Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

[Echo In Light]

By John Byrne

<snip>

The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.

But Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer published Tuesday, the mother of a man who was killed on United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania said he didn't know why Kagan argued that the case not even be heard. By keeping the case off the dockets, the Saudis were spared scrutiny of their finances.

<snip>

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, another family member whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, said at the time. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0511/kagan-helped-shield-saudis-911-lawsuits/

[rudy23]

1. Shielded the Saudis, and protected the whole Siegelman vote rigging ring--was there quid pro quo?

Is this the brand of "pragmatism" that enables one to climb the ranks of Supreme Court candidates?

[Nothing Without Hope]

2. Obama wouldn't choose anyone who would make waves for the oligarchy.

He's is a card-carrying member himself.

[pocoloco]

62. Political genus!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Echo In Light]

4. Bump

[Bluebear]

29. .

[jberryhill]

5. It's called Sovereign Immunity

I realize that most people think anyone from Santa Claus to the King of Siam can be sued in a US court for any reason at any time, but it just doesn't work that way.

I like the way the brief is edited to leave out the statutory reason why the suit should not proceed.

And if any of the plaintiff's doesn't know why it was dismissed, then their lawyer is an idiot for not explaining it to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611 of the United States Code, that establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation (or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities) may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state. It also establishes specific procedures for service of process and attachment of property for proceedings against a Foreign State. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a lawsuit against a foreign sovereign in the United States.

[Rex]

10. People here are confused as to why she followed the law.

I'm not sure what else she should have said, legally.

[jberryhill]

11. There seems to be a lot of that going around

This is "no duh" stuff. If you sue a nominally friendly foreign government, the US is going to submit a brief arguing for dismissal under FSIA.

Just, duh.

[Usrename]

21. Except for the fact that you are completely and factually WRONG.

Alum. explains Lockerbie legacy

snip>


In 1996, several of the victims’ families lobbied Congress to change the law to permit the victims of terrorism and their families to sue countries that sponsor terrorist attacks, according to Kreindler. Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996, allowing the victims’ families to pursue their case against the Libyan government.

“The Libyans could never understand how 270 families could change the law in the United States,” Kreindler said.

Kreindler’s private firm, Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, represented the victims’ families, he said.

“We sued Libya, accusing them of the largest murder of Americans in history,” Kreindler said.

Setting a new precedent, the Justice Department agreed to allow a private firm to pursue litigation against the Libyan government, according to Kreindler. After two years of negotiation, Libya agreed to pay damages of $10 million per death to the victims’ families under several conditions. Libya was to be removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, and U.N. sanctions against Libya were to be lifted.

more>

http://thedartmouth.com/2010/02/24/news/Lockerbie

[TreasonousBastard]

26. Huh? Libya was not considered a "friendly state" back then, and was...

indeed an "enemy". Even so, it took an act of Congress to allow families to sue over Lockerbie.

What could this have to do with the Saudis, some of whom may in fact be sponsors of terrorism, but who are not recognized as such.

[jberryhill]

34. Don't let details get in the way of a good froth

Yes, the situations are distinguishable, and yes, the distinctions were argued.

However, these people don't seem to understand that a finding of jurisdiction is not up to the plaintiff, the defendant, or the amici, but is up to the COURT. Federal judges, in general, are pretty good at reading the briefs and making reasoned decisions.

It suits the purposes of some to misunderstand Kagan's role here.

[Usrename]

41. I said that YOU are factually WRONG and you ARE.

You didn't dispute a single fact that I raised. YOU are WRONG.

Now, whether or not you wish to sidetrack the issue by raising other issues, like the fact that all countries are not equal, that some seem to be more equal than others, then I would have to agree with you on that point. But that is a COMPLETELY different argument than the one you were making.

Get it?

[jberryhill]

48. The suit was barred under FSIA, that is a very simple fact

Moreover, it wasn't Kagan who decided the case, it was a panel of judges on the Second Circuit, in a 67 page opinion, not one word of which was written by Kagan.

You might try reading it...

http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/68e281d7-8733-4aff-84c0-f84421a27ec6/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/5cdebbd4-c48c-4bb9-b18d-009d9da91256/Alert_Litigation_090508_Addendum_Terrorist_911_Attacks.pdf

The court even disagrees with the government position on whether the princes are, or are not, state actors for the purposes of FSIA.

In order to proceed under the terrorism exception, the defendant entity has to be on the list of state sponsors of terror. Libya was, and Saudi was not. Kagan doesn't make that call.

But if you think "You are completely wrong" is some sort of reasoned response to the Second Circuit decision, this isn't going to be much of a conversation I fear.

[tomp]

81. the problem is that the saudis are not on the list and should be.

the govt has us coming and going.

they decide against all reason to not put the saudis on the list and then say we can't sue because they're not on the list.

that's known here in the u.s. as bullshit, or one hand washing the other, and some even dare call it treason.

[Usrename]

102. You are exactly correct.

This whole notion of this being consistent with the law is bullshit.

Unless you are a lawyer or something, then it's just the status quo.

[jberryhill]

123. "This whole notion of this being consistent with the law is bullshit"

Yeah, well, we can go back to beating each other on the head with sticks, since that worked out GREAT for millenia of human existence.

[Usrename]

128. If I could get you to glance at reality for just a second,

you might see that it would actually be progress if we could just beat each other over the head with sticks.

Of course that would involve admitting that the laws are not being faithfully enforced.

[JDPriestly]

90. Doesn't the president decide who is on that list of state terrorists?

If so, was Saudi Arabia and the Arabic country through which the money flowed (was it Dubai?, UAE? I don't remember) also placed on that list.

[jberryhill]

92. No

Composition of the list is determined by specific factual findings under the relevant statutes, and is subject to Congressional review. The president does not, and cannot, unilaterally put a country on it because he or she feels like it.

There are only four countries on it. Of the current list, one was added during the Carter administration (Syria) and one during the Clinton administration (Sudan). The other two - Cuba and Iran - were added during the Reagan administration.

[Usrename]

104. I don't Libya mentioned in this post.

?

[jberryhill]

115. I'm not sure what you are asking

Libya is no longer on the list. It was taken off some years back, after resolution of the Lockerbie claims under the Libyan Claims Resolution Act. There was a specific law that was passed after Libya made certain concessions, to cap their total liability for claims based on the terrorism exception to FSIA for the period when they were on the list. It was an incentive for them to chill out and stop claiming the entire Gulf of Sidra as their territory and shooting at things that wandered into it.

Yes, Libya used to be able to be sued in the US for claims relating to terrorism, because they used to be on the list. More recently, a suit arising from the German disco bombing was denied under.... FSIA.

[Usrename]

103. Some of it went through the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI.

Their intelligence agency was founded by our own CIA.

[notesdev]

66. Why should that matter?

Should the ability of Americans to pursue justice over acts that occur on U.S. soil be dependent on how much the people presently in power like the defendant?

That doesn't fit any definition of justice I ever heard.

[jberryhill]

74. For a couple of reasons

But one really good way to understand what happened in this case is by reading the decision, instead of snippets on a forum.

Article III of the Constitution gives Congress the power to establish whether the courts have jurisdiction over certain cases. When it comes to filing suits against foreign countries, whether or not a court has jurisdiction over a case is determined primarily by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (and a bunch of other things).

The FSIA establishes a presumption against jurisdiction over other governments and officials acting in their official capacity, unless one of the exceptions to it can be established. The most common one is the "commercial activity" exemption. Another one is terrorism, so long as the country in question is on the State Department list of state sponsors of terror (of which there are only four countries named).

So, what do you want the court to do? Say, "Screw the Constitution and Congress' power to establish jurisdiction, we're taking this case?"

The policy reason for FSIA is that courts are not suited to conducting what amounts to foreign policy on the basis of suits brought by individuals against foreign countries.

And, yes it sucks in a lot of contexts. But you either take it that federal courts are or are not free-roving dispensers of justice, or that they must do so within the jurisdictional confines that the Constitution and acts of Congress set up.

[notesdev]

78. That's pretty much just what I said

This is obviously a case of terrorism, I hate to use that word since it is so abused but this is 9/11 we are talking about. So the State Department adding a country to the list is what determines whether or not we can sue - in other words, whether the people in power at the time like the defendant or not, which is what I said in the first place.

One does not need to dispute Congressional prerogatives in order to say that the policy stinks and does not comport with basic principles of fairness and justice!

[Usrename]

105. So was the Lockerbie case some kind of innoculation or something?

I see a parallel in the facts of the two cases. Don't you?

[tammywammy]

114. The families lobbied Congress for an exemption in the Lockerbie case

And got it, that's how they were allowed to sue.

[jberryhill]

116. Read the excerpt you posted above

Amazingly, the thing you posted in this thread refers specifically to an act of Congress that allowed the suit against Libya to proceed.

YES.. The law had to be changed to permit that suit, because the US system does not allow courts and private plaintiffs to determine foreign relations.

[Usrename]

120. So the facts of the two cases are the same?

I guess you really don't see what I am saying. The truth of the matter is that there is no difference at all in the behavior of Saudi Arabia from the behavior of Libya. Factually, they are the same. Yet the legal disposition of the two are completely different. Hence, your assertion that there is some kind of "standard" that we should all accept, where these cases are always treated the same way, is WRONG.

[jberryhill]

121. Again, you confuse the law as it "should" be with the law as it is

This is my last try.

The general rule is - US courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against foreign countries.

Imagine the result in the absence of that general rule. Everyone in this country with an axe to grind against a foreign government would be in a US court, suing that government. We have refugees here from all over the world. What are essentially matters of US foreign policy would be hashed out in any of 94 federal district courts.

The basic general rule is followed all over the world. In general, the courts of most countries do not entertain private civil suits against other countries. The same result would hold there, with the overall effect that the judiciary of each country would be the primary determinant of relations among countries.

That's the "standard" rule.

That rule is embodied in a statute passed by Congress under its power to establish the jurisdiction of Article III courts (the part of the Constitution where the power of the judicial branch is defined). That statute is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which says, in general, you can't sue foreign governments.

Now, when the US signs a treaty with another country, that can over-ride even the exceptions, according to this section:

"§ 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from jurisdiction

Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter."


The FSIA provides very narrow exceptions to the general rule. One of those exceptions is the state terrorism exception, which is in section 1605A, which says in pertinent part:

"§ 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

(a) In General.—
(1) No immunity.— A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.

(2) Claim heard.— The court shall hear a claim under this section if—
(A)
(i)
(I) the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred, or was so designated as a result of such act, and, subject to subclause (II), either remains so designated when the claim is filed under this section or was so designated within the 6-month period before the claim is filed under this section"

So, it's pretty much impossible to go wrong here. If you are injured by terrorism and you believe a foreign government is responsible in some way, then you can go to court IF

1. The country was a designated state sponsor of terrorism when you were injured;

2. The country is designated at the time you filed your suit; or

3. It had been so designated at any time within six months before you filed the suit.

Was Libya designated a state sponsor of terrorism at the appropriate time relative to the Lockerbie suit? YES.

Was Saudi Arabia designated a state sponsor of terrorism at the appropriate time relative to the 9/11 suit? NO.

Was Elena Kagan responsible for either the text of the law or the designation of Saudi Arabia at any relevant time? NO.

Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story of what you think was a "different result" in these cases.

You might wonder... how do you enforce a judgment against a foreign government? The only practical way to do so is by seizure of assets - property, investments, etc. - that are located in the US. After the Iranian revolution, for example, most of that countries assets in the US were seized and held as a fund out of which claims against Iran could be paid.

In the period after the Lockerbie judgment and other events, Khaddafi became much more cooperative and less generally cantankerous. As a reward for good behavior, Congress passed the Libyan claims resolution act. A general summary is here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN03370:@@@D&summ2=m&

"Exempts Libya (and related instrumentalities and individuals) from specified property liens and attachments, limitations on foreign jurisdictional immunity, and private rights of action if the Secretary certifies to the appropriate congressional committees that the U.S. government has received sufficient funds pursuant to the claims agreement to ensure: (1) payment of specified settlements to the Pan Am 103 victims’ families, the LaBelle Disco bombing victims, and other relevant terrorism cases; and (2) fair compensation of specified claims by U.S. nationals against Libya for wrongful death or physical injury in cases pending on the date of enactment of this Act. (Applies such provisions only to conduct or events occurring before June 30, 2006.)

States that the designation and certification authorities under this Act: (1) are within the Secretary's sole discretion and may not be delegated; and (2) are not subject to judicial review."

Stripped to its bare bones, it says that EVEN if you won a judgment against Libya, you are NOT going to collect on that judgment unless the Department of State says you are going to collect on it, and in what amounts.

So, you are ignoring that the actual practical effect in terms of getting to the point of collecting a judgment against a foreign country is the SAME in both instances. In the Libyan situation, the case was allowed to proceed, but Congress has intervened in the ability to satisfy judgments or settlements in that case, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State. In the Saudi situation, the case was barred at the get-go, because Saudi Arabia was never a designated state sponsor of terrorism in the first place. But in both situations, the bottom line is that you are not going to sue either Libya or Saudi Arabia unless the Department of State says you can.

Finally, you might wonder why the lawyers for the Saudi plaintiffs bothered to try, because it is utterly clear that a claim against the Saudi government wasn't going to succeed. Their suit wasn't primarily against the Saudi government in the first place. They were arguing that Saudi princes and officials were acting in their personal capacity, and not as part of the government. That theory was rejected by the court.

The decision is not written in some foreign language, and even mentions the Libyan cases which were raised by the plaintiffs, for example:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/saudisuit.pdf
----
"Two other cases dealt with civil claims against Libya (a designated state sponsor of terrorism) and its intelligence service for the bombing of commercial airplanes. Pugh v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 290 F. Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2003) <...> Rein v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 18 995 F. Supp. 325, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)
<...> Finally, in Daliberti v. Republic of Iraq, 97 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2000), the court exercised jurisdiction over Iraq (then designated a state sponsor of terrorism) for conduct within the Terrorism Exception.
----

Do you notice how in each instance referring to other suits that proceeded against Libya, and against Iraq, there is the parenthetical comment pointing out that in each of those cases, the country in question had been designated a state sponsor of terrorism?

Absolutely, when private civil suits have foreign policy implications, there are going to be situations with the "same facts" that have different results.

Let me give you a set of facts - Some guy is drunk, drives through a red light, smashes into your car, and breaks your arm.

You file suit against that guy.

Now, if "that guy" is an ordinary Joe, you are going to get a nice judgment in your favor. If "that guy" is the Ambassador of Bundogs, your suit is going to be thrown out of court as soon as you file it, since he has diplomatic immunity, and you can only sue him if the government of Bundogs decides to permit you to sue him. Same facts - different result. But the driving principle and the underlying policy rationale is the same - in general we don't allow the conduct of foreign relations to be driven by private suits by individuals against foreign officials. And one of the reasons we don't allow those kinds of suits is that other countries do the same thing.

And that's also the reason why the US government, through the solicitor general's office, ends up filing briefs in these cases in the first place. But I really want you to take a look at all the lawyers identified in the Saudi judgment that argued this thing one way or the other:

Again from the decision:

-----

JAMES P. KREINDLER, Kreindler &
31 Kreindler LLP, New York, NY
32 (Mark S. Moller, Justin T.
33 Green, Blanca I. Rodriguez,
1 Andrew J. Maloney, III, of
2 counsel, Vincent I. Parrett, on
3 the brief), for the Ashton
4 Plaintiffs-Appellants.
5
6 STEPHEN A. COZEN, Cozen
7 O’Connor, Philadelphia, PA
8 (Elliott R. Feldman, Sean P.
9 Carter, of counsel, Stephen B.
10 Burbank, Philadelphia, PA, on
11 the brief), for Plaintiffs-
12 Appellants Federal Insurance
13 Company, Pacific Employers
14 Insurance Company and Vigilant
15 Insurance Company.
16
17 ANDREA BIERSTEIN, Hanly Conroy
18 Bierstein Sheridan Fisher &
19 Hayes LLP, New York, NY (Ronald
20 L. Motley, Jodi W. Flowers,
21 Michael Elsner, Justin B.
22 Kaplan, Motley Rice LLC, Mt.
23 Pleasant, SC, of counsel, Paul
24 Hanly, Jr., Jayne Conroy, Hanly
25 Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher
26 & Hayes LLP, on the brief), for
27 the Burnett and World Trade
28 Center Properties and Euro
29 Brokers Plaintiffs-Appellants.
30
31 ROBERT M. KAPLAN, Ferber Chan
32 Essner & Coller, LLP, New York,
33 NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
34 Continental Casualty Company,
35 Transcontinental Insurance
36 Company, Transportation
37 Insurance Company, Valley Forge
38 Insurance Company, National Fire
39 Insurance Company of Hartford
40 and American Casualty Company of
41 Reading, Pennsylvania.
42
43 JERRY S. GOLDMAN, Law Offices of
44 Jerry S. Goldman & Associates,
1 P.C., New York, NY, Frederick J.
2 Salek, on the brief), for the
3 O’Neill Plaintiffs-Appellants.
4
5 DAVID H. FROMM, Brown Gavalas &
6 Fromm LLP, New York, NY (Frank
7 J. Rubino, on the brief), for
8 Plaintiff-Appellant New York
9 Marine and General Insurance
10 Company.
11
12 KENNETH L. ADAMS, Dickstein
13 Shapiro LLP, Washington, DC
14 (Christopher T. Leonardo, on the
15 brief), for Plaintiffs-
16 Appellants Cantor Fitzgerald &
17 Co. and Port Authority of New
18 York and New Jersey.
19
20 MICHAEL K. KELLOGG, Kellogg,
21 Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
22 Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC
23 (Mark C. Hansen, Colin S.
24 Stretch, Kelly P. Dunbar, on the
25 brief), for Defendants-Appellees
26 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and
27 His Royal Highness Prince Turki
28 al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.
29
30 LAWRENCE S. ROBBINS, Robbins,
31 Russell, Englert, Orseck &
32 Untereiner LLP, Washington, DC
33 (Roy T. Englert, Jr., Alison C.
34 Barnes, Rachel S. Li Wai Suen,
35 on the brief), for Defendant-
36 Appellee the Saudi High
37 Commission.
38
39 WILLIAM H. JEFFRESS, JR., Baker
40 Botts LLP, Washington, DC
41 (Jeffrey A. Lamken, Christopher
42 R. Cooper, Sara E. Kropf, Jamie
43 S. Kilberg, Allyson N. Ho, on
44 the brief), for Defendants4
1 Appellees His Royal Highness
2 Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al-
3 Saud, His Royal Highness Crown
4 Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz al-
5 Saud, His Royal Highness Prince
6 Naif bin Abdulaziz al-Saud.
7
8 LOUIS R. COHEN, Wilmer Cutler
9 Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,
10 Washington, DC (Shirley C.
11 Woodward, Tracey C. Allen,
12 Douglas F. Curtis, David Bowker,
13 on the brief), for Defendant-
14 Appellee His Royal Highness
15 Prince Mohamed al Faisal al
16 Saud.
-------------

So, there is this entire roster of heavy-hitters arguing about this thing, but somehow the case was decided the way it was because Elena Kagan waltzed in with a brief, waving her magic wand while reciting a dead-bang black and white statute, and managed to pull the wool over both the district court judge and the three-judge panel of the Second Circuit.

The OP is selling a piece of bullshit, and that's the bottom line here.

[Usrename]

130. Don't give up yet, you're almost there.

"Was Libya designated a state sponsor of terrorism at the appropriate time relative to the Lockerbie suit? YES.

Was Saudi Arabia designated a state sponsor of terrorism at the appropriate time relative to the 9/11 suit? NO."

There must be some basis for putting Libya on the list and not Saudi Arabia, right? But there isn't any distinction between the behavior of the two countries. You seem to believe that this decision is based law, for some reason I don't really understand because you seem smarter than that.

If you were to point me to a statute that exempted big oil from ever being placed on the this terror list then I could agree with your point of view, but there is no such statute. It's solely a political decision. You almost admit this yourself.

Secondly, and more importantly because this was the reason I responded to you in the first place:

"
(2) Claim heard.— The court shall hear a claim under this section if—
(A)
(i)
(I) the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred, or was so designated as a result of such act, and, subject to subclause (II), either remains so designated when the claim is filed under this section or was so designated within the 6-month period before the claim is filed under this section"

Your claim is that the law was faithfully executed in response to this case, right? Why wasn't the attack on the WTC viewed as a serious enough offence as to warrant the sponsoring country ending up on this list? If you can show me the legal carve-out that keeps the Saudis off the list, in the form of something legally binding that would prevent a state sponsor of terror from being placed on the list, then I'll admit I was wrong. But I don't think I'm wrong about this.

[AnArmyVeteran]

86. How can Saudi Arabia be considered a 'friend' when 15 of the 19 terrorists came from their country?

Let's see if I have this right...

- 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, so we attacked Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, 9/11, and never threatened us.

- Just because Saudi Arabia has oil makes them immune to any liability.

I suppose if Hitler had oil we needed we would have sided with Germany during WWII to destroy and control the planet. Wrong is wrong no matter where the source. Saudi Arabia is a country led by thugs who oppress their people. A few families own all the resources of their country, while the citizenry lives in poverty.

So what if Saudi Arabia hasn't been 'officially' recognized as sponsors of terrorism. Does that change the fact that their country bred 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us? What do you think would happen if a large group of Americans decided to perform a 9/11-like attack on a foreign country? Do you think that country should just sit back and say nothing? In that case it would have been the fault of the US to either allow, or fail to prevent, evil thugs from attacking and killing the citizens of another country. It would also be the responsibility of the US to compensate the victims of their homegrown terrorists they allowed to leave their country with evil intent to commit murder in a foreign land.

It looks like more of the same. If a person is rich they get away with any crime in the US. And if a country has something we need then they get away with their crimes as well. Someone with a mind driven by justice, rather than convenience, would have ruled to allow the Saudis be sued.

[jberryhill]

93. And most KKK members are US citizens

So, if the KKK blows up something in, say, Mexico, then the US government should be subject to suit there because of the official US policy of supporting the KKK?

[AnArmyVeteran]

99. Yeah, I see your point...

[IndianaGreen]

131. Saudi Arabia finances those Islamic schools from which terrorists come

It is their pact with the devil.

[Sebastian Doyle]

95. Don't forget the guy who was supposedly in charge of the whole thing.

He's a Saudi too. And rich. And a close personal friend of the Bush Crime Family.

[JDPriestly]

89. Because if they sponsored terrorism, they should be recognized as such,

as sponsors of terrorism. That's what should have been decided in the lawsuit that Kagan stopped. Did the Saudis sponsor terrorism? At this point, we haven't proved it in a court of law although most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis and there is supposedly evidence (never permitted to be presented in court) that either members of the Saudi family, the Saudi government or other Saudis supported the terrorists. We will never find out the truth, according to the OP, thanks in part to Kagan.

[jberryhill]

94. "the lawsuit that Kagan stopped"

All by her lonesome self, since the Second Circuit was just enthralled.

"That's what should have been decided in the lawsuit"

What has to be decided in every federal case is "Does this court have jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, and any Congressional Act establishing jurisdiction?"

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act says that it's not up to a court to decide whether a country is a state sponsor of terrorism. What you are saying "should have been decided" by the court is expressly outside of the court's jurisdiction by the relevant statute.

[JDPriestly]

111. I understand how the courts work, but Kagan did not have

to argue against jurisdiction. The Second Circuit did not just decide that it had no jurisdiction all on its own.

[jberryhill]

122. Read post 121

In cases where a claim represents an encroachment on separation of powers as it relates to the conduct of foreign policy, the US will file a brief. Her brief gets zero mention in the decision.

And, yes, I personally have had a case booted under FSIA sua sponte by a court, because the court was not satisfied I had met the commercial activity exception. It happens.

Nonetheless, the assertion that Kagan's involvement here represents some sort of personal agenda is utter crap.

[JDPriestly]

125. I supported Kagan's nomination until I heard a snippet of her

oral argument in Citizen's United on Rachel Maddow's show. I thought that Kagan was terribly inarticulate and slow in her argument. She had a ready argument available against Robert's questions about paternalism, but she was not resourceful enough to use it.

I don't think she will be able to hold her own on the Supreme Court.

[jberryhill]

35. Clearly You Should Have Written The Brief For The Other Side

Since I'm certain the court would have been bowled over if someone had simply pointed out the other side was "completely wrong".

Oh.. I know... The court was under the influence of Jedi Mind Tricks. Yeah, that's it!

[Usrename]

44. I simply pointed out that YOUR analysis is WRONG.

I didn't even comment on whether or not I think the case was decided correctly or not. Try and stay focused here.

If you are now going to change your argument and say that in some cases it is perfectly legal for some foreign leaders to pay for terrorist attacks on American soil while it is criminal for other foreign leaders to engage in the exact same behavior, then I don't think we have much to disagree about.

[jberryhill]

51. You really ought to read the decision

The suit was barred under FSIA. That is indisputably correct.

And, yes, under the terrorism exception, it is also correct that some defendant states will qualify, and some will not.

I like the way you also ignore the fact that even claims against Libya were eventually capped by the Libyan Claims Resolution Act, and you convey a false impression that claims against Libya were fully realized. No, those claims got shut off too, including a more recent suit based on the German disco bombing. That's right, you can't sue Libya anymore either.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grantcart]

53. I have to go with the other poster.

His use of REALLY REALLY BIG LETTERS in explaining his side simply carries more wieght.

[Usrename]

54. I did that because he keeps misinterpreting my words.

I think it is intentional.

[jberryhill]

56. I'm sorry you think that

I pointed out that the suit was barred under FSIA. That is, in a phrase, the reason why the suit was thrown out.

You keep saying I'm "COMPLETELY WRONG" about that, and using other insulting insinuations which, quite frankly, do not lend themselves to my giving a damn what you think you are saying.

Here's a clue for you - Kagan did not decide the case. Kagan was an attorney with a duty to uphold the law as it is written. And as it is written, the suit could not proceed. But it was not Kagan's decision to make.

So, if I have misintereted you, maybe you might explain more clearly. You brought up the suit against Libya. Yes, Libya was an officially designated state terror sponsor, which is one of the tickets to the FSIA terrorism exception. For the purpose of that exception, we don't have courts decide what countries are, or are not, on the list. The reason we don't do that is because our courts are not the foreign policy making apparatus of our government.

So please try me again on what I have misinterpreted. That is a common thing that happens in human communication, and I do not assume that someone who misunderstands me is evil. It is unfortunate you do.

[Romulox]

70. Keep it up, and perhaps the Pron guy and RB McTexas will rally to your side!

:rofl:

[earcandle]

72. But why, given that evidence has it that all the terrorist of 911 were both funded and sourced

from Saudi, why is this country not on the State Terror
Sponsor FISA list?  

What has kept the Saudi's immune to scrutiny and labeling? 

[jberryhill]

76. Those are great questions

...and they are questions entirely irrelevant to the case at hand.

I wouldn't have a problem with them being so designated. But they aren't. And that was the primary problem with this case.

[Usrename]

106. So now you are arguing that soveign immunity is irrelevant?

You are making my head spin.

I'm telling you that the law did not prevent cases from going forward against Kadafi and you seem to agree, but you also seem to be saying that the two cases are not similar. The facts seem to me to be the same.

[jberryhill]

117. Once more, with feeling

Libya WAS on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. If you read what you yourself posted, you might notice there was specific enabling legislation permitting that suit.

Saudi is NOT on the list, and is thus immune from a suit based on the terrorism exception to FSIA.

Now, once you have those two facts nailed down - I.e. The legal basis why one suit went forward and the other one couldn't.... THEN we get to the third point.

The third point is this. I don't like the result. But what I "like" doesn't change the law, and it doesn't change the duty of a DoJ attorney writing a brief for the purpose of asserting executive branch authority over foreign policy, which is the fundamental Separation of Powers principle of which FSIA is an expression.

If you actually would just take a moment and carefully read what you yourself posted about the Libyan case - paying close attention to where it says that the law needed to be changed to permit that suit - then your head might begin not to spin. The place to change a jurisdictional statute is Congress, and not in court, no matter how sympathetic the facts.

I guess what I'm trying to tell you is that you will NOT understand what any lawyer personally believes about anything by reading an advocacy brief they wrote in the course of their employment by a client, unless they are a volunteer for some issue related organization. In this instance, the DoJs position was quite simple and correct as a matter of basic FSIA law, and the court agreed. The law does not provide, and is not intended to provide, a happy ending to every story. What it tries to provide is that cases are not decided on the basis of how people happen to feel on a given day.

[Romulox]

101. Did somebody get his feelings hurt? ALERT! ALERT! nt

[Usrename]

107. I know that this thread is about Kagan's involvement in this case.

She only argued the case as the State's lawyer. Lawyers argue all sorts of cases for all sorts of clients. I seriously doubt she had any authority over what policy was to be persued by the Obama administration.

[jberryhill]

118. Bingo - and here's a larger point about Kagan

Judges and attorneys do two different things.

A judge hears arguments and is really just asking "persuade me to agree with you".

Attorneys are persuaders.

The arguments about Kagan revolve around whether she will vote with one group or another. A much larger goal than getting a certain number of votes on one proposition or another, is bringing around others to your point of view. And that is the experience and skill that Kagan has demonstrated.

And, if you want to know how I learned about FSIA, the answer is - the hard way. I lost a case against a foreign government by failing to persuade the court that the facts qualified for the "commercial activity" exception. So, nobody needs to tell me that FSIA is a bitch.

[Usrename]

108. The problem most people have is that the laws are not being followed.

We are becoming a lawless, fascist nation. I certainly don't blame her for that, but I will confront the apologists.

[pokercat999]

73. Could suit have been brought in International courts? nt

[jberryhill]

79. On behalf of private individuals, no /nt

[HereSince1628]

124. Yes, nations are immune, _until we declare war on them_, THEN

there are consequences and accountabilities...

While almost all the 9-11 highjackers were Saudi, the US seems to have made a determination that a 'demonstration war' needed to be started and that it continues to be fought, the administrations decided not to have that war with Saudi Arabia.

[Echo In Light]

6. Bump

[ProSense]

7. "But Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued "

"Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits"

I don't get these articles: are they supposed to show why Obama shouldn't pick her?

The Obama Administration's decision to intervene in the Saudi-al Qaeda case so irritated two Republican senators that they introduced legislation aiming to ensure that Americans have the ability to sue foreign governments.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a proposal to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Kagan cited as one reason the Saudi case should not be heard. Both senators said that US citizens should be able to sue foreign governments if they are found to be supporting terrorist activity.

Specter, who has since become a Democrat, was unusually blunt.

"She wants to coddle the Saudis," he said.

Graham/Specter 2012?

[jberryhill]

13. Notice That Specter's "Solution" Here Is To Amend The Law That Barred This Suit

OMG, Kagan knew what the law was, and Specter agrees the FSIA would need to be amended for the suit to go forward.

And Specter put forth a bill to do this, when?

[Echo In Light]

8. Bump

[branders seine]

9. I'm not digging this Kagan selection.

Is there a radical authoritarian, pro-imperial-presidency move she does not support?

How about her 100% awful record on choice?

Not good.

I know Obama ia a conservative corporatist, ut how can he move the court this far to the right and still have any support from alledged liberals?

[jberryhill]

12. In Your View, Then, How Did This Suit Satisfy The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act?

Just a couple of reasons why the law should not have been followed would be fine.

[branders seine]

14. I was not commenting on the suit.

I was commenting on Kagan (and on Obama).

Let the lawyers preserve the injustices of the status quo. That's their job. That doesn't mean I have to like or support them. The "law" gave us 250 years of legal slavery. The "law" gave us 300 years of female disenfranchisement.

[jberryhill]

15. And the law provides mechanisms for changing the law

So, your point is simply "FSIA WTF?", and you believe that the executive branch should be a unitary dictatorship which ignores the law.

Yeah, we had eight years of that kind of crap already.

"That doesn't mean I have to like or support them."

I see. And your preferred nominee, who thinks anyone can sue a foreign country in a US court for any reason is... who?

[branders seine]

17. She seems to think the unitary dictatorship thing is cool

when it comes to wiretapping and other PATRIOT Act provisions.

So you must have a problem with her too then, right?

[noise]

19. Note how "the law" becomes all important when

it suits the interests of government officials. Yet in circumstances where "the law" is inconvenient then it isn't considered quite as important.

The key point is the hypocrisy of pretty much every single government official in D.C. They advocate for illegal counterterrorism policies while they overlook Saudi links to al Qaeda.

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.

Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis

Is the State Department pro al Qaeda? Should State Department officials have their citizenship revoked?

[Bluebear]

27. bravo

[Bluebear]

126. .

[jberryhill]

36. To any attorney, the client's interests are certainly "all important"

And that is a major difference between being an attorney, and being a judge.

[ima_sinnic]

42. if it had been someone in, say, the Hugo Chavez admin who sponsored the hijackers

... well, I think you "get it."

[jberryhill]

57. Why would the court have decided differently

You do realize it was a court which decided the case, yes?

Offhand, I don't know. Is Venezuela a designated terrorist sponsor that would thus qualify it for the FSIA exception for that sort of claim?

[ima_sinnic]

60. oh, I see, as with "terrorists," countries can be "designated" at our govt's whims

whoever is the terrorist, or the terrorist country, du jour can be "handled" however the PTB see fit.

since Chavez has been demonized because he won't play ball with the corporate bloodsuckers and the US war machine (nationalizing the oil industry, omg, how "evil"), I'm sure they could find every kind of way to make it nice and easy to do whatever they wanted to Venezuela and its government on the slightest provocation--or pretext of one.

and Saudi Arabia has not been so designated because --?

the U.S. will continue to stomp around the world wreaking murder and mayhem at will, and colluding with oil sheiks to destroy itself for the sake of profits indefinitely, it appears--or maybe it will eventually really go bankrupt, or nature will put the lights out.

[jberryhill]

64. I guess you weren't going to answer the question

Because you didn't like the answer.

Venezuela is NOT on the list, and a suit in US courts by civilians premised on an act of terror would be barred by FSIA.

I didn't think it would be a hard question for you. There are only four correct answers.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/c14151.htm

Cuba
March 1, 1982

Iran
January 19, 1984

Sudan
August 12, 1993

Syria
December 29, 1979

-----

So, anyway, the point under discussion here was Kagan's brief in the Saudi suit. The Second Circuit found that the suit did not qualify for the FSIA terrorism exception for the same reason it would do the same relative to Venezuela. But, oddly, you raise Venezuela as if it would be a hypothetical exception - even though you are incorrect.

I thought I had handed you an easy one. Venezuela is not on the list of official state sponsors of terror.

And in answer to your other question, yes, it is not the function of courts to conduct foreign policy, and courts do not get to decide how the list is formed.

The only other states that have ever been on it are:

Iraq
Libya
North Korea
South Yemen

And Libya was removed as part of a broader settlement under the Libyan Claims Resolution Act.

You might even notice that the most recent addition on the list was made in the Clinton administration.

"and Saudi Arabia has not been so designated because --?" - Oh, clearly, because Elena Kagan not only runs the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but she has long been directing the actions of the State Department, too!

But, obviously, your definition of "whim" is "satisfying the conditions of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act, section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act, and section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act". Yeah, that's a heck of a whim.

[pokercat999]

75. Cuba, supporting all those terrorist Doctors in the third world.

[jberryhill]

77. Your issue is with the State Department, not Kagan

If it was my list to make, it would be a different list.

It is not my list to make, nor is it Kagan's.

[pokercat999]

82. My issue is with this government. I'm so sick of backward

19th century conservatives and wish Obama would discontinue their policies.

[jberryhill]

91. I agree completely

The FSIA is a statute, enacted by Congress. It is not an administrative "policy".

The overall contention here is that Kagan, by doing her job and preparing a brief on the application of FSIA to this case, was somehow expressing her personal opinion or belief about anything.

She wasn't.

This was a simple case, and it was dismissed for a simple reason. Kagan was thoroughly constrained by the law and the duties of her job here.

I'll tell you what I'm sick of - I'm sick of an executive branch that makes up the law as it goes along.

[branders seine]

97. nothing is less potent

than bringing the law to a moral fight.

[Bluebear]

100. indeed

[jberryhill]

119. Amen

Law is no substitute for morality. The legal result in this case was correct. The moral result is another story entirely.

[ima_sinnic]

39. is suing "members of the royal family" the same as "suing a country"?

please advise, because I'm asking sincerely.

there seems to be a lot of parsing going on to make it all right for Saudi Arabia to harbor and sponsor terrorists who fly planes into buildings in the United States and then walk away scot free because it's apparently "legal" for them to do so.

what fucking ever.

if in the ridiculous scenario somebody close to Hugo Chavez hijacked a plane (or poured millions of dollars into a plot to do so) that killed a few thousand people by flying into a U.S. building, this "law" you're pontificating about would be forgotten so fast it would make your sanctimonious head spin.

[jberryhill]

40. A good place to start would be in the court's decision denying jurisdiction

The case didn't turn on a sentence snipped from a brief.

The 2nd Circuit decision is 67 pages long, answers your question among others, and was not decided or written by Kagan.

You might consider the summary here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423808995

But I recommend reading the decision.

[dotymed]

43. Damn, branders, I guess berryhill nor his posse

care if you're not talking about the lawsuit. They are, and in a response to your post. You know the tactic. Ignore the message and keep diverting the discussion to Your point. The same tactic used often and successfully by the neo-cons. You,IMO, have a valid point and "the suit" is not a part of that point. Obviously, Progressives were "duped", lied to, or as the neo-liberals :wtf: like to say "misinterpreted" Obamas stand on the issues that are destroying our nation and furthering serfdom. Obama is corporate owned and his "solicitor general" shows that she is too. Maybe she is just too pragmatic to speak up against elitism. either way, it does not bode well for the "lower class", the 80% of us who own 3% of the wealth.
Our SCOTUS is staffed with the most "rightwing" Justices in the history of the court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/...#37097524

Kagan is definitely not the Progressive Liberal that we Need to work as a counterbalance to this (planned) trend. BTW, I am not talking about the Saudi lawsuit either. The elites have each others backs. It makes no difference if there is a D or an R behind their names...

[jberryhill]

52. It's all about persuasion

The court could function like the Senate, in which the GOP leadership enforces discipline to the extent there is no need to really have the Senate engaged in the deliberative role it was intended to fulfill.

But the court doesn't really work that way. Justices change over time, and not because of simple naysaying disagreement. Having had a certain Joseph Biden as one of my former professors of Con Law, I am certain that both he and Obama understand this dynamic, and Elena Kagan, much better than a good deal of DU.

Incidentally, I don't have a "posse". I know it is important for some to believe they are up against an organized evil bunch, for the purpose of dehumanizing opponents and debasing conversation. But I'm just an individual whose opinion differs from yours.

[dotymed]

58. lol, poor fella

First, I don't happen to feel " it is important for some to believe they are up against an organized evil bunch, for the purpose of dehumanizing opponents and debasing conversation. But I'm just an individual whose opinion differs from yours." But, I have not been sleeping for the last 50 years either.
Since Reagans decision to entrust our government in the trustworthy hands of "THE FREE MARKET." America has become a cesspool of sanctioned corruption heaped upon secrecy. Secrecy when it comes to the affairs of state is the metaphoric definition of destruction, when it comes to an open and democratic society.
"Having had a certain Joseph Biden as one of my (*your) former professors of Con Law, I am certain that both he and Obama understand this dynamic, and Elena Kagan, much better than a good deal of DU." I am sure that you quite understand this very important "dynamic", of which I speak, your Grace....

* my addition to this refined (pinkies up) quote :puke:

[jberryhill]

68. I agree completely with your sentiments about the course taken since Reagan

And I'm sorry your stomach isn't feeling better.

Can you at all connect your spot-on comments about the Reagan administration's debasement of American principles to the case that is the subject of this thread?

[Echo In Light]

16. Bump

[ejbr]

31. Forrest...Gump n/t

[Echo In Light]

47. Close, actually ...

[wildbilln864]

18. K & friggin R. nt

:banghead:

[Obamaknowzz]

20. Jeez, Obama is the best "democrat" friend the Bushtypes ever had.

I guess the whole idea is to let Obama keep the wolves of justice from getting at them, having Obama keep their Mid-East policy going and then try to move the country toward fascism with some new "Perle Harbor" like attack.

[JTFrog]

32. Oh for fucks sake.

Teh stupid, it burns.

:eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

45. oh, really?

it seems that so far every major policy decision has benefited the rich ruling pigs the most and mightily protected the status quo, further consolidating power among the few at the top while the majority of Americans are left to their tent cities and Monsanto-contaminated food supply.

next up: the Holy Grail: privatizing Social Security. On every front, Obama has delivered and will be (is already, I'm sure) handsomely rewarded.

[icee]

50. You got it! And Kagan will play an instrumental part in that, if she

is confirmed. When will they pass out the suicide pills? Will there be a co-pay?

[JTFrog]

59. Yes really. Claiming that Obama is plotting the next "Perle" Harbor goes beyond "teh stupid".

It's teabaggery stupid.

[ima_sinnic]

61. who said HE's plotting it?

oh, yeah, I'm just a "hater."

as with GWB, my hatred is earned when it's earned. until then, I give the benefit of the doubt.

[Usrename]

109. Is there any substantial policy difference?

I mean, Obama did say he would close Gitmo by keeping it open. That sounds a lot like a Bushism to me.

Seriously, is there any substantial policy difference? He deployed more troops, I guess, and expanded into Pakistan, but other than that?

[JTFrog]

110. The fact that you ask that question "seriously" shows it's pretty pointless to answer.

Seriously.

:eyes:

[Usrename]

112. So you can't see anything either.

That's why I asked.

[JTFrog]

113. We both know that's not why you asked.

But feel free to keep spreading the hate.

[Quantess]

129. "Perle Harbor"

I'd like to see an all female cover band called Perle Haggard.

[troubledamerican]

22. Demoralizing.

[BeFree]

23. ^%*@$!

Just doing her job as a baggage handler on the hellbound train. Good job Kagie!!

[progressoid]

24. Yummmm

That changalicious.

[Bluebear]

28. .

[nc4bo]

33. Umm yea.

Funny how all these new changes are all so unsurprising.

sigh.

[liberation]

84. Apparently a lot of peeps here are under the impression that Status Quo is Latin for Hope and Change

There is a sadness in the realization that marketing campaigns can trump reality and common sense for a lot of people, tough....

[arcadian]

37. It's Changetacular® !

[Bluebear]

25. 'because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation.'

Lovely.

[Wilms]

30. .

[MissDeeds]

38. I agree with Kristen Breitweiser

"One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration...". Ya think?

Que the spinners.

[Echo In Light]

49. Yes. Que the contortionists.

[Bluebear]

127. .

[dotymed]

55. It would be great, and our right as American citizens

to have all of those questions answered by OUR elected ;-) officials. If we could get 1/10 of the 80% of "lower class" Americans to non-violently protest, simultaneously, across OUR nation. "They" couldn't ignore us. We outnumber the "elite ruling class", by millions to one. Only WE can make The difference needed, and retake our government. ORGANIZE!
Actually this was a response to post # 30....

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. What you call spinning....

is also known as the rule of law. The law on this subject for more than thirty years states that citizens can't sue foreign nations unless a few very narrowly-defined exceptions apply. And they don't apply in this case.

There's a good reason we don't leave the door wide open on this subject. If private citizens start suing other countries, it's likely that those countries are not going to even appear at the trial (why should they - any more than the US government would show up for a trial in North Korea) and then there's going to be a default judgment in the favor of the plaintiff. The judge would then order that assets of the foreign country to be siezed and sold to satisfy the judgement. And the next thing you know some small claims court in Des Moines is triggering an international trade war and effectively dictating U.S. Foreign policy.

Think for a moment how litigation-crazed our society it. Think of how many people would start suing Canada because they got sick from drinking Molsen's and any one of a brazillion other complaints (real or imaginary). It would be simply impossible for any Administration to carry on a cogent foreign relations. Bear in mind that the precedent for this law dates back to the early 19th century -- this isn't something we just cooked up yesterday to protect our friends in Saudi Arabia.

Should this law be amended to create an exception for a government, not on the State Department's list of nations that support terrorism, but that is accused of supporting terrorism (that's the rub here -- there's a terrorism exception, but the nation has to be on the list and the Saudi's are not). Absolutely. But until Congress creates that exception, the law is the law.

After eight years of the Bush Regime's ignoring the laws of this nation, I'm not willing to have the Obama Administration do more of the same.

[icee]

46. Yes, yes, we must have this wonderful, clear-thinking, humanitarian

on the Supreme Court. What in the hell is going on here?

[whatchamacallit]

63. K&R to combat the noise from Tools of the Empire (n/t)

[bridgit]

65. Rut roh

[Romulox]

67. At least she's never taken a DIME from Goldman Sachs!

Oh... :shrug:

[liberation]

83. I see what you did there...

;-)

[Moochy]

71. Interfere with US foreign policy with the oil rich nation

Hooray Oiligarchy! Good thing we've approved all those offshore oil drills in the past 3 weeks.. 27!

Can't upset the Saudis! Their royal family is the government!

[Fire1]

80. Bookmarking. n/t

[paparush]

87. TeaBagger Headlines "Kagan flew jet into WTC after leading terrorist training camps."

'Course, the spelling would be horrendous.

[JDPriestly]

88. I sometimes wonder whether we are, in fact, ruled by the Saudi princes

and just allowed to keep enough of a pretense of democracy to keep us fat and happy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

96. Might as well be

As it is, they own a big chunk of FAUX Noize and a bigger chunk of Citibank. And that's in addition to whatever influence they have in the government, or the stranglehold over oil.

[Bluebear]

98. Same difference.

:(