Brits - hmm. On paper, our government is as bad as they are (at least under the Blair and Thatcher* governments), but in the face of "lose this investigation or lose lives" type threats, Blair is (at best) weak-willed in this matter.

*it was bribes connected to the Thatcher-era al-Yamamah arms deal that were being investigated, I think.

Are the Saudis protecting BAE, is BAE protecting a business partner, or something else?

The Saudis are protecting themselves, in two different ways:

1. If the investigation had continued and Swiss banking transactions had been recovered, it would have disclosed the accounts into which the bribes were paid, which would have proven embarrassing for many senior Saudi figures. There would then have been prima faciae evidence to recover further transactional information to find out what the recipients had done with their bribes. Yachts, gambling and prositution might only to be expected; but who's to say that terrorism wasn't being directly funded by the bribe recipients?

2. The Typhoon Eurofighter order is now likely to continue. So, there's a whole new round of bribes to be paid. The Saudi's have just ensured that the people who paid them off last time have a few extra reasons to do the same again (gratitude at not being in jail, fear of assassination if these are the levels to which the Saudis will stoop, etc.)

Will the Department of Justice follow through with a serious investigation and not hem to political pressure?

I hope so. It seems that it is politically impossible for Britain to revive the investigation, but it needs to be investigated. However, if anything, Prince Bandar seems to have more talons in the current US administration - albeit under the guise of oil contracts and personal friendship with the President rather than threats and blackmail - than under that of Tony Blair in Britain. So I won't be holding my breath until after the new President, whoever it is, takes office.