• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

danarhea said:
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. ;)
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
I completely agree, however, its not like the Saudi Government is a US ally.

Oh, certainly. When I say that the courts are not the proper means to exact our revenge, it is because I believe a military response would have been more appropriate. Certainly more appropriate than invading Afghanistan and Iraq, though the former was at least strategically justified.

Of course, my idea of "proportionate response" is typically called "war crimes" by the UN.
 
Oh, certainly. When I say that the courts are not the proper means to exact our revenge, it is because I believe a military response would have been more appropriate. Certainly more appropriate than invading Afghanistan and Iraq, though the former was at least strategically justified.

Of course, my idea of "proportionate response" is typically called "war crimes" by the UN.

Mine too. I think we're on the same page.
 
Imagine if corporations were able to sue foreign governments. :shock:
 
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.
no, i'm not interested in supporting her.
 
Is she the one that sent the 767 around to pick up all of the Bin Laden relatives in the US, during a 'No Fly' order, to safely get them all out of the country?

No? That wasn't her? She just protected them from law suits? I don't think that that was even necessary. It's carved in international law.

Do I smell a swift boater?
 
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?

Actually, over the last 9+ years it's become apparent that conservatives only like the law if it suits their needs at the time. Otherwise things like laws, rights, etc. are merely inconvenient and should be ignored. So while Judges should follow the law in general, they apparently need to ignore it when conservatives think they should. Yes, that would be "judicial activism", which they claim to be against. But let's not get logically consistent here. It's politics we are talking about.
 
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? …

Blaming Elana Kagan for effectively doing her job as Solicitor General in a matter of national significance would be an error. Your argument is with the law, not the attorney arguing the law.
 
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.

Oh goody!

Another throw a ball of crap against the wall and hope it sticks.

I'm not pleased with this choice, way too rightie for me, but this sort of weak attempt at character assassination is just plain lame.
 
Blaming Elana Kagan for effectively doing her job as Solicitor General in a matter of national significance would be an error. Your argument is with the law, not the attorney arguing the law.

Excellent point. I think conservatives are going to get themselves into trouble with this one. I see no reason to throw a fit over Kagan's nomination. She's not nearly as bad as the departing Justice, so what do we care?
 
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.

Just an honest question, are you going to come back and even try to defend your original post? I don't see the point in starting a thread with a snide comment like "or is the fact that she is being appointed by a Democrat more important to you?" and then when you don't get the answers you like you just ignore the conversation rather than come in and say maybe I was on the wrong side on this one or even attempt to defend your post.
 
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.

I think the fact that she tried to have the Solomon Amendment declared unconstitutional is much more important. She signed a friend of the court brief that was so outlandish, that it lost on a 8-0 ruling. Even the most liberal SC judge disagreed with her and the other law school professors.

Her views obviously lie to the left of the current Supreme Court justices.
 
Is she the one that sent the 767 around to pick up all of the Bin Laden relatives in the US, during a 'No Fly' order, to safely get them all out of the country?

No? That wasn't her? She just protected them from law suits? I don't think that that was even necessary. It's carved in international law.

Do I smell a swift boater?

You criticize others for advancing disingenuous claims while simultaneously advancing discredited conspiracy theories?

snopes.com: Flights of Fancy
 
You criticize others for advancing disingenuous claims while simultaneously advancing discredited conspiracy theories?

snopes.com: Flights of Fancy
I didn't know that snopes (a source I trust) had debunked the 'no fly' flights of the Bin Ladens and other Saudi nationals. I stand corrected.

The flights still took place. But not until the skies were reopened. Now that I've learned something for today, may I take the rest of the day off?
 
Five bucks says somebody on Fox News will "ask a question" about whether she was complicit in the WTC attacks.
 
Back
Top Bottom