Page 60

1

nationals on board.”).

2

Iraq, 97 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2000), the court exercised

3

jurisdiction over Iraq (then designated a state sponsor of

4

terrorism) for conduct within the Terrorism Exception.

5

court reasoned that the abuse of the American plaintiffs

6

“had a direct effect in the United States and was

7

consciously designed to affect United States policy.

8

the circumstances, Iraq cannot now claim surprise at the

9

assertion of jurisdiction by this Court over claims brought

10

Finally, in Daliberti v. Republic of

in response to its actions.”

The

Under

Id. at 54.

11

The plaintiffs do not allege that the Four Princes

12

directed the September 11 attacks or commanded an agent (or

13

authorized al Qaeda) to commit them.

14

at 790 (affirming that court could exercise personal over

15

“primary participants in an alleged wrongdoing intentionally

16

directed at a California resident” (emphasis added)).

17

Rather, the plaintiffs rely on a causal chain to argue a

18

concerted action theory of liability: the Princes supported

19

Muslim charities knowing that their money would be diverted

20

to al Qaeda, which then used the money to finance the

21

September 11 attacks.

22

472, 478 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (distinguishing between civil

Cf. Calder, 465 U.S.

Cf. Halberstam v. Welch, 705 F.2d

60

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

In Re Terrorist Attacks  

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: In Re Terrorist Attacks

Advertisement