Comments on: The Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and… ATLA?

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:16:56 +0000

Leaving aside SC’s characteristic hyperbole, he has a point, which is that claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction can go both ways.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:26:26 +0000

Yeah, I guess ultimately Sudan could pay a billion dollar judgment, say on a payment plan over like 46 years.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:10:08 +0000

David: Amendments to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1996, may permit such an action. In your narrow view defending lawyer rent seeking, and overlawyering, you forgot something.

How would you like the US nation subjected to litigation in the Sudanese court? What are their Rules of Civil Procedure, including post-verdict collection methods?

If the Moslem law hornbook, The Reliance of the Traveler, is an indication, those rules will be simpler, fairer, and lawyer less rent seeking promoting.

By: David Nieporent

David Nieporent — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:16:39 +0000

Ron, the point you raise does make it odd: attacking a military (as opposed to civilian) target puts it out of the realm of traditional terrorism. The terrorism exception is odd to begin with; Sudan could have sent its military to attack the ship, and the sailors would have been out of luck. But because they assisted terrorists in attacking, this suit was allowed.

JTWenting: the U.S. government can’t seize diplomats, but it can seize assets of the Sudanese government held in U.S. financial institutions. Or if any US-based businesses owe money to the Sudanese government, the U.S. government can garnish that money, analogous to traditional wage garnishment.

By: J.T. Wenting

J.T. Wenting — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 19:50:43 +0000

that court can never force payment of the multibillion dollar verdict anyway.
What are they going to do, order the country arrested and held hostage until it pays when it enters the US?
Diplomats and government officials have diplomatic immunity, holding other citizens for the purpose would be against international law.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:39:42 +0000

I think the key distinction here, and the reason this is really problematic, is that this lawsuit is being brought in connection with an attack on military assets and personnel — and they weren’t even in the United States at the time. Quite an audacious jurisdiction grab both on personal and subject-matter jurisdiction grounds!