Author Topic: Elena Kagan helps Saudi terrorists involved in 9/11 and against victims of 9/11  (Read 20067 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits
By John Byrne
Tuesday, May 11th, 2010 -- 9:04 am

Elena Kagan, President Barack Obama's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, helped protect the Saudi royal family from lawsuits that sought to hold al Qaeda financiers responsible in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The suits were filed by thousands family members and others affected by the Sept. 11 attacks. In court papers, they provided evidence that members of the Saudi royal family had channeled millions to al Qaeda prior to the bombings, often in contravention of direct guidance from the United States.

But Kagan, acting as President Obama's Solicitor General, argued that the case should not be heard even if evidence proved that the Saudis helped underwrite al Qaeda, because it would interfere with US foreign policy with the oil-rich nation. She posited “that the princes are immune from petitioners’ claims” because of “the potentially significant foreign relations consequences of subjecting another sovereign state to suit.”

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer published Tuesday, the mother of a man who was killed on United Flight 93 in Pennsylvania said he didn't know why Kagan argued that the case not even be heard. By keeping the case off the dockets, the Saudis were spared scrutiny of their finances.

"We had hoped she would be with us so that we could have our day in court," Beverly Burnett said.
Story continues below...

“I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, another family member whose husband was killed in the 9/11 attacks, said at the time. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

The Obama Administration's decision to intervene in the Saudi-al Qaeda case so irritated two Republican senators that they introduced legislation aiming to ensure that Americans have the ability to sue foreign governments.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) offered a proposal to amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which Kagan cited as one reason the Saudi case should not be heard. Both senators said that US citizens should be able to sue foreign governments if they are found to be supporting terrorist activity.

Specter, who has since become a Democrat, was unusually blunt.

"She wants to coddle the Saudis," he said.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341

  If I was voting, I wouldn't vote for her just on this one issue.  She's a NWO Scumbag, just like most of the rest of them. 

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
I have a few of my own questions to add to this list published by

Seven questions for Elena Kagan
Advocacy groups want to learn more about her take on these issues.
By Ambreen Ali

With no judicial record to dig through, conservative and liberal groups alike are scrutinizing Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's past for signs of her political leanings.

At 50, Kagan has served as the dean of Harvard Law School, associate White House counsel to President Bill Clinton, and law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Advocacy groups have drawn the most clues about Kagan's views from her tenure at Harvard, where she was praised for bridging the gap between liberals and conservatives. Indeed, she snagged several Republican votes when she was up for solicitor general last year.

But at Harvard she also took a bold stance on the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy earned praise from liberal groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and criticism from conservative groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network.

For now, it appears that the fight over Kagan's nomination will focus on seven key issues:

* The military: As dean, Kagan opposed military recruiting on the Harvard campus on the basis that the Don't Ask law violated the university's anti-discrimination policy. That has won her points with liberals, but conservatives have painted her stance as anti-military. The issue could also come before the court soon as the Pentagon reviews the ban and Congress considers repealing it.

(This is probably the least of the issues I would worry about with regard to Kagan's views on 'the military'. What does she think of Posse Comitatus (the lack thereof?) Do you suppose that the folks at are trying to frame the debate AWAY from the critical constitutional issues?)

* Affirmative action: Kagan's poor track record of hiring minorities while at Harvard troubles some liberal groups, although big players like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have backed her up. Republicans, meanwhile, have tried to paint her as favorable of affirmative action.

* Executive power: A lot has been made on both sides about Kagan's views in favor of presidential power. She doesn't go as far as some conservatives who believe that the executive reigns supreme on matters of national security, but her statements on the issue during her confirmation hearings as solicitor general trouble some liberals.

* Abortion: As with any nominee, Kagan will surely face questions on contentious issues like abortion, guns, and religion. Advocacy groups have been most vocal on abortion, with Americans United for Life claiming that Kagan has strong ties to pro-choice groups. Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization of Women, said her group believes Kagan supports their pro-choice position but is waiting for the confirmation hearings to reveal more.

* Citizens United: Kagan argued for the losing position in this Supreme Court case, siding against special interest groups that can now spend unlimited money on election ads. President Obama cited Kagan's passion over the issue "despite long odds of success" during Monday's nomination. Lawmakers on both sides will probably want to know more about her thinking on the court ruling.

* The Constitution: Kagan wrote about Justice Marshall's views that the Constitution was defective until it was amended to free slaves and give women and minorities equal rights. Republicans have tried to draw from Kagan's writings some clue of her take on judges interpreting and adapting the Constitution for the present day.

* Health care: Numerous states are challenging President Obama's health care overhaul, which was signed into law while Kagan was part of the administration. Expect questions about the issue and whether Kagan plans to recuse herself if the Supreme Court takes it on.

* What about being a paid advisor at Goldman Sachs for a globalist panel on manipulating international currencies for 4 years???

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline rio

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,708
Makes sense that she would have blocked lawsuits; would probably have shown Israeli/Mossad connections. Couldn't have that now could we?

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Sounds about right for a Barry Soetoro appointee.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
How Kagan's past has been carefully hidden/covered up:

Offline happyJoy

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • I'M the cat!
Seems like yet another toadie to the elites.

More boot-licking and CYA.
Business a usual.

Justice my arse.
Another bucket of blood under the bridge, you learn to love bridges and never look down. - HST

Offline chrisfromchi

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,179
lol one of the comments in that rawstory comment section is  "so she is ugly on the inside too "


  • Guest
Kagan Under Obligation To Open Up
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2010, 02:18:59 pm »
Fifteen years ago, Elena Kagan penned a passionate and eloquent critique of the modern Supreme Court confirmation process, calling it a "vapid and hollow charade, in which repetition of platitudes has replaced discussion of viewpoints and personal anecdotes have supplanted legal analysis."

The White House is indicating that, now that she is a Supreme Court nominee herself, Kagan doesn't want to live up to her own standards.

But as she travels to Capitol Hill Wednesday to begin her courtship of senators, there's plenty of reason why those senators should ask her to heed her younger self.

Back in 1995, hot off her stint as a Senate Judiciary Committee staffer during the particularly substance-free confirmation hearing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kagan wrote that nominees should be prepared to openly discuss their "understanding of the role of courts in our society, of the nature of and values embodied in our Constitution, and of the proper tools and techniques of interpretation, both constitutional and statutory."

And then, because those "statements of judicial philosophy may be so abstract as to leave uncertain, especially to the public, much about their real-world consequences," she wrote, senators should insist on "seeing how theory works in practice by evoking a nominee's comments on particular issues -- involving privacy rights, free speech, race and gender discrimination, and so forth -- that the Court regularly faces."

Many senators these days see confirmation hearings as an opportunity for speechifying, rather than actual inquiry. But those that do choose to ask probing questions should insist that Kagan be forthcoming in her replies -- not just because acting otherwise would be incredibly hypocritical on her part, but because the Kagan of 1995 was dead right.

Indeed, by being upfront about her views, Kagan would establish a hugely important precedent, even before joining the court.

~H Post

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
I hope some Senators really grill her.  Let's see if she can walk the walk.  I doubt it.  (And, as she was right, I really doubt she'll have to.  She'll be rubber-stamped like most of those fools.  In recent years only a few have been forced to withraw:  Bork, Guinier, and that rather unimportant woman Bush tried to run up the flag-pole.  I can't remember her name.)

Offline muggl3z

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 193
  • It's just a ride.
Does she remind anyone else of Janet Reno? (i.e. disgusting lesbian looking creature)

*prints off article humming meet the new boss same as the old boss*
I want to go out of this world like I came in, screaming and covered in blood.


  • Guest
She's been a busy girl helping the NWO--a finger in every pie...Poppy Bush selected her for a reason.

Kagan Rep'd Obama against Petitions to Prove his Citizenship?

Offline laskar01

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Do you people know how many fellow Jews she has given employment at Harvard?
50% of all people she hired were Jews, according to Dr. Duke

Check out "How the Jews siezed america" about the Talmudic message of giving a Jew a job

Try also to cite the Talmud in your own name on the internet and you will be crushed, you will loose your employment within hours

Kindest regards,
Lasse Karagiannis