American victims of terrorism can sue their own government for damages — but not, generally, foreign regimes or officials.
It’s a ludicrous approach to the War on Terror. Weren’t we supposed to be using every tool at our disposal to fight the bad guys?
On Wednesday, a Senate committee began considering a bill to change things. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act would give victims a clear green light to go after terrorists’ state-linked enablers — that is, any regime, official or group that offers them “material support or resources.” About time, no?
The bill is a response to a 2008 US Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that tossed out a case brought on behalf of thousands of 9/11 victims, their families, insurers and even the Port Authority.
Plaintiffs had accused Saudi Arabia, four of its princes and other officials of funding groups that, in turn, provided financial help to al Qaeda, pre-9/11. Their lawyers collected mountains of evidence linking the Saudis to the terror groups.
Treasury documents, for example, cited a key Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, that was heavily backed by Saudi royals and that showed “support for terrorist organizations” through at least 2006.
And in a sworn statement, an Afghan witness reported watching a Taliban leader in 1998 take some $267 million from someone representing Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal.
Yet none of the evidence made it to court — because the judges found that the Saudis are shielded by federal rules of immunity for sovereign states.
National governments have maintained such rules for centuries, under the rationale: You don’t let folks sue us in your courts, and we won’t let them sue you in ours. But while that may work for governments, it clearly hasn’t worked so well for the folks governments represent — which is why many countries have carved out exceptions.
In America, for instance, Congress has allowed damages for “commercial” and other activities. In 1996, it stripped blanket immunity from any regime on the State Department’s terror list.
But that’s led to a patchwork of exceptions and conflicting rulings — a mess worsened by the fact that the federal executive branch (mainly the State Department) fiercely resists such efforts to seek justice, as of course do the accused states. All of which has created a legal nightmare for those looking to collect — and for those seeking to deter terror-enablers.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Richard Klingler, a lawyer who represented the victims in the Saudi case, noted that only “a handful of states, not including Saudi Arabia,” are designated terror sponsors. Thus, he said, under the Second Circuit’s approach, “a US citizen can sue a foreign state for harm unintentionally caused by a car crash,” but “almost every foreign state that might seek to harm Americans within our borders, through acts of terror or otherwise” is shielded.
Terrific.
Feel free, though, to sue a government agency in America: A few years back, the Port Authority — which, recall, was barred from suing in the case against the Saudis — was found 68 percent liable in the ’93 World Trade Center bombing (more than twice as much as the terrorists themselves).
OK, a court fight won’t win the terror war. Letting folks sue (supposed) allies like Saudi Arabia triggers migraines for State. And, yes, other countries may step up suits against us in their courts.
But c’mon: Other nations follow “international law” mostly when it suits them. Many that claim immunity are only too eager to subject officials from countries like America and Israel to criminal charges, never mind civil claims. Tell me again why we’re protecting them?
Today, Saudi Arabia says al Qaeda is its sworn enemy, and, indeed, it has hunted down anti-Saudi jihadi terrorists. But it’s spent billions upon billions pushing the extremist Wahhabi version of Islam that spawned jihadi terror — and poured money into groups that back violent Islamists.
And it’s never paid a price for 9/11.
We fight terrorists with our hands tied — following strict rules of engagement while they slaughter innocents, torture and behead.
Some may see it as the noble course — but it’s sure not the smartest.