Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by QUENTIN, May 12, 2010.

  1. QUENTIN
    Offline

    QUENTIN VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    964
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +203
    Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits | Raw Story

    Specter and Graham can suck my taint, but the precedent being set here that a completely legitimate court case with ample merit can be dismissed because it has the potential to harm an international relationship is a totally dangerous one antithetical to the rule and purpose of the law.

    Kagan was only acting in her capacity as Solicitor General where she has to advance whatever case the Obama Admin makes, but I find the fact that she'd do this, as well as invoke "state secrets" so broadly to block cases by people falsely detained, and a million other awful stances they've taken, certainly makes her seem unprincipled.
     
  2. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    I don't know - sounds to me like she was simply arguing existing policy. She may well have disagreed with it on a personal level. Don't like the policy? Fine. But don't shoot the messenger.
     
  3. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    You mean those lawsuits are still ongoing? Something smells with that article...
     
  4. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Yup, as I suspected. Nothing but a bunch of disinformation. Kagan was doing her JOB, since it wasn't just the Saudi government being sued but the US government as well. The USSC declined to even hear the argument.

    Nuff said on THAT one. Next?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. George Costanza
    Offline

    George Costanza A Friendly Liberal

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    5,179
    Thanks Received:
    1,087
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Los Angeles area.
    Ratings:
    +1,187
    Thank you, Maggie. I'm sure the OP will be around shortly to acknowledge his gaffe and to apologize for publishing false information.
     
  6. blu
    Offline

    blu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,836
    Thanks Received:
    774
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +774
    nice job! rep!
     
  7. QUENTIN
    Offline

    QUENTIN VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    964
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +203
    So what were you saying?

    First, if you're going to claim to have solved and discredited something, you should provide a link. I'm surprised two other people just took your word for it without you even explaining anything much less sourcing any evidence.

    Anyway, yes, she was just doing her job, I said that. As SG, she has to make whatever argument the Admin decides is it's position, no matter how atrocious.

    But this is an atrocious position, barring a lawsuit with legitimate grounds and considerable merit -there is ample evidence the Saudi royal family helped illegally fund Al Qaeda, a recognized terrorist organization http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html - not because it's frivolous or without due cause but because of the “potentially significant foreign relations consequences.” The DOJ has put forth the argument that our good relations with the Saudis supersede the right of 9/11 victims to sue those Saudis for illegally funding the terrorists who killed their families and have claimed a broad immunity to shield their crimes from view. As SG, Kagan played a critical role in advancing and defending that argument. Certainly she was just doing her job, but I think someone with principle (rather than loyal careerism) in mind would refuse to argue that or attempt to persuade the DOJ that the law is not at the whim of diplomatic relationships or any other political consideration.

    It's also of note that this wasn't just the decision of the Supreme Court or even DOJ as you claim, but rather "The Supreme Court asked on the 23d of February the U.S. Solicitor General’s office to weigh in on whether a huge lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia charging that it was a source of terrorist financing before the 9/11 attacks should move forward. "US Supreme Courts asks Solicitor General to weigh in on Saudi Arabia 9/11 suit The Lift – Legal Issues in the Fight against Terrorism She weighed in and suggested it not go forward because of our delicate relationship with the Saudis.

    As a potential Supreme Court justice, I think it reflects poorly on her.

    So again now, the case was ongoing while she was Solicitor General, it was the Saudi government and royal family being sued, she suggested they be shielded which the S.C. agreed to, and after extensive searching and reading up on the subject I've found zero indication the U.S. government was being sued so you're going to have to back that one up.

    Your pithy, unsourced, and as far as I can tell inaccurate claim is quite far from "enough said" on the subject. I'd love to debate this, but you're going to have to bring facts to the table. So let's try that again.

    What Maggie?
     
  8. QUENTIN
    Offline

    QUENTIN VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    964
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +203
    What gaffe? What false information? What's the basis for your claim that the information is false?

    Maybe Maggie has a reputation here for being an unimpeachable font of wisdom and fact, I don't know, but you guys sure were quick to just take her word for it without a smidgen of evidence, especially considering it doesn't seem to be an accurate representation of the case at all.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2010
  9. QUENTIN
    Offline

    QUENTIN VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    964
    Thanks Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +203
    Nothing, huh? Yeah, that figures. What you posted wasn't true.
     
  10. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601

Share This Page