Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyIIQuote
Originally posted by: BobOrme
Again I'll ask: Can ANY nation unilaterally create a law that is binding for any/every other nation?
If a suit were to be filed, what jurisdiction would have the authority to hear the case? Would it be within the nation being accused, or within the nation filing suit?
The current law (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act or JASTA) just passed by Congress amends a previous law (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or FSIA). The FSIA granted immunity from U.S. Lawsuits to Foreign States WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.
Here are the previous exceptions (from Wiki):
"The exceptions are listed at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605, 1605A, and 1607. The most common exceptions are when the Foreign State waives immunity (§ 1605(a)(1)) or agrees to submit a dispute to arbitration (§ 1605(a)(6)), engages in a commercial activity (§ 1605(a)(2)), commits a tort in the United States (such as a common traffic accident) (§ 1605(a)(5)) or expropriates property in violation of international law (§ 1605(a)(3)). The FSIA also excludes immunity in cases involving certain counterclaims (§ 1607) and admiralty claims (§ 1605(b)). In addition, exceptions for torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, and hostage-taking were added by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008."
Note also that in addition to these exceptions, US citizens can also sue for an act of terrorism perpetrated by any of the 3 nations listed on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Beyond that, "the Act does not extend immunity to a government official acting on behalf of a state....the Supreme Court found that there is nothing to suggest that "foreign state" within the FSIA should be read to include an official acting on behalf of that state."
The JUSTA adds "any foreign state's critical support for one's act of international terrorism against a U.S. national or property regardless if such state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism or not" to the list of FSIA exceptions."
So...To answer Bob's questions..and other key points:
1. The US has already (1976) created a law that allows it's citizens to sue any Foreign Government as long as they are suing for one of the exceptions to Sovereign Immunity. It is 'binding' on those nations to the extent that the nation's assets are 'within reach' of the US citizen should he prevail in a lawsuit. This is why Saudi Arabia is threatening to withdraw their investments from the US...To put their money beyond the reach of potential lawsuits.
2. The lawsuit would be heard in US Federal Court. Although I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia will be vindicated in a Federal Lawsuit and this whole exercise will be one of futility.
Now...As to whether or not the sky is falling and the JUSTA will expose the US to lawsuits based on new reciprocal laws...The answer is...The Sky is not falling. It may cost US taxpayers some money....but maybe it's money well spent if it compensates someone our government has really wronged.
3. JUSTA will not provide any additional exposure to INDIVIDUALS working for the US Government. That's because according to our Supreme Court in 2010, immunity never extended to individuals anyway.
4. If foreign citizens will have greater ability to Sue the US government in their own courts...Reciprocity demands that the law should be narrowly applied to an act of terrorism that our Government has knowingly facilitated. Maybe we deserve to pay for those kinds of operations....Just like our citizens deserve to collect from Saudi Arabia should they be found guilty of knowingly facilitating terrorism on US soil.
5. Can it be applied to 'The Iraq War'? Doubtful. Funding Terrorist Groups we like because they're against Terrorist Groups we Don't like? Possibly. Drone strikes that kill innocents? Unlikely.
Bottom line is that there were always exceptions to Sovereign Immunity...like torture and hostage taking. Adding Facilitating Terrorism on US soil to the list of exceptions doesn't seem like a bad thing or seem like it's going to change much...except maybe our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I can see how some in the executive branch of Government wouldn't want to open the door to potential lawsuits. Believe it or not, sometimes even the good old USA stretches the bounds of International Law and if we're actually facilitating terrorism on foreign soil, maybe we should rethink that. If we aren't facilitating terrorism, then we've got nothing to worry about....at least nothing more to worry about than before JUSTA was passed.
