Some Background On The Saudi Deal

Some background on Obama's DOJ making nice with the Saudis at the expense of 9/11 families. Seems he likes to bow in more ways than one.

The matter before the Supreme Court regards the dismissal by the Second Circuit of claims against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, five Saudi Princes, and the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina for their role in financing al Qaida pre-9/11.  The key allegations are contained in petitioners' main brief to the Supremes -- http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/08-640_pet.pdf (pp 14-19 of the PDF) -- and as to the Kingdom they focus on  "the attributable actions of charities under the Saudi government’s control and actions of Saudi officials who used their offices to support al Qaeda’s global jihad.

 The victims have alleged that '[o]stensible charitable organizations, and in particular, Islamic charities under the control of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ... are fully integrated components of al Qaida’s organizational structure, and are actively involved at every level of al Qaida’s operations, from recruitment and training of new members, to the planning and conduct of terrorist attacks.' See First Amended Compl. of Plaintiffs Federal Ins. Co. et al. ’¶ 79, No. 1:03-md-1570 (S.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 10, 2004) (hereinafter 'Compl.'). These 'charities' have 'served as the primary vehicle for raising, laundering and distributing funds on behalf of al Qaida from its inception,' and 'have provided arms, false travel documentation, physical assets and logistical support to al Qaida.' Id.; see also id. ¶ 80. As the court of appeals acknowledged, the victims’ allegations 'include a wealth of detail (conscientiously cited to published and unpublished sources) that, if true, reflect close working arrangements between ostensible charities and terrorist networks, including al Qaeda.'"  The allegations against the Princes largely regard their governmental roles in steering money to the charities.
 
There are three questions for review before the Court: (1) how is the immunity of individual governmental officials supposed to be determined under the law?  There is a three-way split between two sets of Circuit courts and the federal government on that; (2) does the presence of a clause in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act extending global reach to claims against designated state sponsors of terrorism for their actions prevent plaintiffs from advancing claims against countries not so designated under other theories of liability such as tort law? (On which, again, there's a circuit split, ordinarily the hallmark of whether a case is to be heard); and (3) how far is the reach of US jurisdiction against terrorist sponsors who knowingly direct their activities towards the United States?
 
(All the briefs by the parties can be accessed via this link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-22009/ )
 
SCOTUS asks the government what it thinks about all this, and here's what they said: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/08-640-federal-insurance-co-usac-petition.pdf
 
In essence, the Government agrees with the victims that the Second Circuit got each of these aspects wrong -- agreeing that a circuit split exists on those two issues as well, but makes thin and easily discreditable arguments as to why the Court still shouldn't hear the case -- both on the law and on the facts (which at the pleadings stage, have to be accepted as true) especially given the Government's own prior views expressed in briefs on these topics.

Shockingly (to me, anyway), the brief doesn't spend even a moment acknowledging the harm suffered by the 9/11 victims, any interest in seeing them have access to the courts, or Congress' intent to have a public role in enforcing antiterrorism laws (see 18 USC 2333 et seq --http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002333----000-.html ,http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113B.html).

On the jurisdictional point, the government basically would leave a nullity Section 2333, which provides civil remedies for victims of terrorism, by exempting from its reach any suits against material supporters of terrorism acting overseas.  There's no justification for this on legal grounds; the only logical conclusion is that they want to play footsie with the Saudis.

Comments

[mark l.]

wonder how many times Hardball will feature commentary from Kristen Breitweiser on the obama admin.

I venture a guess that she has the same "absolute moral authority of Cindy sheehan.