Quote:
Originally posted by Adder
Coming to this entirely out of context, and without reading the thread... what now? How does the case in question deal with Filartiga?
Or perhaps it need not given that, based only on the last few posts, there is simply no grounds for tort claims against foreign sovereigns other than those that are state sponsors of terror. I guess that is not inconsistent with my previous understanding.
|
Filartiga was brought under the old Alien Tort Crimes Act - passed way back when, in the First Congress, I think. You could sue an individual,
if you could get jurisdiction over them, in the US for crimes that violated some notion of international morality or treaties. This was developed to allow victims to sue pirates. (Humor me - I'm working off of dim law school memories here.)(ETA - Not sure if the ATCA still exists.)
The newer FSIA sort of cleaned up the old ATCA, but it still (according to the newer rulings) requires an individual named defendant. You still can't sue a "state", so, no difference. Filartiga could still go forward under the FSIA, I suppose, if they could satisfy the "engages in torture" language.
There's been no weakening of anything. There's simply been no expansion, which, I suppose, in an age when a decline in the rate of growth of spending can be called a cut, can be called a coddling of torturers.
