washingtonpost.com
Ruling Extends Courts' Reach in Terrorism Lawsuits
By Neely Tucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 29, 2002; Page A09
A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that U.S. courts have jurisdiction
over foreign nations accused of terrorist acts against Americans on foreign
soil, rejecting Libya's contention that the Constitution bars such claims.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit establishes for the first time that
foreign nations may not invoke the Fifth Amendment's due process clause to
protect themselves from lawsuits filed by U.S. citizens.
"We hold that the Fifth Amendment poses no obstacle to the decision of the
United States government to subject Libya to personal jurisdiction in the
federal courts," Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote in a 27-page opinion, with
Judge David B. Sentelle and Senior Judge Laurence H. Silberman concurring.
Libya had argued that a key part of the Fifth Amendment -- which says
that "no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law" -- applied to foreign nations. Libya also said
no "minimum contact" had been established between the U.S. federal courts
and the northern African nation, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction.
The appellate panel rejected both arguments in the first such case to be
argued in U.S. courts.
The ruling was part of an ongoing suit filed by two Texas men who were
arrested and allegedly tortured by Libyan police on charges of "anti-
revolutionary propaganda."
Nations traditionally have been immune from lawsuits under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act. But in 1996, Congress passed an exception for
nations found to be sponsors of international terrorism, opening a new
branch of law and paving the way for several dozen lawsuits filed on behalf
of U.S. citizens killed or injured by terrorist acts.
The nations most often targeted for lawsuits -- Iran, Iraq, Libya and Cuba -
- seldom respond. Only a handful of litigants have been able to win
judgments and also collect damages.
But Libya defended itself against a suit filed by Michael H. Price and
Roger K. Frey, Texas oil workers employed in Libya in 1980. State police
arrested them for taking pictures around Tripoli, the Libyan capital,
charging that the pictures would be used to display an unfavorable image of
life there. The men were held in jail for 105 days, and under house arrest
for 60 days, before being acquitted and released.
The men sued in 1997 under the new anti-terrorism laws, alleging that they
had been taken hostage and tortured.
The appellate court yesterday remarked that the allegations sounded more
like police brutality than outright torture, but allowed the two men to
file an amended complaint that might convince a lower court of their claims.
Arman Dabiri, the Washington lawyer representing Libya, did not return
phone calls for comment yesterday. It was not immediately known whether
Libya will further appeal.
Scholars and practitioners of international and constitutional law said
yesterday the ruling was significant, but it was difficult to assess its
future impact because no nation had invoked Fifth Amendment privileges
before.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
