Israel and the U.S. ruling on war crimes

[Jefferson23]

A recent ruling effectively revokes immunity for foreign officials living in the United States for crimes committed in their home countries. It could put Israelis in the dock.


By Haggai Carmon

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not all former foreign officials living in the United States can claim immunity from prosecution in U.S. Courts. Its decision could have an immediate impact on Israelis.

'Sovereign immunity' offers states protection from lawsuits in another country's courts, based on the principle that disputes between nations should be resolved by diplomacy, not litigation.

Victims of the Somali regime recently filed a civil lawsuit against Mohamed Ali Samantar, who 20 years ago, had served as Somalia's prime minister, vice president, and defense minister.

The plaintiffs claimed that Samantar had been responsible for their torture, as well as other human rights violations. Their allegations included torture during interrogations, imprisonment for years without trial and rape by their prison guards. They based their suit on federal laws aimed at protecting foreign torture victims, allowing foreign citizens to claim for damages in American courts.

In his defense, Samantar claimed that as he was a minister in Somalia's cabinet at the time of the alleged crimes, he was immune from civil lawsuits in the U.S. A district federal court upheld his argument, and the suit was thrown out.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply to specific foreign government officials, effectively revoking Samantar's immunity.


remainder: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-and-the-u-s-ruling-on-war-crimes-1.296563

[howaboutme]

1. Objectivity is crucial

These are the kinds of rulings that require that the USA have a demographically diversified and balanced Supreme Court for objective purposes instead of our soon to be upcoming "loaded" court with Kagan. The fact that the most numerous demographic segment of our population is being excluded from a life term on the US Supreme Court is very concerning in view that we supposedly have democracy that represents all the people.

[Jefferson23]

2. Loaded with what? The most numerous demographic segment of our

population is being excluded...who are you referring to??

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Pat Buchanan was clearer.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

...

If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201005140037

[Jefferson23]

5. I have not received a response. Ignorance and or willingness to

view the alleged negative influence that Jews would have on the court is sad and ugly to me, but then again, all bigotry is. Doesn't
matter which group of people it is directed at...very ugly indeed.

We'll see, maybe a response will come from the poster.

[howaboutme]

7. If we want justice served we need diversity

We Democrats have always led the fight in the need for and the importance of cultural diversity. It is odd that the concept of diversity has apparently now been shelved for Democratic appointments to the US Supreme Court.

We need America represented at the table especially in matters of justice. Justice is viewed differently through different cultural, geographic and religious backgrounds with each having the views of their own prism.

I don't see diversity and balance being served with the appointment of Kegan, another Ivy Leaguer from urban America and NYC. If the court was packed with WASPs from the Midwest and state universities we'd rightfully be hearing of the need for an Elena Kagan. But it isn't and we need their representation.

[Jefferson23]

8. The importance of cultural diversity does not trump your suggestions

earlier. And there is NOTHING to support that a diverse court in and of itself would bring what is essential to our highest court and that
is integrity to the law. You are aware this court has several conservative activist justices? The Federalist Society is one hell of a group
of ideological thinkers. Roberts, one of the "white" guys, non-Jew, embraces power for the executive branch like no one else on that court does...
although he is certainly NOT alone. So let's look at more diversity, take a look at Clarence Thomas and wow, who is another "presidentialist"!
Yippee, now we have that faction all laid out with diversity..no problem. Just to give you an idea about Thomas's roots, other than the color
of his skin, John Yoo, Mr Torture Memo's, he landed a clerkship with Clarence Thomas, and we all know what great ideas Yoo came up with now, don't we? But hey, diversity is great and tells us so much about their legal minds!

Too many Jews? Too many blacks? Too many Latinos? Too many women? If we just get the race/religion thingie in check and worry less
about HOW THEY THINK, we will be well represented....sure thing.

Your suggestions are lacking rational thought, and are bigoted in nature, intended or not.

[cali]

10. oh gasp. An Ivy Leaguer from NYC. And the court was loaded with WASPS for

a couple of centuries. And men. And the largest demographic in this country is women.

It bothers you that she's Jewish. That's called bigotry. Duh.

[ColesCountyDem]

3. Huh?

Our Supreme Court will be as diverse as it has ever been, demographically-speaking; it should have at least one more woman ( better yet, two ), however, to be truly representative of our population.

[hack89]

9. Too many Jews and Catholics for your taste? nt

[howaboutme]

11. There is another side of the coin

and it depends upon one's perspective. The logical side, based upon fairness and the need for diversity would be a female of Protestant heritage from middle America.

The historic group think that comes out of Harvard and Ivy League should concern us all. It wasn't any accident that Harvard and its peers in the Ivy League were over-represented in the Wall Street collapse. http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/oct2009/bs2009105_376904.htm
This happens when greed is combined with a belief of infallibility, incompetence and a culture of questionable ethics.

This culture of superiority and infallibility at Harvard isn't limited to its business school.

America doesn't want nor does it need the Harvard group think culture permeating our justice system and the Supreme Court as it permeated Wall Street. Diversity (gender, religious, geographic, educational, race is required by the leadership of the USA so that every American feels connected and not ruled. It is the basis of our democratic government.

Diversity in these matters is important, and if you think not then please explain why.

[Jefferson23]

12. Uh huh, but your argument does not hold up, as the OP you responded

to is not about diversity. It is about a decision that could possibly find Israeli individuals in deep legal trouble, as they may not
have immunity. Your response suggested that there is a need for objectivity...and that Kagan would not be able to provide it.

Kagan btw, did not attend Harvard Business School, as the article you posted concentrates and derives its conclusion from that premise. The
evil business school bastards at Harvard...that may have a grain of truth to it, but has no relevance to support what you said about Kagan.

I think you have made yourself pretty clear in this thread more than once, and that is unfortunate.

[Jefferson23]

6. U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Sides with Rutgers-Camden Law Professor in Human Rights Decision

June 10, 2010
CAMDEN -- A professor at the Rutgers School of Law–Camden has achieved an extraordinary accomplishment in the legal field: on Tuesday, June 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of her clients in Samantar v. Yousuf, a case filed by Somalian civilians seeking damages for torture and other human rights abuses.

On March 3, Rutgers–Camden Law Professor Beth Stephens was seated as “second chair” at the plaintiffs’ counsel table for the Supreme Court oral argument in Samantar, a case in which her clients sought to hold accountable the former defense minister of Somalia, who is now living in Virginia. The defendant claimed immunity from the suit under a U.S. immunity statute on the grounds that he committed the acts on behalf of his government. The Supreme Court held that the statute does not protect individual foreign government officials such as Samantar.

Through her work on the Board of Directors of the Center for Justice and Accountability, Stephens assisted lead counsel from the Supreme Court practice of the Washington, DC, firm of Akin Gump. They were joined by attorneys from the U.S. Solicitor General’s office.

In the 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Stephens and her clients. As a result, the Center for Justice and Accountability will be able to proceed with its case against the former Somalian official. According to CJA Executive Director Pamela Merchant, “Faced with a choice between accountability and immunity, the Supreme Court came down squarely in favor of accountability – holding that former government officials are not immune from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.”

“This is an exceptional victory for human rights, and the entire Rutgers community is proud of the role the Beth Stephens played in making it happen,” says Rayman Solomon, dean of the Rutgers School of Law–Camden. “The opportunity to litigate before the U.S. Supreme Court is rare, and to have the Court decide in favor of your argument is a signature accomplishment for any attorney. Beth Stephens’ achievement is a sterling example that Rutgers–Camden law students learn from some of the very best scholars and practitioners in the nation.”

Stephens is no stranger to either litigation or the subject at hand: her research examines issues related to human rights litigation in U.S. courts on behalf of victims of human rights abuses in other countries, and she has litigated at various levels of the U.S. judicial system.

Now, she adds the U.S. Supreme Court to that already-impressive list.

“The goal of my litigation is to hold accountable perpetrators of human rights violations,” Stephens said. “The decision in this case removes an obstacle that had enabled abusers to evade responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

“This case also serves as a procedural lesson for my law students,” she added. “You never know when a case will go all the way to Supreme Court.”

Stephens noted that, although she had drafted briefs filed in the Supreme Court in previous cases, this was the first time that she sat at counsel table in the Supreme Court. “The atmosphere in the courtroom was unique. The room is very formal, with limited access to the public, and the justices sit high above the counsel table. But the oral argument proceeded very much like that in any courtroom, with well-prepared lawyers and judges debating the intricacies of U.S. and international law.”

As with so many cases that come before the Supreme Court, the stakes were high. “This decision enables us to continue to hold accountable officials from foreign governments who move to the U.S. after committing atrocities in their home nations,” explains Stephens. “The Nuremberg principles developed after World War II made clear that individuals, no matter what their position within government and the military, can be held accountable when they commit egregious violations of international law.

“Over the 65 years since World War II, the international community has started, haltingly, to apply that concept to look for ways to punish people who have committed egregious violations and to provide compensation to people harmed by those violations -- all with the goal of deterring future violations.”

Samantar v. Yousuf centers on what Stephens terms “excruciating torture.” She explains that the lead plaintiff, Bashe Yousuf, a businessman who was volunteering at a local hospital in Somalia, was “arrested by the military, brutally tortured, and held in solitary confinement for six years. The isolation was so terrible that at times he deliberately provoked the guards so that they would take him outside and beat him, just to have the chance to see the sky.

“The Court’s decision is especially gratifying to those of us working to promote accountability for human rights violations. It affirms that immunity should not apply when a defendant is accused of egregious abuses, such as genocide, torture, summary execution, and crimes against humanity.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments were supported by the U.S. Solicitor General, who, says Stephens, “filed a brief supporting us on a narrow issue of statutory construction. The Solicitor General also stated that that this particular defendant is probably not entitled to immunity under any other theory either.” Stephens notes that the victory will clearly signal to other governments and individuals who have committed human rights violations that the United States offers no safe haven for them.

The plaintiffs in Samantar v. Yousuf are asking for monetary damages, but also seek a judgment that would acknowledge the defendant’s responsibility for what they have suffered.

Stephens teaches numerous courses at the Rutgers School of Law–Camden, including Civil Procedure, Human Rights Advocacy, Introduction to International Law, and International Law: War and Terrorism.

Her career as an advocate for the victims of human rights violations spans decades. After graduating from the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, she spent six years in Nicaragua investigating human rights issues and working to help reform the legal system. During 1990-95, she was in charge of the international human rights docket at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York City, where her litigation addressed human rights violations in such areas as Bosnia, Haiti, East Timor, and Ethiopia.

The co-author of the book International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2d ed. 2008), she received the 1995 Trial Lawyers of the Year Award from Trial Lawyers for Public Justice.

Stephens joined the faculty of the Rutgers School of Law–Camden in 1996.


http://news.rutgers.edu/medrel/news-releases/2010/06/u-s-supreme-court-un-20100610