Hacker News Reader

Comment by HillRat | Hacker News Reader

Nope, wrong direction; the defendant has to be a non-US sovereign, and the conduct has to cause loss of life or property to a US resident or on US soil. On the other hand, it may open the door for suits against Israel by US-resident Palestinians.

View on HN

"in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil"

If I read it right, the Act actually establishes a cause of action in any act of "international terrorism" in which "any national of the United States suffers injury in his or her person, property, or business." While there are at least half a dozen reasons a suit against Israel (in my hypothetical example) would fail, the Act is pretty expansive in where the acts can take place, and what kind of damage they do.

But doesn't it set a precedent?

Say an innocent Afghan family gets hit by a US drone on their own home soil. Wouldn't their family want to sue the US government?

Well, the bilateral US-Afghan security treaty would bar filing in an Afghan court; in the US realm, you would have standing problems, the Baker bar, and sovereign immunity. If I recall -- and IANAL, let alone a nat-sec attorney -- there's some Fourth Circuit precedent that could justify stripping sovereign immunity from individual officials in jus cogens violations, but I don't think anyone else takes that seriously.

The bitter truth is that there's not much you can do in those circumstances. To paraphrase the Melian Dialogues, the strong do what they will and the weak take what they're given.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com