February 13, 2008
Hon. Condoleezza Rice
Office of the Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Rice:
As you may know, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism Act of 1990 (ATA), Pub. L. No. 101-519, § 132, which created a civil cause of action for any “national of the United States injured…by reason of an act of international terrorism.” Codified as 18 U.S.C. § 2333, this law was designed as a civil counterpart to criminal laws prohibiting acts of terrorism. The ATA allows victims of terrorism and their heirs to pursue terrorists in American courts by providing “the remedies of traditional American tort law,” including treble damages, against those who cause injury or death through acts of international terrorism.
When the ATA was introduced Congress recognized that victims of terrorism who turn to civil courts and common law for remedies “find it virtually impossible to pursue their claims because of reluctant courts and numerous jurisdictional hurdles.” Congress also found that terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism needed to be held accountable, politically and financially. Further, witnesses testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts and Administrative Practice in 1990, for any law to be effective against terrorism, it had to work by “hitting terrorists where it hurts, in their pockets” and would “interrupt…the flow of terrorism’s lifeblood, money.” As such, Congress acted and passed the ATA to give victims and their families an avenue to seek redress through the courts.
Recently, Mrs. Leslye Knox, a resident of Georgia whose husband was killed in a 2002 Palestinian terrorist attack on a twelve year old girl’s bat mitzvah, utilized the ATA and sued the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) for sponsoring the attack. In 2004, a U.S. district court found for Mrs. Knox and awarded monetary damages to her. Now the PA is seeking to nullify the court’s award, and has asked the United States to file a “Statement of Interest” in the case. We understand that the administration has stated that it will decide by February 29, 2008 whether it will submit such a statement.
On January 12, 2007, you wrote to President Abbas regarding litigation in a similar case that was proceeding in the U.S. district court for Rhode Island—known as the Ungar case. In that letter, you advised President Abbas that the United States was not a party to the enforcement proceedings in the Ungar case and that as such your role was limited under “our adversarial system of justice.” However, you did note that the “appropriateness of the United States’ participation” depended upon the U.S. legal interests or obligation involved. This letter appears to demonstrate your understanding of the seriousness of the ATA and the necessity of allowing the courts to operate in a manner free of undue influence or interference.
As members of the U.S. Senate, we have a distinct interest in ensuring that the ATA is enforced in a manner consistent with the spirit and intent of Congress. We are concerned that as courts render judgments holding terrorists and sponsors of terrorist acts accountable under the ATA, political efforts to have our government intervene and unduly influence the courts may undermine verdicts imposed by independent arbiters.
Accordingly, we would like to voice our opposition to any such course of action or other government interference with the victims’ legal rights. The ATA is an important piece of victims’ rights legislation, and victims who bring forth claims in good faith and win judgments against terrorists should not be thwarted in their efforts.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
Topic: Don't sacrifice Israeli relationship in favor of PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis (Read 1237 times)