Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

[avaistheone1]

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.

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.

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

[RandomThoughts]

1. They are not immune from justice.

It can be argued weather they do good or bad, but in my belief justice is eternal, and will be served.

The thought process of being immune from justice defames the idea that God is just, and is a delusion to make it easier to tempt someone to bad.

It is true somethings a person does that some think is bad may not be, and some things people think are good may not be. But Justice is Justice and eternal in my beliefs. Some may believe differently.

[ProSense]

2. A question

What's the point of the article?


And I love the ending:

“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.”

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.

I can't seem to remember the Republicans fighting to protect civil rights.

[ultracase24]

12. The point of the article is that this selection by Obama

is another right wing hack that covers for criminal acts. Its quite sad when you have Arlen Specter having to call out this cover up garbage. This isnt about Republicans fighing to protect civil rights. This is about Obama's selection of someone who would cover for criminal acts, which is exactly the same as the Bush regime. There is no excusing this.

[ProSense]

18. "This is about Obama's selection of someone who would cover for criminal acts"

Idiotic. The article is about her work for Obama.

[ultracase24]

19. Her work for Obama

covered for criminal acts. Now you can say that it was her job to do that. Or that she was'nt ultimately responsible. But that is kind of missing the point.

[ProSense]

26. "Her work for Obama covered for criminal acts. "

And she is Obama's nominee.

[ultracase24]

29. Yes you are correct

Her briefs basically told American families to fuck off when looking to file suit against Saudi terrorists victimized on 9/11.

And she is being pushed by President Obama as the Supreme Court nominee.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

44. Um....Do we all know the difference between a criminal and a civil case?

Apparently not.

[Enrique]

21. the point of the article is to inform you

you might not be interested in being informed, I don't know. Are you? Do you object to this information being reported? Why?

[ProSense]

25. Inform me of what? That she supported Obama's positions?

The blaring headlines, "Kagan did this or that," referring to her work as Solicitor General aren't intended to inform. The sole purpose is to create the perception that she is something she is not.

[PVnRT]

45. As usual, nothing to say about the substance of the article

Just another "Well, the Republicans are worse, so quit your fucking whining" post from ProSense.

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. Uh-oh...

That is not good. In fact, that is very, very bad. It sounds like somebody needs to have her nomination withdrawn. It will save the President from the embarrassing spectacle of having right-minded Democratic legislators vote against his nominee.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. I still don't understand why people continue to confuse her job duties as

reflective of her personal views. She was the Solicitor General who represented the United States before the Supreme Court. Regardless of the idelogical underpinnings/implications of the case, she did her job as SG.

[AtomicKitten]

6. It's all in the framing.

First you start with an agenda. Then you sculpt the story to reflect what you want others to take away from it. Specifically here at DU it's all about blaming. I learned a long time ago not to accept a particular version of a story being promoted here but rather research it and make up my own mind. It's the only way to get at the truth.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. So, it's not really about the fact that some people must have failed Civics?

Honestly, I wish people would stop buying into the Talking Head dribble. The woman was appointed to represent the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States. She cannot pick and choose which court cases she'll fight based on her personal political beliefs or ideology. She has to accept the cases brought before the Court.

I thought we intelligent people knew this.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Must be feigned ignorance of Civics 101 in order to maintain the narrative.

This place often gives me a headache.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Absolutely! n/t

[harkadog]

20. She was trying to stop a case from being brought to the court.

Nothing to do with "having to accept the cases brought before the Court". Different from what you posted. I thought intelligent people knew this.

[Enrique]

31. the solicitor general can influence those decisions

they're not just robots, they can advocate one way or the other. It's not clear from this article whether that happened here, but if some senator is interested they can ask her about it at the confirmation hearing. Though it's doubtful she will reveal anything, because no one ever reveals anything at confirmation hearings.

[WCGreen]

34. There are peope who feel that she is representing the entrenched

foreign policy community and not the people of the United States.

I can see why people are angry.

For one, it is a continuation of yet another Bush Policy. There are a whole lot of people here who consider any policy put into place when Bush was president to be more about Bush than about the American people.

Second, the Saudis have been getting a free pass for as long as I can remember so the natural inclination is that continuing the Bush Administrations policy of basically coddling the Saudi Princes is pro Saudi and since the American people are on the other side, anti American people.

Deciding not to pursue or even investigate what was going on in the Bush administration is another blow to people here who see that as a blow to the order the law is suppose to bring to this country's judicial system.

Anyway, I see why there is an uproar, I understand why there is an uproar, but since I am a cold calculating by the numbers accountant, I understand what the Solicitor does. But damn, how much more are people here going to be asked to swallow...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

48. The more I learn about her, but more questions that are raised.

I'm willing to wait and see how she addresses these questions.

Also, Rachel included an exchange with her and John Roberts during the Citizens United deliberation. She sounded drilled, stumbling over her words. She wasn't persuasive at all. It's no wonder why we lost that case.

I just hope Obama knows what he's doing and she was just having a bad day. She didn't sound convincing at all. :(

[avaistheone1]

11. It appears you are wrong.

Another tradition, possibly unique to the United States, is the Solicitor General's right and practice of confession of judgment: the Solicitor General can simply drop a case if he or she considers the government's prior official position to be unjust, even if the government has already won in lower court.

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



She is not simply doing the government's work, Kagan in her role as U.S. Solicitor General has authority and discretion about whether she will pursue a case or not.

[Jersey Devil]

14. It's not her personal view but the Administration's view she advocates

A solicitor general works for the President. She is not free do do whatever she wants as you suggest.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

That is correct. n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. She would pursue cases based on merit; or, those cases for which there will be

a major impact on the law and she feels compelled to address it. Still, her decision to exercise "discretion" does not necessarily imply that she is politically in support or disagreement. She's still exercising her duties, even if it means accepting cases for which she has an aversion. Perhaps there is pressure from above that the case be litigated. I still don't see how that means that she's some secret right wing nutcase, and that people should have childish temper tantrums over this. She appears to be thoughtful and to take her job seriously. Can't hate her for that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

40. When was the last time that happened?

When was the last time that a Solicitor General defied the President and took a contrary position?

The Solicitor General has the authority to pursue a case or not, but it's not an authority that is excercised in a vacuum.

[CTLawGuy]

32. because they are ill-informed

NT

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ladjf]

8. If this is true, it's bad news. nt

[VMI Dem]

10. Why are people making a big deal about being a good German?

She was following orders damn it.

[Jersey Devil]

16. Lawyers advocate for their clients. They do not go off on their own to

establish their own beliefs as law. Why in hell can't people understand what an advocate's role is? She was speaking for the Administration, not for herself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Why does Kagan pal around with terrorists?

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. ROFL...the haters are really reaching on this one

What an embarrassment they are.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Number23]

27. "You post like a paid GOP operative"

+100

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. OK. One More Time...

When acting in her official capacity as Solicitor General, Kagan is following the directives of the Obama Administration. She is not free to argue a case based on what she may (or may not) approve of as a matter of policy or as a matter of law. This case is no exception.

Beyond that, American citizens are extremely limited in their abilities to sue foreign nations for damages. What Kagan essentially did in this case was reaffirm the principles of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In this particular case, the law is especially irksome. But it is the law.

[ClarkUSA]

28. Thank you for taking the time to tell us the FACTS. Again.

The general cluelessness of Kagan's critics is a common trait they all share.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

36. Amen...

This gets awfully tedious after a while. Even though I like irony, it gets a little tiresome to read posts by people with no understanding of the legal system prattling on about the qualifications required of a Justice.

[IndianaGreen]

30. Is this Kagan's 'I was following orders' defence?

I wouldn't go there if I were you.

[ProSense]

33. Who cares? Obama nominated her. It's his nominee.

Every Democratic Senator knows the Obama adminstration's position on these issues. They're supportive of the nominee.

Watch the confirmation hearing. It's much better than ripping ones hair out about the President's choice.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. Let's go there....

Lawyers work for clients. And they have two basic choices a) do as their clients demand or b) go work somewhere else.

Your idiotic assumption du jour is that the Solicitor General MUST agree with the POTUS on all subjects or resign. In a huff, if possible. The result would be a constant revolving door at the White House as every member of the Administration, every Cabinet member and every Under Secretary, quits the minute the President makes a decision with which they are not in complete agreement.

Not resigning MUST mean that the Solicitor General agree with the Administration's position. Otherwise she would have done the nobly idiotic thing and resigned a job that she had held for less than three months.

:eyes:

And all that being said, it doesn't erase the fact that as a matter of law, the United States (and other countries) set a very high bar before a private citizen is allowed to sue the sovereign of a foreign nation. What Kagan said, and the White House's position, is legally correct.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Barring Americans from suing governments that sponsor terrorism is a gem!

All those madrassas in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc., where the next generation of terrorists is being shaped and molded, are financed by Saudi Arabia. It is the Saudi Wahhabism, a virulent intolerant variant of Suni Islam, that is taught in those schools.

Osama bin Laden is a Wahhabi.

More here:

A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia. Around the world, Saudi wealth and charities contributed to an explosive growth of madrassas during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. During that war (1979-1989), a new kind of madrassa emerged in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region -- not so much concerned about scholarship as making war on infidels. The enemy then was the Soviet Union, today it's America. Here are analyses of the madrassas from interviews with Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism, and Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (For more on the role of madrassas in producing militant Islamists, see the story of Haroun Fazul.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. The law is the law....

And pitching a fit doesn't change that. Neither will a snit or a hissy or anything else you'd care to post on the subject.

The law was written in 1976 and really did not contemplate the likes of Al Queda. Does it need to be revisited? Absolutely. But until Congress changes the law, it is what it is.

I'm amazed (not really) that the same people who spent the last eight years in high dudgeon over the lawlessness of the Bush Regime turn around and demand the same disregard for the rule of law from the Obama Administration.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Arlen Specter on Kagan: 'She wants to coddle the Saudis.'

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.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/146826/kagan_helped_shield_saudi_royal_family_from_9_11_lawsuits

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. Quoting Arlen Spector...

Welcome to the bottom of the barrel.

And you'll notice that while Spector was accusing Kagan of coddling terrorists (how Palinesque of him), he was simultanously offering an amendment to the current law, which is what he should do as an elected official.

Smearing the good name and reputation of Elena Kagan is what he does as a feckless attention whore.

[IndianaGreen]

42. Some of you on this board are backing Specter against Joe Sestak

You will have to deal with what Specter said about Kagan. Since Specter voted for DOMA, will he now disavow that vote? Will he disavow what he said about Kagan?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. Nice Deflection

Let's stick to the topic, shall we? Federal law currently sets a very high bar before private citizens can sue heads of foreign states. Kagan followed BOTH the law of the land and the direction from her boss is arguing against the 9/11 families. It sucks for them, but until Congress amends the statute, they have very limited legal recourse.

[amandabeech]

46. The ultimate decision on whether to advocate proceeding against the Saudis

was undoubtedly Obama's. Kagan may have agreed, but ultimately, it is the President who would make that kind of decision.

As Solicitor General, Kagan argues for the position of the president and his or (hopefully sometime) her administration.

If Kagan were in private practice, she could pick and choose which cases to take, in part based on the position that the client wishes to take. Generally "civil rights" type lawyers do something like this.

Some of the time, though, attorneys have regular clients, like businesses, that generate a stream of business. If the lawyer wants to continue to receive that stream of business, he or she pretty much has to either take what comes along or risk losing the business altogether. It's the blue plate special of law practice. The Solicitor General is in similar position, in that her or his big client is the President and the administration. She or he has to take the cases and argue the client's position, although she or he can influence the client's choice of position.

Like you, I would greatly prefer Cook over Kagan, but I think that in this case, Kagan's position is ultimately that of Obama.

As is her nomination to the Court.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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