Supreme Court skeptical of U.S. lawsuits over abuses abroad - Polidicks

[url]http://www.wtkr.com/news/nationworld/la-pn-supreme-court-skeptical-of-us-lawsuits-over-abuses-abroad-20120228,0,3388370.story[/url] [quote] The Supreme Court sounded prepared Tuesday to shield multinational corporations from being sued in the United States for allegedly violating human rights in other countries. The justices were hearing arguments in a suit brought against the Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. by the Nigerian survivors of atrocities carried out by that country's regime in the oil-rich delta region. The suit alleges that the Dutch oil company aided the Nigerian regime. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy opened by stating that no nation in the world allows for suits against foreign corporations for actions that took place outside its territory. And he said he saw nothing in international law that authorized suits against corporations for violating human rights. Several of Kennedy’s colleagues were quick to agree with his view. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wondered why the Nigerian case had gotten this far. "There’s no connection between these events and the United States," he said. Liberal Justices [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/topic/politics/government/elena-kagan-PEPLT000007596.topic"]Elena Kagan[/URL] and Stephen G. Breyer, however, said they saw nothing in international law that shielded corporations. But they looked to be out-voted by the court's five conservatives. At issue was the reach of international human rights law and whether multinational corporations could be held liable for aiding foreign regimes that carry out atrocities, including murder, torture and enslavement. The justices appeared to agree that individuals could be held liable for violating human rights laws, but they disagreed over whether corporations could be sued as well. Human rights lawyers have insisted such suits against multinational corporations are essential for preventing abuses and atrocities against native peoples. Last year, however, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York rejected the suit against the Dutch oil company and ruled that American law does not authorize suits against corporations for alleged foreign violations of human rights law. Los Angeles attorney Paul Hoffman, representing the Nigerian plaintiffs, said corporations should not be immune if they participate in atrocities. If, for example, a company "jointly operates torture centers" with a brutal regime, the company should be liable, he said. But he ran into skeptical questioning from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/topic/arts-culture/antonin-scalia-PEHST001782.topic"]Antonin Scalia[/URL], as well as Kennedy and Alito. Along with Justice [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/topic/arts-culture/clarence-thomas-PEHST001980.topic"]Clarence Thomas[/URL], they would have a majority to limit the reach of such suits. However, a ruling rejecting corporate liability may not be the end of such claims. It is possible that future suits could target top corporate officials if their companies violate international law. In a second case heard Tuesday, the justices signaled they would likely shield political organizations, such as the Palestinian Authority, from being sued for carrying out torture. Congress adopted a law permitting international victims of torture to file suit in an American court against the "individual" who carried out the abuse. In the case before the court, Asid Mohamad sued the Palestinian Authority and the [URL="http://www.wtkr.com/topic/politics/government/palestinian-liberation-organization-ORGOV0000171.topic"]Palestinian Liberation Organization[/URL] for their role in the torture and killing of his father, Rahim, in the West Bank. But the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington dismissed his suit and said that only an "individual," not these political groups, can be held liable. The justices repeatedly pointed to the word "individual" in the statute and sounded as though they would affirm that decision.[/quote] Canada sounds pretty good about now...

'Fucks sake!

[QUOTE=Jackald;34915219][img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zUXk3yncO18/TV10W2QOMuI/AAAAAAAAALA/abJ4UxOxgFg/s1600/Eagle_Emblem_Sm_Final.jpg[/img] [b]Because other countries can't have their own laws!!! They have to agree with 'MURRICA!!!!!!!![/b][/QUOTE] That has little to do with the lawsuit or the opinion.

... What the fuck does this have to do with us? Seriously? The victims were Nigerian and the accused are Dutch, why should the Supreme Court of the U.S. have any right to rule over this? That law, saying that international victims can come to us is extremely presumptuous and unnecessary. They should take it to a Dutch court or an international court.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34915329']That has nothing to do with the lawsuit or the opinion.[/QUOTE] FTFY