Court: Americans Can Sue Over War Crimes (The Supreme Court )

[Kadie]

Court: Americans Can Sue Over War Crimes

4 minutes ago

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Americans can sue foreign governments over looted art, stolen property and war crimes dating to the 1930s, a victory for an elderly California woman trying to get back $150 million worth of paintings stolen by the Nazis more than 65 years ago.

Justices said that the governments are not protected from lawsuits in U.S. courts over old claims.

snip...
Justices agreed 6-3, a ruling that emboldens victims of wartime atrocities to pursue lawsuits. Women who claim they were used as sex slaves during World War II have sued Japan, and Holocaust survivors and heirs have brought a case against the French national railroad for transporting more than 70,000 Jews and others to Nazi concentration camps. Those cases are pending at the Supreme Court.

snip...
In a dissent, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) said the decision "injects great prospective uncertainty into our relations with foreign sovereigns."

more... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&ncid=1276&e=1&u=/ap/20040607/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_nazi_art

[cybildisobedience]

1. in other words...

what if people want to eventually sue THIS administration over war crimes....

[mom cat]

3. Bingo! This is great.

[nolabels]

4. We should start a class action lawsuit of taxpayers against frauds

Of course there is that one question, will we also get sue the SCOTUS and the other people who helped install the fraud.

I would settle for putting the neocons on the unemployment line (minus the grafted and stolen money they have in their bank accounts of course).

We probably will get no relief though, the bastards are much too entrenched with a extremism agenda second to none. They will steal or call the election off (because of some disaster they set up)if they have to, they are much too predictable in that way.

[AngryAmish]

11. No, not really

I have not read the opinion (and may change my mind if I do so) but I think the issue was whether or not sovereign immunity applies to foreign sovereigns, not just the US government.

Sovereign immunity is the old concept that you cannot sue the King without the King consenting to it. Now it applies to the sovereign (US government) unless there is a statute that allows you to sue the gov't.

My guess is the US Supreme Court ruled that foreign sovereigns do not have immunity in US courts. This is kinda a big deal, because it does make foreign policy a bit more difficult (there are several people out there with judgments in the 100s of millions against Iran for state sponsored terrorism. The State Dept. has been fighting these suits for years because they do not want private citizens mucking up foreign policy.

[Spazito]

2. This is very interesting!

Tangentially, this could ultimately relate to the case the Supreme Court is now considering regarding US detainees or "illegal combatants" and their rights.

[madrchsod]

8. it will be interesting

to see which way scabby boy rules on the illegals-although there are rulings that pertain to "illegal combatants" those ruling were during a declared war..this war is undeclared..

[bobthedrummer]

5. The Wiesenthal Center is making an effort to prosecute remaining Nazis

before they are dead of old age. It's called Operation LAST CHANCE.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,2763,1218337,00.html

Nazis WERE prosecuted, and government crimes apologized for during the era of President Clinton. It was a beginning for some justice long overdue.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/holtzman.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/maloney.html

Office of Human Radiation Experiments
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/index.html

[Tellurian]

6. Laughable, Rehnquist and Thomas, immitating models of prudence. nt

[madrchsod]

7. tony,bill,and charley

worried about relations with foreign sovereigns? very interesting dissent- and the rest of the court ruled on property rights...

[dArKeR]

9. Foreign Nations Open To U.S. Suits - CBS

In a separate decision, the justices ruled unanimously Monday that the Bush administration can skip a lengthy environmental study and open U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks as soon as it wishes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/supremecourt/main595928.shtml

[LibLabUK]

10. Ummm

How exactly does one go about enforcing the decision of a US court in the foreign country?

Isn't it a bit rich that the US is immune from prosecution for war crimes at the ICC, but retains the right to sue foreign countries for the exact same thing?

[AngryAmish]

12. Depends on the country

The US full faith and credit clause means foreign judgments are enforceable in the US. There are usual caveats for fairness and notice, but US judgments are enforceable under various treaties (NAFTA, GATT etc.).

As I stated above, many people have judgments against Iran that they are trying to satisfy through seized Iranian assets. The State Dept. has tried to make these go away.

Perhaps one way to enforce a judgment against a foreign sovereign is to lien the currency exchanges through the Federal Reserve. But this is definitely not my area of expertise.

[nolabels]

13. Welcome to the Hypocrisy

We are glad you could join us :crazy: