Case in VA right now. The parents allege that the US Government basically "contracted" with the Saudis to arrest and hold a US Citizen so that he could be held indefinitely without access to lawyers or a speedy trial.
The US Govt lawyers asserted that it's a foreign country, end of story. The judge (a Bush appointee) wasn't buying it and gave the parties a few days to settle on the rules of discovery. Also asked the USG to explain their involvement in the arrest a bit more fully than they have to date.
This really creeps me out.
They specifically did NOT deny being involved.
Just asserted that since it happened in a foreign country, there was no issue for a US court to worry about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, that would be their response (challenging jurisdiction before denying it) whether they were involved or not, so that doesn't give you useful information yet.
I hope they weren't involved.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Me too. I just found the judge's reaction a little bit worrisome in that it sounded like the gov't didn't offer much in the way of defense other than the jurisdictional one.
It appears that the Saudis are sort of NOT backing up our government's statements on this. But as you say, we lack information to make any definitive statements at this time.
[ December 17, 2004, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not sure of the particulars, but there are certain motions that must be raised first in certain proceedings. It's possible to make other arguments at that point as well, but sometimes doing so is taken as an admission of jurisdiction.
So if you have a jurisdiction issue, you sometimes CAN'T raise another issue until jurisdiction is decided.
I have no idea if that was the case in this proceeding. But it does happen enough that it's at least pretty likely.