WTF Biden Administration...

[yeratowl]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration says Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s high office should shield him from a lawsuit over his role in the killing of a U.S.-based journalist, making a turnaround from Joe Biden’s passionate campaign trail denunciations of the prince over the brutal slaying.

The administration spoke out in support of a claim of legal immunity from Prince Mohammed — Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, who also recently took the title of prime minister — against a suit brought by the fiancée of slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and by the rights group Khashoggi founded, Democracy for the Arab World Now.

“Jamal died again today,” Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, tweeted after the U.S. filing late Thursday in her lawsuit.

The U.S. government’s finding of immunity for the Prince Mohammed, sometimes known as MBS, is non-binding, and a judge will ultimately decide whether to grant immunity. But it angered rights activists and risked blowback from Democratic lawmakers. The U.S move came as Saudi Arabia has stepped up imprisonment and other retaliation against peaceful critics at home and abroad and has cut oil production, a move seen as undercutting efforts by the U.S. and its allies to punish Russia for its war against Ukraine.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-business-lawsuits-journalists-jamal-khashoggi-49f3e4ce88aa21bf2ba603dcbb32277f?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_06

[woodsprite]

1. So does that also translate to those who have held

Last edited Fri Nov 18, 2022, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

The high office of the presidency should be shielded from lawsuits?

[Firestorm49]

9. Probably more accurate than you realize.

[Rebl2]

16. YEP

[Ninga]

2. Biden is either right or wrong.!we don't know what we

don’t know. This immunity is a tough nut to swallow. I do not like it, even though I do not have one ounce of foreign policy experience.

[sop]

3. The civil suit also named more than 20 other Saudis as defendants.

Article doesn't mention whether those defendants were also shielded from this lawsuit.

[Ptah]

4. U.S. government's finding of immunity for the Prince Mohammed . . . is non-binding

[Effete Snob]

24. It's a pretty obvious application of the FSIA

Given that in a monarchy, the monarch IS the sovereign.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act

[Effete Snob]

42. So, funny thing about that...

The court has ruled, saying:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204.57.0.pdf

If the immunity determination was in front of the Court without input from the Executive
Branch, the Court certainly would consider plaintiffs’ arguments about whether, as a substantive
matter, bin Salman was entitled to head-of-state immunity. But because the United States has
determined that bin Salman is so entitled, “the doctrine of the separation of powers under our
Constitution requires us to assume that all pertinent considerations have been taken into account
by the [Executive Branch] in reaching [its] conclusion.” Rich, 295 F.2d at 26; see also Doe I, 400
F. Supp. 2d at 111 (noting that plaintiff’s arguments against immunity when the Executive Branch
had weighed in were “entirely irrelevant” because “the filing of a Suggestion of Immunity ends
the court’s inquiry”).

Despite the Court’s uneasiness, then, with both the circumstances of bin Salman’s
appointment and the credible allegations of his involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, the United
States has informed the Court that he is immune, and bin Salman is therefore “entitled to head of
state immunity . . . while he remains in office.” Manoharan, 711 F.3d at 180. Accordingly, the
claims against bin Salman will be dismissed based on head-of-state immunity.

[bluestarone]

5. Tough pill to swallow here.

Not exactly sure WHO ruled on this? Hope a judge will decide differently. (but i doubt it)

[quaint]

6. A political finding does not negate Biden's denunciations of the prince over the brutal slaying.

Geez.

[Firestorm49]

7. Yeah, yeah, yeah. More of the same double standard justice.

[claudette]

8. Very sad

And a disappointment but even though Biden will get blamed it wasn’t his decision to make. I blame Garland and his DOJ who made the decision. I’m almost sure now that Dump will never be indicted by this AG

[Firestorm49]

11. True. It still makes my blood boil.

[claudette]

13. Mine too!

It’s amazing to me that ANY immunity shields a murderer or a traitor

[samnsara]

10. i trust Joes decision...i am just a mere mortal who will ever be in the room where it happens

[Firestorm49]

12. I agree. We don't know the circumstances.

What we do know is that a double standard of justice is now a reality. If our perceptions don’t match the facts of their decision, so be it. The unfortunate thing is that we the people, on the outside, feel victimised by the wealthy getting a pass over and over.

[claudette]

15. Does a president

Tell the DOJ what to do? Was Biden even consulted as part of the decision making process? I don’t know

[JohnSJ]

18. No, and this statement has no effect on any ongoing lawsuits. It is solely made to try and prevent

backlash on our diplomats over there, and to hopefully affect a less aggressive approach of cutting oil production by SA.

Until we are energy independent, this is just political window dressing.

and when I say energy independent, I am referring to the world, not just us. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and Russia's use of oil as a weapon to influence that conflict, I suspect Biden is making those non-binding, comments with the hopes that SA won't cut production levels any more because of inflation, and fuel prices

[2naSalit]

22. +1

[Hekate]

32. Intelligent comment. Thank you

[Effete Snob]

33. That's a complete mischaracterization of what happened

This was not some statement with no effect.

It was specifically ordered by the court:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204.39.0.pdf


In the Court’s view, some of the grounds for dismissal advanced
by defendants might implicate the interests of the United States; moreover, the Court’s resolution
of defendants’ motions might be aided by knowledge of the United States’ views.



A court has never gone against an administration's opinion on immunity. Never.

From the administration's filing:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204.53.0.pdf



snip....

[inwiththenew]

14. The US government letting the Saudis get away with murder, both literally and figuratively,

has been a bipartisan tradition going back to Eisenhower.

[JohnSJ]

17. That opinion has no power over any actual court action. It is obvious why he is making that

statement.

One is to help protect our diplomats overseas.
Another reason is to try to calm uncertainty in the oil markets, due to Russia's attack on Ukraine, and OPEC's cutting oil supply.

Currently oil is a risk asset, and until we are energy independent, it is not a wise strategy to destabilize the oil market.

As I said it has no impact on any actual judicial action or lawsuit

For those who are upset because the President isn't calling for bin Salman's head, it is because he doesn't want to destabilize and already volatile commodity.

[Effete Snob]

25. But the underlying legal principle DOES and WILL apply to any lawsuit

This is an utterly mundane legal principle:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act

[JohnSJ]

28. As far as I am aware the civil suit is ongoing, and I am not sure about other charges

[Effete Snob]

34. The court asked the administration's opinion, and you might want to read it

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204.53.0.pdf



.....




Take a stroll though those citations from US courts saying they defer to the administration's judgment and take a look at who those cases involved.

The court is going to boot this case.

[JohnSJ]

35. Where in the OP does it say that the judge asked Biden to weigh in?

“The U.S. government’s finding of immunity for the Prince Mohammed, sometimes known as MBS, is non-binding, and a judge will ultimately decide whether to grant immunity. But it angered rights activists and risked blowback from Democratic lawmakers. The U.S move came as Saudi Arabia has stepped up imprisonment and other retaliation against peaceful critics at home and abroad and has cut oil production, a move seen as undercutting efforts by the U.S. and its allies to punish Russia for its war against Ukraine”

……

“ Despite its recommendation to the court, the State Department said in its filing late Thursday that it “takes no view on the merits of the present suit and reiterates its unequivocal condemnation of the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi.”

[Effete Snob]

37. The article is a about a court case

The OP links to an article. The article says:

"“Jamal died again today,” Khashoggi’s fiancée, Hatice Cengiz, tweeted after the U.S. filing late Thursday in her lawsuit."

You see that? It is a court case filed by Hatice Cengiz. The news article is about the "U.S. filing late Thursday in her lawsuit."

Federal lawsuits are public proceedings. Her case is:

CENGIZ v. BIN SALMAN (1:20-cv-03009), District Court, District of Columbia

You can read it for yourself, instead of having a reporter spoon feed it to you. Here is the docket:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18552899/cengiz-v-bin-salman/

The "US filing late Thursday in her lawsuit" which the OP article is about, is this one:


53
Nov 17, 2022
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 39 Order (Suggestion of Immunity) filed by UNITED STATES. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Powers, James) (Entered: 11/17/2022)

You'll notice that the United States filing (from yesterday) is entitled "RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 39 Order (Suggestion of Immunity)".

Now, if you scroll to docket number 39, you will see that the court issued an order inviting the US to file a paper on the subject of immunity.

The US took that invitation and filed the paper which the article in the OP is about.

I have excerpted relevant information from the source document on which the OP article is itself premised.

I located it on the basis of having read the article, and then gone to the docket to find the actual document which some reporter is summarizing to you and which you are oddly quoting back.

The OP is about a filing in a court case in which the US was invited by the court to provide the court with a brief. The US did file that brief and the brief points out, among other things, that a court has NEVER contradicted the US administration's determination of whether FSIA immunity applied to a foreign sovereign - including Saudi royals.

I'll tell you what, the court also notes that the motion to dismiss and the opposition are already fully briefed. When the court rules, I'll let you know the result, since I set an alert on this docket.

[JohnSJ]

39. Thanks. My question: Is the court asking the US to voice an opinion, I.e. file a brief,

The same thing as asking Biden to weigh in, or the State Department

I don’t think Biden has the expertise to make that judgement, without the state department being the principle agency to handle such matters

[Effete Snob]

40. ah...

The US DoJ, acting in its role as the legal arm of the US government, filed the brief.

Because it implicates policy, and not merely an ordinary law enforcement matter of some kind, the DoJ would have worked with the White House and the State Department on this matter.

Biden's background in international law is pretty extensive. He's been involved in international legal matters all the way back to the SALT II treaty.

[JohnSJ]

41. I doubt he contributed to the brief, but regardless, I appreciate you pointing out the full details

and context

[Effete Snob]

43. And now the court has ruled on it

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204/gov.uscourts.dcd.223204.57.0.pdf

If the immunity determination was in front of the Court without input from the Executive
Branch, the Court certainly would consider plaintiffs’ arguments about whether, as a substantive
matter, bin Salman was entitled to head-of-state immunity. But because the United States has
determined that bin Salman is so entitled, “the doctrine of the separation of powers under our
Constitution requires us to assume that all pertinent considerations have been taken into account
by the [Executive Branch] in reaching [its] conclusion.” Rich, 295 F.2d at 26; see also Doe I, 400
F. Supp. 2d at 111 (noting that plaintiff’s arguments against immunity when the Executive Branch
had weighed in were “entirely irrelevant” because “the filing of a Suggestion of Immunity ends
the court’s inquiry”).

Despite the Court’s uneasiness, then, with both the circumstances of bin Salman’s
appointment and the credible allegations of his involvement in Khashoggi’s murder, the United
States has informed the Court that he is immune, and bin Salman is therefore “entitled to head of
state immunity . . . while he remains in office.” Manoharan, 711 F.3d at 180. Accordingly, the
claims against bin Salman will be dismissed based on head-of-state immunity.

[JohnSJ]

44. Thanks for the update

[Lucinda]

27. ❤️ ✿❧🌿❧✿ ❤️

[Darwins_Retriever]

19. Well think for a second

Is the President, Vice President, SOS, Ambassador to SA, or any other high US official subject to law suits or arrest by SA or any foreign government?

[Effete Snob]

20. Nobody wants to get anywhere near the actual legal basis of the determination

[Freethinker65]

21. But the US could/should alter policies towards a nation whose leader is a brutal murderer?

[Effete Snob]

23. As long as we ignore the rule of law, sure

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1604

In fact, there is a whole list of exceptions:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605

But, hey, "rule of law" is such a quaint idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act#Notable_legal_cases

In Germany v. Philipp, the Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that FSIA does not allow for survivors or heirs of victims of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany to sue Germany for compensation for possessions taken or forced into sale by the Nazi Party.

So, okay, FSIA should apply to six million murders, but not a single murder.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[GreenWave]

26. None of this BS stopped them from getting Noriega.

The invasion came by sea, air and land. Thousands of US troops descended on Panama, seeking to unseat its de facto leader and bring him to Miami to face drug charges.

[Effete Snob]

38. This article is about a civil lawsuit

You are absolutely correct that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act has nothing to do with US criminal law enforcement actions, and did not stop the action against Noriega.

This is not a US criminal law enforcement matter. It is a lawsuit filed by a private citizen against a foreign sovereign.

So you have indeed hit upon an instance in which FSIA immunity does not apply.

[moondust]

29. Is MBS the actual head of state?

~
Justice Department lawyers said that the executive branch of U.S. government, referring to the Biden Administration, had "determined that defendant bin Salman, as the sitting head of a foreign government, enjoys head of state immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts as a result of that office."
~
https://www.reuters.com/legal/biden-admin-says-saudi-prince-has-immunity-khashoggi-killing-lawsuit-court-2022-11-18/

I heard someone last night argue that his father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, who named Prince MBS the new Prime Minister (probably to avoid accountability, maybe on a tip from a corrupt GQP lawyer) is the real head of state and not MBS.

[Effete Snob]

30. the problem with an actual monarchy

Is that the monarch IS the state.

[iemanja]

31. It's about the oil.

[Chuuku Davis]

36. Money and Oil rule the world