HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg

2.43 MB

Extraction Summary

5
People
6
Organizations
4
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal opinion / court document (federal supplement page)
File Size: 2.43 MB
Summary

This document is page 795 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.' It discusses the legal arguments surrounding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and whether the court has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia ('The Kingdom'), Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki. The text details allegations that these defendants provided material support to charities that funded al Qaeda and willfully ignored the threat of Osama bin Laden. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.

People (5)

Name Role Context
Prince Sultan Defendant
Argued that the entire tort must occur in the US; alleged by plaintiffs to have aided 9/11 terrorists.
Prince Turki Defendant
Argued that the entire tort must occur in the US; alleged by plaintiffs to have aided 9/11 terrorists.
Judge Robertson Judge
Referenced for previous rulings/opinions regarding FSIA and jurisdiction.
Osama bin Laden Terrorist Leader
Mentioned as the threat ignored by the Kingdom/Defendants.
Edwards Judge
Cited in Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic (concurring opinion).

Organizations (6)

Name Type Context
S.D.N.Y.
Southern District of New York (issuing court).
Second Circuit
Mentioned regarding legal approach to tort exceptions.
Supreme Court
Referenced regarding the interpretation of tort exceptions.
The Kingdom
Refers to Saudi Arabia; alleged to have aided 9/11 terrorists.
al Qaeda
Supported by charities allegedly supported by the Defendants.
House Oversight Committee
Implied by the 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' footer stamp.

Timeline (1 events)

September 11, 2001
Terrorist Attacks
United States
al Qaeda terrorists

Locations (4)

Location Context
Location where the attacks occurred and where jurisdiction is being debated.
Mentioned in the cited case 'Kline' regarding an abduction.
Mentioned in the cited case 'Cabiri'.
Mentioned in the cited case 'Tel-Oren'.

Relationships (3)

Prince Sultan Alleged Support al Qaeda
Plaintiffs allege Prince Sultan aided and abetted terrorists by supporting charities that supported al Qaeda.
Prince Turki Alleged Support al Qaeda
Plaintiffs allege Prince Turki aided and abetted terrorists by supporting charities that supported al Qaeda.
The Kingdom (Saudi Arabia) Willful Ignorance Osama bin Laden
Plaintiffs claim Defendants willfully ignored the threat posed by Osama bin Laden in return for protection.

Key Quotes (3)

"Plaintiffs allege that the Kingdom, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki tortiously aided and abetted the September 11 terrorists by supporting charities that, in turn, supported al Qaeda and international terrorism."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg
Quote #1
"the entire tort must be committed in the United States"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg
Quote #2
"Plaintiffs also claim that, in return for protection of the Kingdom, these Defendants essentially willfully ignored the threat that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda posed to the United States."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (4,093 characters)

IN RE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 795
Cite as 349 F.Supp.2d 765 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
§ 1605(a)(7) state sponsor of terrorism claim into a § 1605(a)(5) tort claim.
With respect to Prince Sultan’s and Prince Turki’s arguments that the entire tort, meaning both the tortious conduct and the injury, must occur in the United States, Judge Robertson disagreed and stated the FSIA “preserves immunity for tort claims unless injury or death occurs in the United States.” Burnett II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 19 n. 4 (quoting Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 775 (D.C.Cir.1984)) (Edwards, J., concurring) (some emphasis omitted). Courts in the Second Circuit seem to take the opposite approach. “Although cast in terms that may be read to require that only the injury rather than the tortious acts occur in the United States, the Supreme Court has held that this exception ‘covers only torts occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’” Cabiri v. Gov’t of the Republic of Ghana, 165 F.3d 193, 200 n. 3 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Amerada Hess, 488 U.S. at 441, 109 S.Ct. 683); see also Hirsh v. State of Israel, 962 F.Supp. 377, 383–84 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (citing legislative history stating both the tort and injury must occur within the United States for the exception to apply and dismissing complaint where plaintiffs failed to allege specific tort or place tort occurred); Kline, 685 F.Supp. at 391 (finding tort exception inapplicable where victim was abducted in Mexico City and brought to the United
States because “the entire tort must be committed in the United States”).
Plaintiffs allege that the Kingdom, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki tortiously aided and abetted the September 11 terrorists by supporting charities that, in turn, supported al Qaeda and international terrorism. Plaintiffs also claim that, in return for protection of the Kingdom, these Defendants essentially willfully ignored the threat that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda posed to the United States. Plaintiffs do not claim that the Kingdom or the Princes undertook any of their alleged acts in the United States. Yet, in the Plaintiffs’ view, the operative torts for the Court’s consideration are the attacks of September 11, which did take place in the United States. See Burnett II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 19 n. 4 (noting death and injuries occurred in United States). Further, Plaintiffs claim it would be unjust to allow foreign nations to escape liability for tortious acts performed in the United States if they could show that some act of planning the tort took place outside the United States.
Additionally, Defendants submit that, since the allegations are precisely those outlined in § 1605(a)(7)—that is, “personal injury or death that was caused by an act of ... extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage ... or the provision of material support or resources ... for such an act”—none of the other exceptions should be read to apply in its place.25 Defendants
25. Judge Robertson recognized the same difficulty. Although he did consider Plaintiffs’s claims under the tort exception, he found that the language of the state sponsor of terrorism exception buttressed his ultimate conclusion that the tortious acts exception would not provide subject matter jurisdiction over Prince Sultan and Prince Turki. Unlike (a)(7), the tort exception “makes no mention of the ‘provision of material support.’” Burnett II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 20 n. 5. After reviewing canons of statutory construction counseling that Congress acts intentionally when it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it from another, Judge Robertson concluded that Congress’s omission of ‘provision of material support’ from (a)(5) should be treated as intentional. Id.; see also HCSC–Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1, 6, 101 S.Ct. 836, 67 L.Ed.2d 1 (1980) (per curiam) (“[I]t is a basic principle of statutory construction that a specific statute ... controls over a general provision ..., particularly when the two are interrelated and closely positioned.”).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017860

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document