Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic
580 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008)
Procedural History:
Claims brought under state law and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against a sovereign and its principals for money damages for terrorist acts committed by an organization supported by the sovereign.
Overview:
Families (P) of u.s. civilian contractors, Armstrong and Hensley, who were beheaded by AL-Qaeda in Iraq, claimed that the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) (D), its president (D), and its intelligence minister (D) were liable under the FSIA for money damages for the beheadings because Syria (D) actively and knowingly supported AL-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (“AI-Qaeda in Iraq”) beheaded U.S. civilian contractors Armstrong and Hensley, and their families (P) brought suit against the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) (D), its president (D), and its intelligence minister (D), seeking damages under the FSIA and asserting state-law claims for battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death; survival damages, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs alleged that Syria (D), acting through· the principals named as defendants, provided material support and resources to AL-Qaeda in Iraq and its leader, Zarqawi. Because none of the defendants filed an answer or otherwise appeared, the court proceeded to a default setting, which under the FSIA requires the entry of a default judgment against a non-responding foreign state where the claimant proves its case to the court’s satisfaction. The court, after reviewing the evidence presented, concluded that support for Zarqawi and his AL-Qaeda network from Syrian territory or ~yrian government actors could not have been accomplished without the authorization of the Syrian government and its military intelligence. The court then addressed the issue of whether Syria (D) could be held liable for money damages under the FSIA for the beheadings of Armstrong and Hensley.
Issue:
(I) Must state-law claims be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism?
(2) May a sovereign be held liable under the FSIA’s state sponsored terrorism exception where it is shown that terrorist acts against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives?
(3) May money damages for economic damages, isolation, pain and suffering, and punitive damages be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor?
Rule:
(1)state law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state sponsored terrorism
(2) a sovereign may be held liable under the FISA’s state sponsored terrorism exception where it is shown that terrorists acts against US citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives
(3) money damages for economic damages, isolation, pain and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against US citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor
Analysis:
The damages provision used by the court to award various money damages in this case, § 1605A(c), was enacted in 2008 in an effort by Congress to assist victims in satisfying their judgments against state sponsors of terrorism as well as to clarify that the cause of action provided in the terrorist state exception applies not only to agents, employees, or officials of the state sponsor, but also applies to the state itself.
Outcome:
(1) Yes. State-law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Under FSIA § 1605A(c), U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism can sue a responsible foreign state directly. Thus, Congress has provided the “specific source of law” for recovery and has thereby eliminated the inconsistencies arising under state law in such cases. Here, the families (P) effectively brought suit only against Syria (D) because they claimed that all the named defendants should be treated as the foreign state itself. The only cause of action permissible against Syria (D) is a federal cause of action under the FSIA, and the state-law claims must be dismissed.
(2) ‘Yes. A sovereign may be held liable under the FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception where it is shown that terrorist acts against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives. Here, it has been shown to the court’s satisfaction that it was Syria’s (D) foreign policy to support al-Qaeda in Iraq in order to topple the nascent Iraqi democratic government and thwart the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Syria’s (D) aid to Zarqawi for at least three years was not unknowing, and, given prior acts of terrorism against civilians by AL-Qaeda in Iraq, it was foreseeable that Zarqawi and his terrorist organization would again engage in such acts. Thus, the murders of Armstrong and Hensley were a foreseeable consequence of Syria’s (D) aid and support to Zarqawi and AL-Qaeda in Iraq, and there is jurisdiction over Syria (D) to support damages under the FSIA.
(3) Yes. Money damages for economic damages, isolation, pain and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor. Damages for a private action for proven acts of terrorism by foreign states under the FS!A § 1605A(c) may include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. The amount of punitive damages awarded for personal injury or death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism depends on the nature of the injury, the character of the terrorist act, the need for deterrence, and the wealth of the state sponsor. As with other punitive damages, the goal is to punish those who engage in outrageous conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Additionally, if several large punitive damages awards issue against a foreign state sponsor of terrorism, the state’s financial capacity to provide funding will be curtailed. Therefore, default judgment is entered against Syria (D) in the following amounts: For the Armstrong family: economic damages of $1,051,377; pain and suffering of $50,000,000; punitive damages of $150,000,000; and solatium of $4,500,000. For the Hensley family: economic damages of $1,358,210; pain and suffering of $50,000,000; punitive damages of $150,000,000; and solatium of $6,000,000.
580 F.Supp.2d 53 (2008)
Procedural History:
Claims brought under state law and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against a sovereign and its principals for money damages for terrorist acts committed by an organization supported by the sovereign.
Overview:
Families (P) of u.s. civilian contractors, Armstrong and Hensley, who were beheaded by AL-Qaeda in Iraq, claimed that the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) (D), its president (D), and its intelligence minister (D) were liable under the FSIA for money damages for the beheadings because Syria (D) actively and knowingly supported AL-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (“AI-Qaeda in Iraq”) beheaded U.S. civilian contractors Armstrong and Hensley, and their families (P) brought suit against the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) (D), its president (D), and its intelligence minister (D), seeking damages under the FSIA and asserting state-law claims for battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death; survival damages, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs alleged that Syria (D), acting through· the principals named as defendants, provided material support and resources to AL-Qaeda in Iraq and its leader, Zarqawi. Because none of the defendants filed an answer or otherwise appeared, the court proceeded to a default setting, which under the FSIA requires the entry of a default judgment against a non-responding foreign state where the claimant proves its case to the court’s satisfaction. The court, after reviewing the evidence presented, concluded that support for Zarqawi and his AL-Qaeda network from Syrian territory or ~yrian government actors could not have been accomplished without the authorization of the Syrian government and its military intelligence. The court then addressed the issue of whether Syria (D) could be held liable for money damages under the FSIA for the beheadings of Armstrong and Hensley.
Issue:
(I) Must state-law claims be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism?
(2) May a sovereign be held liable under the FSIA’s state sponsored terrorism exception where it is shown that terrorist acts against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives?
(3) May money damages for economic damages, isolation, pain and suffering, and punitive damages be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor?
Rule:
(1)state law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state sponsored terrorism
(2) a sovereign may be held liable under the FISA’s state sponsored terrorism exception where it is shown that terrorists acts against US citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives
(3) money damages for economic damages, isolation, pain and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against US citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor
Analysis:
The damages provision used by the court to award various money damages in this case, § 1605A(c), was enacted in 2008 in an effort by Congress to assist victims in satisfying their judgments against state sponsors of terrorism as well as to clarify that the cause of action provided in the terrorist state exception applies not only to agents, employees, or officials of the state sponsor, but also applies to the state itself.
Outcome:
(1) Yes. State-law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Under FSIA § 1605A(c), U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism can sue a responsible foreign state directly. Thus, Congress has provided the “specific source of law” for recovery and has thereby eliminated the inconsistencies arising under state law in such cases. Here, the families (P) effectively brought suit only against Syria (D) because they claimed that all the named defendants should be treated as the foreign state itself. The only cause of action permissible against Syria (D) is a federal cause of action under the FSIA, and the state-law claims must be dismissed.
(2) ‘Yes. A sovereign may be held liable under the FSIA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception where it is shown that terrorist acts against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives. Here, it has been shown to the court’s satisfaction that it was Syria’s (D) foreign policy to support al-Qaeda in Iraq in order to topple the nascent Iraqi democratic government and thwart the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Syria’s (D) aid to Zarqawi for at least three years was not unknowing, and, given prior acts of terrorism against civilians by AL-Qaeda in Iraq, it was foreseeable that Zarqawi and his terrorist organization would again engage in such acts. Thus, the murders of Armstrong and Hensley were a foreseeable consequence of Syria’s (D) aid and support to Zarqawi and AL-Qaeda in Iraq, and there is jurisdiction over Syria (D) to support damages under the FSIA.
(3) Yes. Money damages for economic damages, isolation, pain and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor. Damages for a private action for proven acts of terrorism by foreign states under the FS!A § 1605A(c) may include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. The amount of punitive damages awarded for personal injury or death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism depends on the nature of the injury, the character of the terrorist act, the need for deterrence, and the wealth of the state sponsor. As with other punitive damages, the goal is to punish those who engage in outrageous conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Additionally, if several large punitive damages awards issue against a foreign state sponsor of terrorism, the state’s financial capacity to provide funding will be curtailed. Therefore, default judgment is entered against Syria (D) in the following amounts: For the Armstrong family: economic damages of $1,051,377; pain and suffering of $50,000,000; punitive damages of $150,000,000; and solatium of $4,500,000. For the Hensley family: economic damages of $1,358,210; pain and suffering of $50,000,000; punitive damages of $150,000,000; and solatium of $6,000,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment