Hurts V. Socialist People ' S Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
1468 Words6 Pages
HURTS V. SOCIALIST PEOPLE’S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Heather M Calci
American Public University
Professor Shanna Rose, J.D.
On December 21, 1988, a government official of Libyan Arab Airline official smuggled a homemade explosive in which killed 259 passengers and crew. Two Libyan men faced justice with cooperation from the government of Libyan, in a Scottish High Court of Justiciary. On charges of executed the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, both men were tied to the association of the Jamahiriya Security (JSO). The suit was filed by survivors family in U.S district court against JSO, LAA also Al-Megrahi. Intent to proceed under federal law in which they proceed as violations, these violations are Anti-Terrorism Act, State Law,…show more content… In viewing the motion this case falls under many Federal laws, FISA and The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Flatow Amendment. To apply federal and state law, we must understand each definition of the law and what remedies’ to apply and enforce. Many previous court case where visited and amendments that were made in effect before this case.
Understand Written Laws and Amendments 1
In this case, many laws and amendments do fall of this suit in which to make parties seeking to be made whole. Each one has to be viewed and applied to the case in the way it is written to make a party whole and responsible party take ownership of wrong.
The Torture Victims Protection Act; The TVPA, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 note was added to the Alien Tort Statute in 1992 to authorize a federal statutory cause of action on behalf of victims or their representatives for acts of torture or extrajudicial killing. (Leagle.com, 2015) In addition, The Anti-Terrorism Act; The ATA generally provides for civil remedies for "any national of the United States injured in his or her person, property, or business by reason of an act of international terrorism or his or her estate, survivors, or heirs." 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a). Section 2337 provides, however that such actions may not be asserted
[474 F.Supp.2d 29] against "a foreign state, an agency of a foreign state, or an officer or employee