|
||
The Doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity" Presents a Grave Danger to Our Security
Today, at the Aspen Institue Ideas Festival a deeply knowledgeable panel discussing "Global Insurgency" included former secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Representative Jane Harman, General (Ret.) Jack Keane, and member of the president's Intelligence Advisory Board Mike McConnell with Slate columnist Fred Kaplan as moderator. The panel ruminated on the nation's preparedness against future attack . It was a sobering discussion about the ambitions of radical Islam to bring massive destruction to the United States and the West in general. Perhaps the most ominous comment coming from the panel was that, as matters now stand, there is a consensus within the intelligence community that a weapon of mass destruction will be released (biological agents, chemical attack, or nuclear detonation) within the next five years. That our ability to deal with this threat has improved, but is still far from the level that it might be were the government doing all that it could. To paraphrase a comment made during the discussion attributed to Sidney Harman, a trustee of the Institute, "Ironically we are armed with an analog capability fighting against an enemy astute in cutting edge digital technology, aiming to bring us back to the 12th century"
Given the grim procrastinations, it seems singularly incongruous that a branch of our government is oblivious or impotent to this present and grave threat to the nation's safety. Just the other day the Supreme Court, in its wisdom or lack thereof, upheld the ruling of a lower court ruling that four Saudi princes and Saudi Arabia are immune from 9-11 litigation that would have held them accountable for their alleged actions in assisting Al-Qaeda. The immunity is extended to them not because they are perceived as being innocent of the issues raised in the lawsuits by families of the 9-11 victims. No, but rather the doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity" makes them inaccessible to justice in American courts.
This raises the very troubling question that if "Sovereign Immunity" applies and is extended to Saudi princes, how can we effectively deal with the issue of terrorism. It would mean a tier of engaged protagonists would be permitted to function as instigators and supporters of terrorism, accountable to no one, least of all the courts of law where their alleged murderous intercession was in large measure responsible for the death of thousands.
It also raises the perverse and flip side of this issue. That is, if indeed the Princes did what the 9-11 families have alleged they did, acting thereby on behalf of a sovereign state from which and through which they are claiming immunity, than their alleged criminality is no longer just a conspiracy to murder. It becomes, because of its sovereign standing, an act of war!
Perhaps Saudi Arabia is so adept at invoking "Sovereign Immunity" because it has served them so well. They have consistently militated and lobbied our Congress and Administration not to revoke the protection Saudi Arabia and OPEC receives from our courts and laws under the doctrine of "Sovereign Immunity." This, even though they openly conspire with other oil producers to manipulate the price of oil through the OPEC cartel. Similar collusive actions would land American producers of oil, other commodities or manufactured goods behind bars forthwith, in that they would be accused and found guilty of brazen breach of our anti-trust laws. (Please see "U.S. Launches Complaint at WTO Over Chinese Export Curbs While Giving OPEC/Saudi Arabia a Free Pass" 06.25.09)
If the law on "Sovereign Immunity" needs to be changed in order to permit our courts to act responsibly then it is time for Congress and the Administration to take the matter in hand. "Sovereign Immunity" has its roots in old English law postulating that neither the sovereign nor the sovereign state can commit a legal wrong. It is an anachronism of another time, another age. "Sovereign Immunity" is a concept in law that the world, as we know it today, with its failed and corrupted states, can no longer be permitted to continue in its current configuration. This is not a matter to be taken lightly. Our future may well depend on action sooner rather than later, when it may be too late!!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
feudalism has come to America, as well. We have not seen, and will not see any of our political royalty come to trial for the wars, the economy or the attacks that started it all. Sovereign immunity already reigns here.
Sovereign immunity? The king can do no wrong? Doesn't that apply only to our own governments? How is it a law gives immunity to someone who is not a sovereign here? I don't understand the deal with another country, but here those princes are just misters. What has the Bush supreme court given away?
I'm having a little trouble believing that if someone brought a lawsuit against Iran we would respect its "Sovereign Immunity" as fervently as we do Saudi Arabia's. Doubtless a little research would give me the answer: did any of the Iranian hostages that helped put Reagan in office try to sue Iran? and, if so, were their suits thrown out of court? Or was Iran's "Sovereign Immunity" an idea best observed in its breech?
Sovereign Immunity is an anachronism, but the SCOTUS ruling is to keep the concept alive so the US can protect itself from its own misdeeds. As another poster noted, Sovereign Immunity is also used extensively by the 50 states to protect themselves from lawsuit. There is little hope for any change on this antiquated legal principal.
Much of Latin America, South East Asia and other "developing" nations will be happy with it's removal. The US has regularly used the "sovereign immunity" of it's embassies to conduct "clandestine" operations.
Wow, 8 comments on a very important topic that affects everyone in this democracy, and yet we've got over 6,000 comments on Sarah Palin's resignation...I see where our focus lies as our justice and liberties we take so for granted are stripped away. How sad.
That's cuz this topic is neo-con fearmongering, wolf-calling, and hype that doesn't concern anyone in this democracy.
So at what point do liberals/progressives get afraid? When all their liberties are already gone? Using fearmongering as an excuse to bypass a need a for real attention on national security is BS. Some things I read should cause fear - I'm not going to just let my govt take away my liberties just because you think it's no cause for alarm and fearmongering. That's just ignorant.
...But not as badly as the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive retaliation endangers everyone else's security.
Foreign nations are also immune in courts of other countries due to international law.
Thumbs up from this ConservativeFromCanada.
While you're at it, why not remove the "Sovereign Immunity" enjoyed by America's Big Oil Companies? Why not ask why it took an act of Congress to stop the oil man turned President, George W. Bush from filling our national oil reserves at $100+ dollars per barrel, propping up the price we lucky consumers paid at the pumps.
Why not mention that American and European oil companies have acted as monopolies and cartels since the days of John D Rockefeller way back in the administration of President U. S. Grant?
How about mentioning that OPEC was formed to counteract the depredations of the American and European "Big Oil" cartel.
Perhaps you overlooked how our CIA planned and financed the murder of the democratically elected President of oil-rich Iran in 1953 and then installed the Shah to do their bidding. How about 1954 when our CIA planned and financed the murder of the democratically elected President of Indonesia.
Maybe you could google "Chevron and litigation" or see how the Supreme Court reduced Exxon's punitive damages to a pittance. Perhaps you should talk to the residents of any town where oil refineries spew carcinogenic toxins into the air, water and food of their communities.
Your article is very one-sided and a disservice to truth and justice.
Could not have put it better myself. Good comment. The Neo Cons need a lesson in history. But then again they never were too interested in facts. The US has brutalized half the world for the oil companies and now wonders why people hate its guts. You kill a man;s family and then expect him to love you? These guys got to get a grip.
Simple solution to this problem.
Revoke the Presidential Order against political assassinations.
We know which Saudi pig Princes are responsible for backing Al Qaeda, the Taliban, AND the Pakistan insurgency.
That's what we got Tomahawks for ... right thru a palace window and *KABOOM* - roasted pig barbeque!
why are they all freaked out about being bombed back into the 12th century: with our lack of commitment to healthcare, education, clean air, water, renewable energy... we are walking right into our own version of the dark ages. think about it...
You might not like Sovereign Immunity, but it's a solid principle. Like war: legally iffy, but long-established.
I'm not convinced it applies in any way to prevent the seizure of assets located in the US owned by foreign criminals, however. The hydra-like Saudi royal family is far too rambling to claim to act in an executive capacity, or indeed in the interests of their state.
I don't the oil cartel link makes any sense either. The oil market is not in your country, and so your courts do not have jurisdiction. It's an intergovernmental issue.
Another brilliant solution. Then all other countries could seize all of America's and it's corporation's assets when ever the US does anything that annoys them. At the rate the US invades other countries and kills innocents that would make every day a day to take over American corporations and businesses. I think thats a great idea.
SCOTUS rules in favor of its friends, the law be damned.
I always thought sovereign immunity only applied to a sovereign in its own courts.
Not even close. If you work for a state government, for instance--say, as a staffer at a university--and you're discriminated against, unless you're under a collective bargaining agreement you'd better hope like hell you have adequate state-law protection, because you're not getting sh$# from the federal government or its anti-discrimination laws...and that's because of sovereign immunity, although with a twist, this time having to do with the states' insistence that the fed not have authority over the employees paid by that state. Not many people are aware of this, but the effect is that state governmental entities can commit bigtime egregious wrongs in the workplace and hardly ever be accountable, dep. on the statutes in that particular state.
"Soverign Immunity"? Sounds in practice very similar to "Executive Privilege", which is another anachronistic way of allowing a despot to escape accountability for his/her criminal activities. Both ideas should be flushed down history's toilet. Those who violate laws and abuse others, thinking they are allowed to do so because of their position must be held accountable for their crimes. "The Rule of Law" requires it. Otherwise, it is just the law of the ruled, which means "No Justice for anyone".
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
