Thread: Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

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

To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?

Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Article is here.

Originally Posted by danarhea

To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?

Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Article is here.

A question for you to ponder, does the fact that she was just following the law, as her job was, make any difference to you at all?

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.

I don't know why we should blame her for the law. That's congress's job. If she was following the law then it's a plus in my book. She doesn't sway according to popular sentiment, she sticks to the law. I thought conservatives like this about people?

The idea of private citizens being able to sue foreign governments is ludicrous on its face. In what jurisdiction, exactly, are these lawsuits supposed to be tried? Shall we open our courts to every foreigner who would like to sue our government for every act of war that we have ever committed or subsidized?

I would agree that the Saudi royal family should face consequences for financing acts of war against us-- but our courts are not suitable for this purpose.

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

The idea of private citizens being able to sue foreign governments is ludicrous on its face. In what jurisdiction, exactly, are these lawsuits supposed to be tried? Shall we open our courts to every foreigner who would like to sue our government for every act of war that we have ever committed or subsidized?

I would agree that the Saudi royal family should face consequences for financing acts of war against us-- but our courts are not suitable for this purpose.

Good point.

Originally Posted by danarhea

To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?

Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Article is here.

If it's all the same, I'm holding off until the fact-checkers start peeling back the layers on some of these stories.

So far we know the Harvard military recruiting ban is not what it seems...

In her role as a professor of law at Havard, Kagan signed onto an amicus brief (sometimes known as a "friend of the court" brief) filed by 40 Harvard professors that argued that the federal government should not be able to withhold funding if the schools applied the same policies to all recruiters. Harvard, for example, required all recruiters to sign forms indicating they would not discriminate against applicants based on sexual orientation. The withholding of funds interfered with the schools' freedom of expression to oppose what they felt were discriminatory policies.

Originally Posted by danarhea

To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?

Umm what exactly is wrong with what she did? If she (or her client) thought that laws governing sovereign immunity didn't allow for this, what's the problem? She didn't write the law.

Originally Posted by danarhea

Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Actually it wasn't an honest question. It was a loaded question designed to imply partisanship on the part of supporters...not to mention a logically incoherent question, since both options yield the same result.

Originally Posted by danarhea

To all you Liberals who support Kagan - Are you still interested in supporting her, or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?

Just an honest question from me, and I would appreciate an honest answer from you.

Article is here.

How about us liberals that do not support Kagan? She was a very bad choice, but not for the reasons you cite.

This is pretty absurd for two main reasons:

1) She did this in her role as the Solicitor General. She was acting on behalf of the United States presumably with the full backing of the US government. This isn't like she was sitting home alone and decided to jump at the prospect of protecting terrorists and screwing over the families of victims.

2) Her argument was absolutely correct. If private citizens were allowed to sue foreign governments in US courts whenever they wanted to, that would have a seriously detrimental effect on the president's ability to conduct foreign policy. That's the entire reason why the FSIA exists. If Congress doesn't like it, it can change it (to some degree).

Much ado about nothing.

Originally Posted by hazlnut

So far we know the Harvard military recruiting ban is not what it seems...

How is this "not what it seems"? Like some other deans, Kagan decided not to permit the military to recruit at the law school. When Congress passed a law to eliminate funding for universities that did this, Kagan and those other deans argued that it should have been overturned. The court unanimously disagreed.

Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat

The idea of private citizens being able to sue foreign governments is ludicrous on its face. In what jurisdiction, exactly, are these lawsuits supposed to be tried? Shall we open our courts to every foreigner who would like to sue our government for every act of war that we have ever committed or subsidized?

I would agree that the Saudi royal family should face consequences for financing acts of war against us-- but our courts are not suitable for this purpose.

I completely agree, however, its not like the Saudi Government is a US ally. These are the sorts of things we expect from a predatory government and enemy. Suing them doesn't seem to fit the circumstances. If we weren't so frightened of the Saudi's, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.