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] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~