It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court pick helped shield Saudi Royal family from 9/11 lawsuits because of oil

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   


Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.


rawstory.com...

So there is proof that the Saudi Royal Family funded al-Quida with millions of dollars before 9/11. The families of those who died in the attacks tried to sue members of that family, but Kagan blocked it arguing that


... the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation.
She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”


This proves this whole thing was and is over oil. Nothing else. And now this same person has been picked for the Supreme Court.

I don't care what anyone reading this thread believes really happened on 9/11. Here is a potential Supreme Court Justice arguing that oil and US Foreign Policy is more important than over 3,000 US lives.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by webpirate]




posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
It is difficult to argue selected points of a case like this. She was representing the US government at the time, and therefore her client would dictate the overall thrust of the argument.

Nevertheless, I would ask her about this case were I on the interviewing committee.....

The administration wanted the Saudi's isolated from this... she obliged using the powers of her office. It makes one wonder if as a lawyer, she can be held responsible for anything she said or did in her execution of her job.

Sorry. my make-believe and totally unimportant point of view on this nominee is "no".

(Especially since she was a Goldman Sachs member)



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
i dont like her at all.. lots of things coming out about her that sicken me. not to mention shes a lesbian which should end her nomination because that makes her complelety biased in my opinon.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


Being a lesbian should not disqualify her. Does the fact that she is gay and you are not, make YOU biased? Yet it does and it is showing in your post. With that said, it will make it more difficult to get her confirmed because the far right wing conservatives disapprove of homosexuality as much as you apparently do.

One of the other biggest issues which might hinder her ability to get confirmed, is the fact that while she has been a lawyer for around 30 years, she was dean of Harvard University's School of Law, and has been an Assistant US Attorney General, is the simple fact that she has NEVER, in all her years in the legal system, ever, been a judge anywhere.

Max, I totally understand that she was just representing her client in the above mentioned case, and that can make it a touchy subject, but she should definitely be questioned by the Senators about her stance on that issue. Especially since she apparently said by the way I am understanding it, that it is OK to violate US law, as long as it benefits US foreign policy.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by webpirate]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I am no fan of the Saudi Royal family, but from a legal standpoint she was correct in not bringing suit against a sovereign nation in a US court. Sovereign nations are generally immune from suit in US courts. These types of suits should take place before international tribunals.

Another issue that arises is whether the court even has jurisdiction over the Saudi princes. Let us assume the suit went forward and the plaintiffs won. The judge bangs his or her gavel and orders the Saudi princes to pay the plaintiffs a ton of money.

How is the US court going to enforce its judgment against the Saudi Princes? The Saudi princes are outside of the US court's jurisdiction. The US court cannot send a sheriff over to collect the judgment. The Saudi authorities are probably going to wipe their rears with the US court order. In short, the trial could be a waste of time unless the judgment can be enforced.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 


She did clerk for two judges, including a Supreme court judge. That gives her some judicial experience.



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join