On November 26,2008 jihadists staged a terrorist attack on India and killed 164 people and injured 308. They were specifically told by their handlers that the Jews were the most important targets and they were worth 50 times those of non-Jews.
India has alleged that the ISI in Pakistan played a role in this and worked with the LET.
The obama administration/US government will be giving US immunity to the ISI
Why is obama giving immunity to them, Is he too afraid to call them out and attack radical Islam.
They shouldn't be getting immunity and should be criticized.
Do you think obama was wrong for this and do they deserve to be criticized.
-snip-
This seems much more complicated than the article makes out. It may be that the Obama Admin's affidavit is not at all what it first seems.
About the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the law codifying immunity:
Link for all below info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 is a United States law, codified at Title 28, §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), and 1602-1611 of the United States Code, that establishes the limitations as to whether a foreign sovereign nation (or its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities) may be sued in U.S. courts—federal or state. It also establishes specific procedures for service of process and attachment of property for proceedings against a Foreign State. The FSIA provides the exclusive basis and means to bring a lawsuit against a foreign sovereign in the United States.
Sovereign Immunity has long been the norm in U.S. courts. In an early case, the Supreme Court held that a private party could not sue the government of France. (That case was in 1812.)
So, there's nothing new about sovereign immunity.
Now, this part below may tell us why the Obama Admin issued the affidavit:
In passing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1976, Congress largely codified the Restrictive Theory of Immunity, but, in an effort to de-politicize sovereign immunity determinations, it vested the courts (rather than the Executive) with authority to determine whether a Foreign State is entitled to immunity. Though the Act places the determination of sovereign immunity fully in the hands of the judiciary, many courts have expressed reluctance to find that a defendant is a sovereign if the "state" in question is one that the U.S. government has not officially recognized, even if the defendant may arguably satisfy the definition of statehood under international law.
So, it seems that the Admin is just admitting that the US govt recognizes Pakistan and the ISI as foreign sovereigns. There is nothing unusual or odd about this. And I think it likely that the Pakistan govt subpoenaed the US govt to confirm that their sovereign state status was officially recognized by the US govt.
Now, just being a foreign sovereign under the law doesn't mean they cannot be sued in US federal court. See below:
Under the FSIA, the burden of proof is initially on the defendant to establish that it is a "Foreign State," under the FSIA and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity. "Foreign State" is defined at 28 U.S.C. § 1603(a),(b). Once the defendant establishes that it is a Foreign State, for the lawsuit to proceed, the plaintiff must prove that one of the Act's exceptions to immunity apply. The exceptions are listed at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605, 1605A, and 1607. The most common exceptions are when the Foreign State waives immunity (§ 1605(a)(1)) or agrees to submit a dispute to arbitration (§ 1605(a)(6)), engages in a commercial activity (§ 1605(a)(2)), commits a tort in the United States (such as a common traffic accident case) (§ 1605(a)(5)) or expropriates property in violation of international law (§ 1605(a)(3)). The FSIA also excludes immunity in cases involving certain counterclaims (§ 1607) and admiralty claims (§ 1605(b)). In addition, exceptions for torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage and hostage-taking were added by amendment to the FSIA in connection with anti-terrorism law and updated again in 2008.
So, it would appear that Pakistan (and by extension the ISI) subpoenaed the US govt for an affidavit demonstrating they are are a sovereign state under the law.
Now, it looks to be the plaintiffs' job to demonstrate that their suit meets one of the exceptions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act so the lawsuit can proceed.
Cliffs:
- Obama admin did not 'give' immunity. It merely attested that Pakistan (and the ISI) is a sovereign state as recognized by the USA.
- The federal court will recognize that Pakistan is covered under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
- The plaintiffs must demonstrate that they can sue Pakistan under one of the exceptions in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
- I.e., we're looking at routine court procedure.
Fern