Hurts V. Socialist People ' S Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

Just a few years ago, Libya had one of the highest standards of living of any African country. Now Libya is in political turmoil with multiple groups and governments trying to gain power. In 1969, Muammar Gaddafi seized power of Libya by a military coup. The authoritarian ruler stayed in power for four decades until 2011 when he was killed in an armed rebellion assisted by Western military intervention. The UN intervened in Libya for human rights reasons, not to facilitate a regime change. Shortly after Gaddafi was killed, foreign assistance disappeared leaving Libya fragile and hostile. The Libyan civil war began as a part of the Arab uprising, with two main opposing forces, the government and rebel militias. The military groups that had once fought to topple Gaddafi began to turn on each other in an attempt to gain power and oil wealth. Libya is now more ideologically divided than ever and in need of a plan to revive its nation.

Should the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) preclude this lawsuit? Why or why not? (P.166)

Torture is known as the intentional infliction of either physical or psychological harm for the purpose of gaining something – typically information – from the subject for the benefit of the inflictor. Normal human morality would typically argue that this is a wrongful and horrendous act. On the contrary, to deal with the “war on terrorism” torture has begun to work its way towards being an accepted plan of action against terrorism targeting the United States. Terroristic acts perpetrate anger in individuals throughout the United States, so torture has migrated to being considered as a viable form of action through a blind eye. Suspect terrorists arguably have basic human rights and should not be put through such psychologically and physically damaging circumstances.

That the district courts shall have…. cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.

The purpose of tort law is to provide compensation to victims when they have experienced harm or loss. Making the person “whole” and

there are cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” If MCA’s habeas

the first line of defense to prevent unwanted persons from entering the country and routine searches are reasonable at the border and therefore affirm the denial of the Motion to Suppress and Gregson’s conviction.

The power of the courts has been expanded since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Since the assault we have seen many new laws, policies and acts come into effect, as well as the development of new agencies. This paper will evaluate at how federal courts have evolved since 9/11, how the Patriot Act has played a part in the growth of all laws on the local level, and how the FISA Act effects fight against terrorism.

The respondent is a married male who is a native and citizen of Mexico. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings pursuant to their authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act upon filing a Notice to Appear with the Fairmont Immigration Court. In the Notice to Appear, the Department of Homeland Security charged the respondent with being removable from the United States under Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent admitted factual allegations one, two, and four in the Notice to Appear. The respondent denied factual allegation three. The Court sustained factual allegation three. The Court found that the respondent was removable from the United States as charged in the Notice to Appear.

Humanitarian Law Project case. Since persons intended to advocate for the causes of Sri Lankan and Kurdish terrorist groups, they could be found guilty of providing material support to terrorists under the USA PATRIOT Act. In the ruling, the Court held that “there is no textual basis…to require specific intent with regard to speech…” During this time, the United States could be characterized by terrorist hysteria, stemming from the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Iraqi and Afghani wars. Similar to the circumstances surrounding Abrams and the Sedition Act, this case and the USA PATRIOT Act limit the freedom of speech in the face of war and heightened security needs. The Court abandons a fairer standard for one that will allow for greater deference to Congress and subsequently restrict speech, just like in Abrams. Since history repeated, the Court demonstrated that not adhering to a standard does not delegitimize the standard or case that established it; rather, not adhering to a standard may delegitimize the current

It took over 11 years to get the suspects of the bombing of Pam Am flight 103 to trial. The two suspects of the bombing were in Libya. Muammar Qaddafi refused to cooperate with the United States and the United Kingdom with extradition requests. The United Nation’s Security Council imposed sanctions over Libya to pressure cooperation with the extradition request.

In Part Three, Cole and Dempsey focus on the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996, a forerunner to the Patriot Act that helped to establish the legal framework for today’s domestic war on terror. The act allows the State Department to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations in a process that is highly politicized and lacking sufficient objective criteria. It also makes it possible for government prosecutors to bring cases against individuals without proof that they have engaged in terrorism, aided or abetted terrorists, or planned to commit terrorism. Under the 1996 act, the government may freeze the assets of designated terrorist groups and use secret witnesses against those suspected of having links to terrorists.

This paper will discuss the decision of the FISA Court (FISC) regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) July 18, 2013 Application for Certain Tangible Things for Investigations to Protect Against International Terrorism. This application is for an order pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Title 50, United States Code 1861. This is also known as Section 215 of the USA Patriots Act which requires the ongoing daily production of the National Security Agency (NSA) of certain call detail records or “telephony meta-data” in bulk.

WHEREAS, the Parties have concluded that this Agreement is a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of all Claims that have been made, or could have been made in the Suit; and