Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the BOW meant a whole lot more ................
[SIZE=+2]
Obama administration supports Saudi immunity in 9/11 lawsuit[/SIZE]
The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States that killed almost 3,000 Americans, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration has asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida's terrorist attack.
While the FSIA generally protects a sovereign state, there are exceptions under which its provisions can be invoked. Such interpretations are left largely to the courts to determine.
Families of the 9/11 victims, however, have expressed outrage over the Obama administration's filing. They regard the action as undermining the continuing fight on terror
In its recent filing of an "amicus curiae" brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in "Federal Insurance Co. vs. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," the Obama administration asked the court to deny a petition for a "writ of certiorari" or higher court hearing by the families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its princes.
I think the Justice Dept's position is that it would be like suing the United States for a crime a US citizen commits in another country.
from the OP (WND )-
In August 2008, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2006 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in dismissing the claim against Saudi Arabia. The dismissal covered the four princes, a Saudi banker and a Saudi charity. In addition, the appeals court said that the exceptions to immunity didn't apply since the State Department had not designated Saudi Arabia as a state sponsor of terrorism.
from the Times article -
The government said in its brief that the victims’ families never alleged that the Saudi government or members of the royal family “personally committed” the acts of terrorism against the United States “or directed others to do so.” And it said the claims that were made — that the Saudis helped to finance the plots — fell “outside the scope” of the legal parameters for suing foreign governments or leaders.
Justice Department officials declined to address the issue of whether the timing of the brief was related to Mr. Obama’s trip to Riyadh, but other lawyers involved in the case said the timing appeared to be coincidental. They said as a practical matter the department, which was invited to state its views in the case in February, needed to do so by this week if it hoped to influence the court’s decision on whether to accept the case before it leaves for summer recess in June.
So the BOW meant a whole lot more ................
[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Obama administration supports Saudi immunity in 9/11 lawsuit[/SIZE]
The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States that killed almost 3,000 Americans, according to a report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
Through its solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the Obama administration has asked that the Saudis be held immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, even though there is ample U.S. evidence of complicity by the Saudi government and the named princes in support of al-Qaida's terrorist attack.
While the FSIA generally protects a sovereign state, there are exceptions under which its provisions can be invoked. Such interpretations are left largely to the courts to determine.
Families of the 9/11 victims, however, have expressed outrage over the Obama administration's filing. They regard the action as undermining the continuing fight on terror
In its recent filing of an "amicus curiae" brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in "Federal Insurance Co. vs. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," the Obama administration asked the court to deny a petition for a "writ of certiorari" or higher court hearing by the families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its princes.
The Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General to provide an opinion on the case as it weighs whether or not to hear it, and the Solicitor General provides an opinion supporting the previous appeals court's ruling. An appeals court ruling that was handed down during the previous administration's tenure.
What's the issue here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)-
