# Amicus Curiae Brief — Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0704%3A28

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2004
- **Citation:** 542 U.S. 692

## Text

IN THE
Supreme Court of the Anited States

JOSE FRANCISCO SOSA,

Petitioner,
Vv.

HUMBERTO ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, ET AL..,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEMBERS OF THE VICTIMS OF THE SEPTEMBER
11, 2001 TERRORIST ATTACKS IN SUPPORT OF
es

PENNY M. VENETIS
Counsel of Record
Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic
123 Washington St.
Newark, New Jersey 07102
(973) 353-5687

Counsel for Amici Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF AUTHIORITIES ....cccccccccsess il
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............. l
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............... 7
PEE spe vkvecsceseseccssiuessenees 10
I. The United States, Which is at the Forefront
of Fighting Terrorism, Should Ensure that All
Victims of Terrorism Are Able To Sue
Pe GN GD Ne sccccdiccesisss 10
II. To Combat Terrorism Most Effectively, and in
Keeping with Congressional Intent, Victims of
Terrorism Should Have Access to U.S. Courts,
Regardless of Their Nationality ........... 15
A. The ATCA Affords Foreign Nationals
Who Are Victims of Terrorism the Only
Meaningful Opportunity tu Vindicate
Their Rights and Recover Damages .... 17
B. The ATCA Is a Powerful Tool for the
United States in its War Against Terrorist
Organizations ..... eee eeeeeeeseesees 21

C. Congress Has Repeatedly Sanctioned the
Courts’ Interpretation that the ATCA
Creates a Cause of Action ............ 26

CONCLUSION ........cccccecccccccvcccets
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW: Page

Abdullah v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 01CIV8118, 2002 WL
31082956 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17,2002) ........-- 18

Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844 (11th Cir. 1996)

D5 et PATER PPE OPT eT eee S TEE ET ESET 7,24
Alvarez-Machain v. United States, 331 F.3d 604
(9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 124 S. Ct. 807
GIOTDD . cc ccccccscncevccvescvcedpoccccees 7,24
Barclay's Bank PLC v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal.,
512 U.S. 298, 329 (1994) 1... cee eee ee eens 23, 24
Bigio v. Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440 (2d Cir.
BID cc ccvcccccceccsecsccccccnscvccccces 18
Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 291 F.3d 1000 (7th
Ge FID ccc ccc cece nsccnctevecccccccvens 15
Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. and Dev. Corp., 274 F. 9,17
Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003) .......--- +e secre 18
Doe v. islamic Salvation Front, 257 F. Supp. 2d 115
(D.D.C. 2003)... .. cece cece cece errr renee 18
Doe v. Unocal Corp, 963 F. Supp. 880(C.D. Cal.
1997) 23
Eminete v. Johnson, 361 F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1966),
cert. denied, 385 U.S. 929 (1966) ......-+++>: 8, 23

Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios, 157 F. Supp.

2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2001) .............0...2...

Filartiga v. Pena-lrala, 630 F.2d 876
I a

Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 14
(2d Cir. 2003) ...........0... neaplag

Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 762 F. Supp. 2d 1531
ae a

W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics
Corp., 493 U.S. 400 (1990) ... 2... ee.

In re Krupp and Others, 15 1.L.R. 620 (U.S. Milit.
Trib. Nuremberg 1948) .............0000.....

In re Krauch and Others (1.G. Farben Trial), 15
I.L.R. 668 (U.S. Milit. Trib. Nuremberg 1949)

lwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424
ens eeccbickecactcacceheuceses

Japan Whaling Ass'n. v. American, 471 U.S. 221
(1985)

Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 1996) ....

Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (N.D
Ga. 2002) .............05.. aces —_

a

Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy
Co., 244 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ......

24, 25

18, 20

Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d
1166 (D.C. Cir. 1994) 20... cece eee nes

Pugh v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
290 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2003) .........++:

Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202 (D.C.
Cle. IDBS) cn ccccccccccccccccscccccsoscces

Smith y. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, 262 F.
Supp. 2d 217, 225-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ........

Tachione v. Mugabe, 169 F. Supp. 2d 259
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) 2.0... cece eee eee eee eens

Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774
(D.C. Cir. 1984) 2.6... cece eee eee eee eens

_ United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)
United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir.

\

United States v. Flick, 6 Trials of War Criminals

Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under
Control Council Law No. 10, 1191 (1949) ......

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS:

U.S. CONST. art VI, cl. 2 2.2... cece cere eee

STATUTES:

18 U.S.C. § 2332(0) IMF) ©... eee eee ees

19

28

25

22 U.S.C. §21Sin ........................ 22
19 U.S.C.A. § 2464 ................... 22
22 U.S.C.A. § 6412 ................... 22
The Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
PEE 8.60 Fidédéncdcscikcccececcan passim
The Antiterrorism Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-572,
106 Stat. 5406 (S 1569), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 9,11
STIS RSE NE as Ce ena 15
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty A
ct, 28
U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)(2003) ................ 11,12
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28
, 28 U.S.C.
1602 (2003) ....................... om lies ro
Homeland Security of Act of 2002, Pub L. 107
; . 107-296
EE ee aed oer ct eh 3,12
H.R. Rep. No. 102-367 (1991), reprinted i
U.S.C.C.A.N. 84 .......... og e a8 we ‘ 28

Human Rights and Security Assistance, 27 U.S.C
2304(a)(1) (2003) ............. ines _ 8,22

S. Rep. 104-179 at 12, reprinted in 1996

-1V-

VBL LAM, OG, GB) ow. ccc ccc ccc ccccce 12
Statement by President Ronald Reagan (Aug. 27,
1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C_A.N. 1965 .. 11
Statement by President George H.W. Bush (Oct. 29,
1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3942 . 1]
-V-

Statement by President William J. Clinton (Apr. 24,
1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 961-1

USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272
GREED oc ccccccccvoscscccccscosessceses

TREATIES OF THE UNITED STATES:

Convention for Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of
Aircraft (Hijacking), Hague Convention of 1970, 22
UST 1641 (1970)... 0. cece eee cece e eee ennee

International Convention for the Suppression of
Terrorist Bombings, Pub. L. 107-197, 116 Stat. 721
(H.R. 3275), reprinted in 37 1.L.M. 249 (1998) ...

International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism (“Terrorist Financing
Convention”), reprinted in 39 1.L.M. 270 (1999) ..

1800 Treaty of Paris, 7 Bevans 801
(expired July 31, 1809) .......--- esse eeeees

Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act
of 1986, Pub. L. 99-399, 11 Stat. 853 (H.R. 4151) .

OTHER TREATIES:

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
U.N. Doc.A/CONF.183/9 (1998) .......--5+55:

INTERNATIONAL DECLARATIONS:

12

3, 8,
12, 23

10, 27

10

20

Control Council Law No. 10, art. 1(2) .........

G.A. Res. 3034(XXVII), U.N. GAOR, 27th Sess.,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/3034(XXVII) (1972) .........

G.A. Res. 31/102, U.N. GAOR, 31st Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/31/101 (1976) ...................

G.A. Res. 32/147, U.N. GAOR, 32d Sess., U.N. Doc.

Mosh OESTRONE

G.A. Res. 34/145, U.N. GAOR, 34th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/34/145 (1979) ...................

G.A. Res. 36/109, U.N. GAOR, 36th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/36/109 (1981) ...................

G.A. Res. 38/130, U.N. GAOR, 38th Sess. U.N
A/RES/38/130(1983) .............. Seyi ong

G.A. Res. 39/159, U.N. GAOR. 39th Sess.. U.N
A/RES/39/159(1984) .............. oy sg

G.A. Res. 40/61, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess.. UN
A/RES/40/61 (1985) .............. jer vias

G.A. Res. 42/159, U.N. GAOR. 42d Sess.. UN
A/RES/42/159 (1987) cibirapismeneccaetoguremy

G.A. Res. 44/29, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess.. UN
A/RES/44/29 (1989) .............. ma ae

G.A. Res. 49/60, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess.. U.N
A/RES/49/60 (1995) ce ee

G.A. Res. 49/185, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/49/185 (1995) .......0000.......

-Vil-

19

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

13

G.A. Res. 54/110, U.N. GAOR, 54th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/54/110 (2000) ......... cece ewes

G.A. Res. 54/164, U.N. GAOR, 54th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/54/164 (2000)... 6. eee cee eee

G.A. Res. 55/158, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/55/158 (2001)... .. ccc cceceeeees

G.A. Res. 56/1, U.N. GAOR, 56th Sess., U.N. Doc.
RAIS CRED nc cccccsseseseccccvcess

G.A. Res. 57/27, U.N. GAOR, 57th Sess., U.N. Doc.

A/RES/57/27 (2003) 6. cee ee eee eens

G.A. Res. 57/338, U.N. GAOR, 57th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/57/338 (2003)... 6. ee eee eee es

G.A. Res. 58/48, U.N. GAOR, 58th Sess., U.N. Doc.

A/RES/58/48 (2004) 6c eee

G.A. Res. 58/81, U.N. GAOR, 58th Sess., U.N. Doc.

A/RES/58/81 (2004) 0. we eee eens

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Mason Anderson, Ground Zero Crews

Find Relief at Red Cross, available at
http:/www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/
O2020Sgroundzero .... 2... eee eee ee eens

Dan Barry, After the Attacks: The Tally;

With No Miracle in the Rubble,

Hope Shifts Grimly to Acceptance,

N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 17,2001, at Al2 ............

-Viil-

13

13

13

14

14

14

13

13,14

David J. Bederman, National Security.
Globalization, International Law and
United States Foreign Policy,

50 Emory L. J.717(2001) ...................
Big Oil's Dirty Secrets, ECONOMIST,
a a

Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort Statute
and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of
Honor, 83 AM. J. INT’L L. 461 (1989) ..........

David W. Chen, As Deadline for 9/11
Aid Nears, Many Relatives Haven't Filed,
N.Y. Times, Nov. 22, 2003, at Al .............

David Cole et al., /nterpreting the Alien Tort
Statute: Amicus Curiae Memorandum of
International Law Scholars and Practioners in
Trajano v. Marcos, 12 HASTINGS INT’L &

SS Me DEDUUED coccccccccccccceccecs

Glenn Collins, A Nation Challenged:

The Missing; As Providers, Friends, and
Shoulders to Lean On, They Put Others First,

N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 26, 2001, at Bl] ............

Anthony D’ Amato, Comment,
The Alien Tort Statute and the
Founding of the Constitution,
82 AM. J. INT’L L. 62 (1988) .................

Shaila K. Dewan, A Nation Challenged:
The Memorials, For the Families, A Chance

-1X-

6,7

4,5

27

to Share Tears and Love, N.Y. TIMES,
ee (8 ) | Bereerrererrerrerrrrre

Daphne Eviatar, Profits at Gunpoint:
Unocal’s Pipeline in Burma Becomes a
Test Case in Corporate Liability, NATION,

June 30, 2003, 8 16... cece reece ee eecees

THE FEDERALIST No. 3 (John Jay)
(Clinton Rosseter ed., 1961)... 6... eee eee eee

Benjamin Ferencz, Interview by The World Online

(Sept. 19, 2001), az
http://www. ratical.org/ratville/C AH/cahCAH.html

MAURICE GREENBERG ET AL., TERRORIST
FINANCING: REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT TASK
FORCE SPONSORED BY THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
RELATIONS, Council on Foreign Relations

errr rrr rrr thet rrr roe

Steven Greenhouse, A Nation Challenged:
Windows on the World; a Showpiece’s Survivors
Wonder What To Do Now, N.Y. TIMES,

Sept. 21, 2001, at B12... 1... cee eee eee eee

Steven Greenhouse & Mireya Navarro,
Afier the Attacks: The Hidden Victims;
Those at the Towers’ Margins Elude List of

Missing, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 17, 2001, at All .....

Human Rights Watch, September 11: One
Year On: A Message to the Human Rights

23

26

19

Committee (Sept. 9, 2002), at

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/09/Sept| l.htm ...

N.R. Kleinfeld, U.S. Attacked:
Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and
Hit pentagon in Day of Terror,

N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 12, 2001, at Al

Charlie LeDuff, Last Steel Column from the
Ground Zero Rubble is Cut Down,
N.Y. TIMES, May 29, 2002, at B3

The Money: Drying Up the Funds for Terror.
Council on Foreign Relations:

Terrorism Questions and Answers, available at
http://cfrterrorism.org/responses/money.htm|

National Day of Prayer and Remembrance

Sor the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on
September 11", 2001: A Proclamation, available at
http://www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2001/09/20010913-7.html . 2.2... eee
Mireya Navarro, A Nation Challenged: The
Families; Waiting for Babies Who Will Never
Know Their Father, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 5,
IE .subadeeWet dtu nb igectcavs die.
Colin Powell, What We Will Do In 2004,

N.Y. Times, Jan. 1,2004,atA25 .............
Secretary of State Colin Powell,

Remarks to Security Council of the United

-Xi-

"eee e828 8008 8 6 @ 6

eee © ® © © © we we ee

19

1,2

10

RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS

Nations (Sept. 11, 2002) available at
RRR Paras inh pe ee

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/

DEE, dccvanenunsseceeseuncnecees 14
James Risen & David Johnston,

A Nation Challenged: The Pennsylvania Crash;
44 Victims are Remembered, and Lauded,
N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 18,2001, at Bl] ............

Presidential Address to the Nation, October 7,
2001, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.html ........ 3

Wendy S. Ross, Sept. 1] Attacks Were Crimes
Against Humanity, Says UNHCR's Robinson,

(Oct. 17, 2002), at http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/
terror/O1101706.htm ........... 0. cece eee ee

President George W. Bush, reprinted in President

Hails Passage of Homeland Security Legislation,

Nov. 19, 2002, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2002/11/20021119-4.html ........ 3

William A Schabas, Punishment of Non-State Actors
in Non-International Armed Conflict,
26 FORDHAM INT’L L.J. 907 (2003) ............

President George W. Bush, Remarks at Signing
of the PATRIOT Act (Oct. 26, 2001) reprinted in
President Bush Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill
http://www. whitehouse.gov/news

releases/2001/10/20011026-S.html ............. 3 Somini Sengupta, /.N.S. Urges Immigrants

to Report the Missing, N.Y. TIMES,

Press Release, Ambassador Cofer Black to Lead - ee eee nena eae

the U.S. Delegation to the Fourth Regular Session

of the Inter-American Committee Against
Terrorism (Jan. 22, 2004), available at

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/28429.html 14 available at http://www.usdoj.gov/
victimscompensation/payments_deceased.html ...

Press Release, U.S. Pledges $1.6 million to the

Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism, September | 1" Victims Compensation

(Jan. 22, 2004) at Fund Frequently Asked Questions,

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2—4/28661/htm .. 14 available at http://www.usdoj.gov/
victimcompensation/fag.html .................

Kenneth C. Randall, Federal Jurisdiction over

International Law Claims: Inquiries into the September 11" Victims Compensation

Alien Tort Statute, 18 N.Y.U. J. INT’L L. & POL. Fund General Program Information:

LPG kde cecccuccusdswasesedsasuces 26, 27 Q&A’s Regarding Lawsuits Against

September | 1" Victims Compensation Fund
Award Payment Statistics

-Xiil-

Terrorist Conspiracy Participants, available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/victimcompensation/

Pree

September 11" Victims List, at op
http://66.223.12.161/september!] | victims/

CE RS oc ccessvcccvededcesasecees

September 11" Victims: Victims

by Country and Citizenship, at -
http://66.223.12.161/september!] 1 victims
COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm. ..............

-xiv-

a

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE'

The undersigned amici curiae are surviving family
members of the victims of the terrorist attacks on the United
States of September 11, 2001.2 The amici curiae wish to
ensure that every survivor of terrorist attacks, and the family
members of those who perish in terrorist attacks, regardless
of their nationality, are able to pursue civil suits against
terrorists. As such, the victims of the September 11" attacks
and their surviving family members believe that this Court
should interpret the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350
(2003) (“ATCA”), consistent with the lower federal courts,
as Creating both a cause of action and granting jurisdiction to
federal courts. Any other interpretation would be patently
unjust to foreign nationals harmed by terrorist attacks.

On September 11, 200] , four commercial airliners
were hijacked by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The terrorists
crashed two of the hijacked airplanes into the Twin Towers
of the World Trade Center in New York City. Several
minutes later, they crashed the third hijacked airplane into
the Pentagon in Washington D.C. NR. Kleinfeld, U.S.
Attacked: Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and Hit
Pentagon in Day of Terror, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 12, 2001, at
Al. The fourth hijacked airplane, believed to be aimed at
another government target in Washington, D.C., crashed in a
field in Pennsylvania after Passengers wrestled control of the
plane from the hijackers. James Risen & David Johnston, A

@Quases

1. No counsel for any party authored this brief either in whole or in part,
and no Persons other than counsel for the amici made any monetary
contributions to its preparation or submission. The written consent of the
Parties to the filing of this brief have been filed with the Clerk.

2. Fora list of the amici and the family members that were killed in the
attacks, see the attached appendix. Any mention of other victims or their
families in the brief does not imply their support of it.

]

Nation Challenged: The Pennsylvania Crash; 44 Victims are
Remembered, and Lauded, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 18, 2001, at
Bll.

The world watched in horror as the three buildings
burned and the Twin Towers collapsed. See Kleinfeld,
supra, at Al. For weeks following the attacks, rescue
workers searched and searched for survivors, but only five
were found. Dan Barry, After the Attacks: The Tally; With
No Miracle in the Rubble, Hope Shifts Grimly to Acceptance,
N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 17, 2001, at Al2. The remains of many of
those missing were never recovered. See September |1]"
Victims List, at http://66.223.12.161/september! | victims/
victims_list.htm._ The clean-up effort took eight-and-a-half
months to complete. Charlie LeDuff, Last Steel Column from
the Ground Zero Rubble is Cut Down, N.Y. TIMES, May 29,
2002, at B3. During that time, workers spent twenty-four
hours each day, including Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New
Years Day, cleaning up the rubble and searching for human
remains. See Mason Anderson, Ground Zero Crews Find
Relief at Red Cross, at http://www.disasterrelief.org/

disasters/020205groundzero.

The scope and severity of the September 11"
terrorist attacks were articulated by President Bush, who
declared that:

[c]ivilized people around the world denounce
the evildoers who devised and executed these
terrible attacks. Justice demands that those
who helped or harbored the terrorists be
punished -- and punished severely. The
enormity of their evil demands it. We will use
all the resources of the United States and our
cooperating friends and allies to pursue those
responsible for this evil, until justice is done.
National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of
the Terrorist Attacks on September 11", 2001: A

2

Proclamation, available at http://www. whi
.whiteh
releases/2001/09/ 20010913-7 html. —

Subsequently, the U.S. destroyed Al Qaeda’ ini

camps in Afghanistan, and waged on rt on a
ruling Taliban regime which provided cover for Al Qaeda
See | Presidential Address to the Nation, October 7 2001,
available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releasea/2001)
10/2001 1007-8. html. The U.S. Congress passed sweepin

anti-terrorism legislation aimed at the interception oa
obstruction of terrorist activities, USA PATRIOT Act of
2001, 115 Stat. 272, Pub. L. 107-56 (2001), and established a
cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security devoted to
the protection of American soil from future terrorist attacks

Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296 (HR
5005). See also President George W. Bush, Remarks at the
Signing of the PATRIOT Act (Oct. 26, 2001), reprinted in
President Bush Signs Anti-Terrorism Bill, available at
http://www. whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/
10/2001 1026-5.html; Statement by the President (Nov. 19

ray ss in President Hails Passage of Homeland

rity Legislation, at http://
releases/2002/11/20021119-4 html. ne BONES!

Approximately 2,996 innocent
4 people died on
any 11, 2001." See September 11" Victims List, at
ttp://66.223. 2. 161/september] | victims/victims_list.html.
Most of the victims were U.S. nationals. Among the dead

Steven Greenhouse & Mireya Navarro, After the Attacks: The Hidden
a 7 —~- at the Towers Margins Elude List of Missing, N.Y. Times,

17, 1, at All; Somini Sengupta, /.N.S. Urges Immigrants to Report
the Missing, N.V. TIMES, Oct. 6, 2001, at D4.

3

however, were at least 209 foreign nationals.‘ As most of the
known victims of the World Trade Center attacks were men
in their 30's and 40's, many of them married, the number of
pregnant women widowed by the attacks was “believed to be
substantial.” Mireya Navarro, A Nation Challenged: The
Families; Waiting for Babies Who Will Never Know Their
Father, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 5, 2001, at B1.

The economic impact of the attacks was especially
dire for those who lost their sole means of financial support
in the attacks. For example, among those who perished in
the Twin Towers were more than seventy food workers who
worked at Windows on the World, the restaurant at the top of
one of the Twin Towers, whose staff was noted for its
“United Nations-like diversity.” Shaila K. Dewan, A Nation
Challenged: The Memorials; For the Families, A Chance to
Share Tears and Love, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 2, 2001, at BI.
Their pursuit of the American dream was cut short by the
cold-blooded acts of the terrorists. Steven Greenhouse, A
Nation Challenged: Windows on the World; a Showpiece’s
Survivors Wonder What to do Now, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 21,
2001, at B12. Peruvian national, Ivhan Luis Carpio Bautista
turned 25 on September 11, 2001. He was so determined to
support his family in Peru that he worked as much overtime
as he could, even on his birthday. Mr. Carpio Bautista
perished in the attacks. Glenn Collins, A Nation Challenged:
The Missing; As Providers, Friends, and Shoulders to Lean
On, They Put Others First, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 26, 2001, at

4. Many of those lost were nationals of other countries, including:
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Phillippines, France,
Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Javan, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova,
New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Sweden, Taiwan, United
Kingdom, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, September / |” Victims. Victims
by Country and Citizenship, at http://66.223.12.161/september! | Victims
/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP htm; Sarah Prestwood, ‘I'd Rather Have My
Husband Back’, WELLINGTON DOMINION, Sept. 28, 2001, at 9.

4

Bll. Leobardo Lopez Pascual, who worked mornings at
Windows on the World, sent money, clothes, and shoes to his
wife and four children in Mexico, while he shared a studio
apartment with a co-worker. He too perished in the attacks.
Id. Sophia Addo, another Windows on the World employee,
sent hundreds of dollars to her native Ghana each month to
support her parents and ten-year-old daughter. /d. She too
perished in the attacks. These three victims were just a few
of the workers who lived paycheck-to-paycheck to support
their families. The families of these workers and others like
them should be permitted to use the ATCA to sue Al Qaeda
for their loss.

Al Qaeda’s net worth is not known. See Council on
Foreign Relations, The Money: Drying Up the Funds for
Terror, in COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: TERRORISM
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, at http://cfrterrorism.org/
responses/money.html. It is known, however, that chief
among its sources of financial support is Osama Bin Laden’s
own personal wealth, believed to be as much as $300 million.
id. Some of Al Qaeda’s money also comes from wealthy
sympathizers who use sophisticated techniques to
camouflage the flow of their own assets to Al Qaeda. /d. Al
Qaeda has also made broad use of illegal activities such as
extortion, drug smuggling, and fraudulent charity operations
to draw money into its coffers. /d. It has also relied on a
wide variety of legitimate economic activities to provide
cover for its funding of terrorist acts. For example, Al Qaeda
has used both the Yemeni honey trade and the traditional
hawala system of informal community trust banking to both
raise money and surreptitiously transfer funds worldwide. /d.

It was a terrorist cell of nineteen Al Qaeda operatives
that perpetrated the attacks on September 11, 2001. That
terrorist cell used $500,000 to pay for false identities, flight-
school tuition and, eventually, plane tickets to board the
hijacked aircraft. /d. This cost is less than a fraction of Al

Qaeda’s resources, but arguably more than some victims’
families will ever own.

Alien victims of the attack suffered as much as
nationals; their families feel the same loss. It is therefore
imperative that all of the families of the victims of the
September | 1" attacks be permitted to pursue suits against Al
Qaeda and its vast financial resources.’ Such lawsuits will

5. Although a number of funds have been established to assist families
and survivors of the September | 1" attacks, the compensation provided by
these funds is inadequate. The federally-funded September 11" Victims
Compensation Fund of 2001 was established to provide families of victims
and survivors with the opportunity to receive support through financial
installments rated to the expected earnings of the deceased or injured over
the course of his or her natural lifetime. September 11” Victim
Compensation Fund Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.
usdoj.gov/ victimcompensation/faq.html (last updated Feb. 10, 2004). While
claimants to this Fund waive right to take suit against the airlines, the United
States, or any other non-terrorist entity involved in the attacks, September
11° Victims Compensation Fund General Program Information: Q&A's
Regarding Lawsuits Against Terrorist Conspiracy Participants, available at
http://www.usdoj.gov/victimcompensation /lawsuit_ga.html (last updated
May 8, 2003), participation in the fund is no bar to pursuing suits agains? the
terrorist who perpetuated the September | |" attacks.

However, the compensation fund is not without its drawbacks,
especially for poorer victims. Because the amount of compensation is tied
to the expected earnings of the deceased over the course of their natural
lifetime, families of victims who earned less money at the time of the attacks
will receive less money in compensation through the Fund. September / |”
Victims Compensation Fund Award Payment Statistics, available at
http://www .usdoj.gov/ victimscompensation/payments_deceased.html (last
updated Feb. 25, 2004). Additionally, the deadline for participation in the
fund passed on December 22, 2003. Victims Compensation Fund Frequently
Asked Questions, supra. It is reported that nearly half of those eligible for
compensation never applied for a claim. David W. Chen, As Deadline for
9/11 Aid Nears, Many Relatives Haven't Filed, N.Y . TIMES, Nov. 22, 2003,
at Al. There was confusion over the deadline, the filing time was lengthy
process of filing. /d. Though several members of Congress cited this as a
major problem, the deadline was never extended, leaving thousands of

6

not only potentially provide financial compensation to the
victims’ families, but will also provide a sense of vindication
to the family members of the men and women who were
murdered on September 11".

Moreover, to win the war on terror, the United States,
and all governments, must take all necessary steps to “cripple
terrorist organizations and stem the flow of funds.”
MAURICE GREENBERG ET AL., TERRORIST FINANCING:
REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT TASK FORCE SPONSORED BY
THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 34 (2002).
Independent lawsuits by victims of terrorist acts can be
extremely helpful to the government (which has limited
resources) in its effort to track down terrorists and their
sources of funding.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The amici respectfully request that this Court affirm
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that the Alien
Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, creates a cause of action
to sue for a violation of the law of nations. Alvarez-Machain
v. United States, 331 F.3d 604, 612 (9th Cir. 2003), cert.
granted 124 S. Ct. 807 (2003).° Federal courts over the past
twenty-five years have repeatedly and consistently held that
ATCA confers on foreign victims of torts a right to sue for
violations of the law of nations. See e.g., Filartiga v. Pena-
Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 884-86 (2d Cir. 1980); Abebe-Jira v.
Negewo, 72 F.3d 844, 848 (11th Cir. 1996).

deserving claimants out in the cold. /d.

6. This Court also granted certiorari in the companion case United States
v. Alvarez-Machain, 124 S. Ct. 821 (2003). —.

7

The amici, family members of victims who were
killed by terrorists on September 11", believe that the ATCA
provides the only meaningful Opportunity for foreign
nationals who are victims of terrorism, and survivors of those
victims, to be compensated monetarily. Permitting victims to
sue terrorists civilly for their heinous acts also provides a
sense of vindication for terrorism victims and their survivors.
The U.S. should avail itself of all means to cripple and
eradicate terrorism, including permitting alien victims to sue
terrorists and to use their private resources to track down
terrorists and their assets.

Amici submit this brief in direct response to the briefs
submitted by the Solicitor General and the Petitioner who
argue that the ATCA somehow impedes the war on terrorism,
and that terrorists could manipulate the ATCA to sue the
U.S., U.S. officials, and their allies. Br- for the U.S. at 52-53,
Br. for Pet. at 38-39. This argument is baseless. First, the
U.S. and other sovereign nations are immune from suit under
the ATCA. Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 206-
07 (D.C. Cir. 1985); The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1602 (2003). Second, because Congress has
mandated that a “principal goal” of U.S. foreign policy is to
“promote the increased observance of internationally
recognized human rights by all countries,” 22 U.S.C. §
2304(a)(1) (2003), it is presumed that the United States, in
fighting the war on terrorism, will abide by the law of nations
and respect human rights. Finally, U.S. military actions
cannot be challenged in federal courts, as they are non-
justiciable political questions. Eminete v. Johnson, 361 F.2d
73 (D.C. Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 929 (1966).

Congress has had the opportunity to review and
repeal the ATCA many times, including, most recently, in the
wake of the September 11" attacks when it reorganized our
government (creating the Department of Homeland Security),
and enacted the comprehensive USA PATRIOT Act. Pub. L.

}

107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Had Congress believed that
any statute, including the ATCA, could impede the war on
terrorism, it would have repealed that statute when it
overhauled our laws.

Whereas U.S. citizens may sue terrorists for treble
damages pursuant to U.S. statutory law if they are harmed by
terrorist attacks, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2331 et seg. (2003) (The
Antiterrorism Act of 1992), this avenue is foreclosed to
foreign nationals. As the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia recently held, however, foreign nationals may
invoke the ATCA to sue terrorists if their acts violate well-
recognized norms of customary international law. Burnett v.
Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 86, 99-100
(D.D.C. 2003) (holding that alien survivors of victims of the
September 11" terrorist attacks can sue Al Qaeda because
hijacking violates well-established norms of customary
international law).

Judicially repealing the ATCA would create two
classes of terrorism victims and their survivors: those who
can sue for a violation of their rights and those who cannot.
Repeal of the ATCA would mean that aliens injured by
terrorist attacks within the U.S. could not sue those terrorists.
It would also mean that aliens injured by terrorist attacks
abroad could not sue terrorists living within our borders.
Such disparate treatment of alien victims of terrorist attacks
trivializes their suffering and signals that they do not deserve
justice. .

This dichotomy would not only harm the alien
victims and their survivors, but would also call into serious
question the U.S.’s moral stature in leading the global fight
to eradicate terrorism. It simply cannot be perceived by our
allies in the war against terrorism that the U.S. does not wish
to protect the interests of their nationals. This would be
exactly the kind of result that the ATCA was enacted to
prevent.

ARGUMENT

1. THE UNITED STATES, WHICH IS AT THE
FOREFRONT OF FIGHTING TERRORISM,
SHOULD ENSURE THAT ALL VICTIMS OF
TERRORISM ARE ABLE TO SUE
TERRORISTS IN U.S. COURTS.

The United States and the international community
have a long history of condemning and fighting terrorism.
Even before the September 11" attacks, Congress ratified
treaties and enacted legislation aimed at fighting international
terrorism. By doing so, the United States has established
that “(t]he war on terrorism remains our first priority.” Colin
Powell, What We Will Do in 2004, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 1, 2004,
at A25.

In 1998, the United States and seventy-five other
nations ratified the International Convention for the
Suppression of Terrorist. Bombings (“Terrorist Bombings
Convention”), reprinted in 37 1.L.M. 249 (1998). In 2002,
Congress passed legislation implementing the Convention.
Pub. L. 107-197, 116 Stat. 721 (H.R. 3275) (codified as 18
U.S.C. § 2332f (2003)). In 1999, the United States joined
sixty-four other nations in ratifying the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of
Terrorism (“Terrorist Financing Convention”), reprinted in
39 I.L.M. 270 (1999). In addition, thirty years before the
attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the United
States played a leading role in passing the Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hijacking)
(“Hague Convention of 1970"), 22 U.S.T. 1641 (1970).

Moreover, under the Omnibus Diplomatic Security
and Antiterrorism Act (“ODSAA”) of 1986, Congress
established extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction for acts of

. 10

international terrorism against Americans. Pub. L. 99-399,
100 Stat. 853 (H.R. 4151) (codified as amended in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2332 (2003)). Upon signing the ODSAA into law,
President Ronald Reagan declared that “[(t]his mark[{ed] yet
another step forward in our bipartisan effort to eradicate
international terrorism.” Statement by President Ronald
Reagan (Aug. 27, 1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N.
1965. President Reagan urged cooperation with all nations to
bring an end to terrorism, and stated that “we must remain
resolute in our commitment to confront this criminal
behavior in every way.” Jd.

A few years later, believing that there was a need for
a companion civil legal cause of action for U.S. victims of
terrorism, the Judiciary Committee recommended the
adoption of the Antiterrorism Act of 1992, to provide a
federal cause of action for treble damages for any national of
the United States injured by an act of international terrorism.’
Pub. L. 102-572, 106 Stat. 4506 (S 1569) (codified at 18
U.S.C. § 2333 (2003)). When the legislation was passed,
President George H.W. Bush stated that he was “pleased that
.. . an American national [will be allowed] to file suit in the
United States for the recovery of treble damages against the
perpetrators of international terrorism.” Statement by
President George H.W. Bush (Oct. 29, 1992), reprinted in
1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3942.

In 1996, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), Pub. L. 144-132,

7. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently
found that the September 11" terrorist attacks were acts of “international
terrorism” as contemplated by this statute, even though the attacks took place
entirely within the United States. See Smith v. Islamic Emirate of
Afghanistan, 262 F. Supp. 2d 217, 225-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The District
Court reasoned that the attacks were international in nature because they
were carried out by foreign nationals who received their orders, funding, and
some training from foreign sources.

1]

110 Stat. 1214 (S 735), to further deter terrorism. President
Bill Clinton declared that “[b]y enacting this legislation, the
United States remain[ed] in the forefront of the international
effort to fight terrorism through tougher laws and resolute
enforcement.” Statement by President William J. Clinton
(Apr. 24, 1996), reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 961-1.
Under the AEDPA, Congress waived portions of the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, under specified
circumstances, to permit suits in U.S. courts by U.S. citizens
against foreign states that engage in acts of terrorism. 28
U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7)(2003). The legislative history shows
that Congress enacted the AEDPA to ensure that terrorists
restore their victims to their prior state of well-being. S. Rep.
104-179 at 12, reprinted in 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 924, 931.

Since September 11", the United States has been at
the forefront of the world-wide effort to combat terrorism.
First, the U.S. has made significant efforts to combat
terrorism within our own borders. We have restructured our
own government, creating a new Department of Homeland
Security to monitor terrorism and other activities that
threaten national security. Homeland Security Act of 2002,
Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (H.R. 5005) (codified
primarily at 6 U.S.C. § 101 (2003)). In addition, the United
States Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act “to deter and
punish terrorist attacks in the United States and around the
world” and “to enhance law enforcement investigatory
tools.” Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (H.R. 3162) (codified
as amended in scattered sections of titles 8, 18, 22, 28, 31,
42, 47, and 50 of the U.S. Code).

Second, the United States has worked with and
encouraged other nations to condemn terrorism

con

internationally... The U.S. adopted United Nations General
Assembly Resolutions which demand that all States
cooperate to fight terrorism. For example, United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 58/48, “Calls upon all Member
States to support international efforts to prevent terrorists
from acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their means
of delivery."” | Moreover, at the urging of the U.S., the
September 11" terrorist attacks, and terrorist attacks on the
UN Assistance Mission for Iraq in Baghdad on August 19,

8. See, e.g., G.A. Res. 54/110, U.N. GAOR, 54th Sess., U.N. Doc.
A/RES/S54/110 (2000); G.A. Res. 54/164, U.N. GAOR, 54th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/54/164 (2000); G.A. Res. 55/158, U.N. GAOR, 55th Sess.,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/55/158 (2001).

9. This strong opposition to terrorism is also illustrated in UN General
Assembly Resolutions. In various resolutions bearing essentially the same
title, (“Measures to Prevent International Terrorism’’), the UN has called for
States to take measures against international terrorism when that terrorism
“endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental
freedoms.” See G.A. Res. 3034(X XVII), U.N. GAOR, 27th Sess., U.N. Doc.
A/RES/3034(XXVII) (1972); G.A. Res. 31/102, U.N. GAOR, 31st Sess.,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/31/101 (1976); G.A. Res. 32/147, U.N. GAOR, 32d Sess..,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/32/147 (1977); G.A. Res. 34/145, U.N. GAOR, 34th
Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/34/145 (1979); G.A. Res. 36/109, U.N. GAOR,
36th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/36/109 (1981); G.A. Res. 38/130, U.N.
GAOR, 38th Sess. U.N. Doc. A/RES/38/130 (1983); G.A. Res. 39/159, U.N.
GAOR, 39th Sess., U.N. Doc A/RES/39/159 (1984); G.A. Res. 40/61, U.N.
GAOR, 40th Sess., U.N. Doc A/RES/40/61 (1985); G.A. Res. 42/159, U.N.
GAOR, 42d Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/42/159 (1987); G.A. Res. 44/29, U.N.
GAOR, 44th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/44/29 (1989). Similarly, UN Member
States have reaffirmed their “unequivocal condemnation” of acts of
terrorism, including those that “may jeopardize the security of States.” See
G.A. Res. 49/60, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/49/60 (1995).
See also G.A. Res. 49/185, U.N. GAOR, 49th Sess., U.N. Doc.
A/RES/49/185 (1995) (condemning acts of terrorism “aimed at the
destruction of human rights”); G.A. Res. 58/81, U.N. GAOR, 58th Sess.,
U.N. Doc. A/RES/58/81 (2004) (reaffirming “strong condemnation of the
heinous acts of terrorism that have caused loss of human life, destruction,
and damage”’).

13

2003 were strongly condemned as acts of terrorism in UN
resolutions 56/1 and 57/338 respectively. Secretary of State
Colin Powell later described the UN’s ratification of 56/1 as
“the world answer[ing] President Bush's call for a great
global coalition against terrorism.” Remarks to Security
Council of the United Nations (Sept. 11, 2002), available at
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2002/13407.htm. The
General Assembly’s strong condemnation of these terrorist
acts has been reiterated in subsequent resolutions, in which
the United States has reaffirmed its “strong condemnation of
the heinous acts of terrorism that have caused enormous loss
of human life, destruction, and damage.” See G.A. Res.

57/27, U.N. GAOR, 57th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/RES/57/27°

(2003) and G.A. Res. 58/81, U.N. GAOR, 58th Sess., U.N.
Doc. A/RES/58/81 (2004).

The U.S.’s condemnation of terrorism is also
demonstrated through its funding appropriations. The U.S.
has provided significant financial support to international
organizations to support their efforts in combating
terrorism.'® Further, the U.S. has sent delegates to participate
in international organizations that work to combat
terrorism.'' The U.S.-led international war on terrorism

10. In January, 2004, the U.S. delegation to the Organization of American
States Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism pledged $1.6 million
to support the fight against terrorism. Press Release, U.S. Pledges $1.6
million to the Inter-American Committee Against Terrorism (Jan. 22, 2004),
at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/28661 .htm.

11. The Department of State declared that sending its Coordinator for
Counterterrorism to the Organization of American States Inter-American
Committee Against Terrorism “reflects [the U.S.’s] continued commitment
to developing a hemispheric strategy to improve security and combat
terrorism.” Press Release, Ambassador Cofer Black to Lead the U.S.
Delegation to the Fourth Regular Session of the Inter-American Committee
Against Terrorism (Jan. 22, 2004), available at http://www.state.gov/
r/pa/prs/ps/2004/28429 htm.

14

strongly reflects the U.S.’s dedication to human rights. Yet,
the Petitioner and his amici ask this Court to judicially repeal
the very statute that affords aliens the only redress against
human rights abuses, including terrorism. This frustrates our
national goals and interests and calls into question our moral
ability to effectively lead the international war against terror.
In keeping with our government’s strong objective to fight
and end terrorism, all victims of terrorism, regardless of their

~ nationality should be able to sue terrorists and recover

monetary damages.

II. TO COMBAT TERRORISM MOST
EFFECTIVELY, AND IN KEEPING WITH
CONGRESSIONAL INTENT, VICTIMS OF
TERRORISM SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO U.S.
COURTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
NATIONALITY.

As the September 11" attacks showed, terrorist acts
against the United States result in death or injury to foreign
nationals as well as U.S. citizens. Under our domestic law,
American citizens may seek redress through tort actions
against terrorists. The Antiterrorism Act of 1992 (“ATA”),
18 U.S.C. §§ 2331- et seg. (2003), permits American citizens
who were injured “by reason of an act of international
terrorism” to bring suit “in any appropriate district court of
the United States” and recover treble damages against
terrorists. See also Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 291 F.3d
1000, 1021 (7th Cir. 2002) (those who knowingly finance a
terrorist group may be liable); Pugh v. Socialist People’s
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 290 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2003)
(action by survivors of airline bombing victims against
Libyan officials who “conspired and succeeded in destroying
a civilian commercial aircraft filled to capacity with innocent
and unsuspecting passengers” may stand). Congress enacted

15

the ATA in 1992, twelve years after the Second Circuit held
in Filartiga v. Pena-lrala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980), that
the ATCA provides aliens with a cause of action to sue for a
violation of U.S. treaties or the law ‘of nations. By 1992,
numerous federal courts had adopted this analysis. See e.g.,
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 207 n.5 (D.C.

Cir. 1985); Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 762 F. Supp. 2d 1531,

1539 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

It is highly laudable that Congress has passed
legislation to protect U.S. citizens against terrorism and deter
this “violation of the law of nations.” Br. for the U.S. at 28
n.6. Such legislation, however, provides no parallel access to
U.S. courts for aliens who have been victimized, even when
the terrorist attack occurs in the United States. Thus, it is
only through the ATCA (which Congress was certainly
aware of when it passed the ATA) that aliens may seek
redress for terrorist attacks.

Should this Court reverse the nearly twenty-five years
of law granting a federal forum to aliens who suffered grave
human rights abuses, two classes of victims of terrorist acts
will exist: those who may vindicate their rights, and those
who may not. That dichotomy would be patently unfair and
grossly unjust. Nothing can compensate the alien victims of
terrorism for their loss, but this Court should permit their
universal human rights to be vindicated through the only
means available to them at this time.

16

A. The ATCA Affords Foreign Nationals Who
Are Victims of Terrorism the Only
Meaningful Opportunity to Vindicate Their
Rights and Recover Damages.

The ATCA gives foreign nationals the only
meaningful opportunity to collect for money damages against
acts of terrorism in the U.S. courts. Altnough there is no
universally recognized definition of “terrorism,”'* see United
States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2003); Tel-
Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F.2d 774, 795 (D.C. Cir.
1984) (Edwards, J., concurring), certain acts of terrorists,
particularly the acts committed by Al Qaeda members on
September | 1", have long been recognized by U.S. courts as
violating accepted norms of customary international law. See
Burnett v. Al Baraka Inv. & Dev. Corp., 274 F. Supp. 2d 86,
99-100 (D.D.C. 2003).

Plaintiffs in Burnett, survivors of the alien victims of
September 11" attacks, among others, filed suit “to hold
accountable the persons and entities that funded and
supported . . . al Qaeda.” 274 F. Supp. 2d at 99-100. Ruling
in accordance with the great majority of federal courts, the
district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and
found that the ATCA creates a cause of action. /d. at 99.
The court also held that plaintiffs satisfied the third element
of the ATCA claim, that the “tort is committed in violation of
the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” /d. at 99-
100.

Specifically, the Burnett court found that “the
September 11 attacks began with the hijacking of four

12. Because customary international law is ever-evolving, see Filartiga,
630 F.2d at 880, as nations of the world unite to combat terrorism, U_S.
courts may eventually conclude that “terrorism” violates established norms
of customary international law.

17

airplanes, and aircraft hijacking is generally recognized as a
violation of international law of the type that gives rise to
individual liability” under ATCA. /d. at 100 (citing Bigio v.
Coca-Cola Co., 239 F.3d 440, 447-48 (2d Cir. 2000); Kadic
v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 240 (2d Cir.1996); Doe v. Islamic
Salvation Front, 257 F. Supp. 2d 115, 120 (D.D.C. 2003);
Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman, 244 F. Supp. 2d
289, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Abdullah v. Pfizer, Inc., No.
01CIV8118, 2002 WL 31082956, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17,
2002)); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN
RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 404 (1987) (“A
state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe punishment for
certain offenses recognized by the community of nations as
of universal concern, such as piracy, slave trade, attacks on
or hijacking of aircraft, genocide, war crimes, and perhaps
certain acts of terrorism. . . .”); United States v. Yunis, 924
F.2d 1086, 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("Aircraft hijacking may
well be one of the few crimes so clearly condemned under
the law of nations that states may assert universal jurisdiction
to bring offenders to justice, even when the state has no
territorial connection to the hijacking and its citizens are not
involved." (internal citations omitted)).

The Burnett court reaffirmed the principle that “[{t}he
ATCA may be applied to certain actions of private, non-state
actors.” 274 F. Supp. 2d at 100 n9 (citing Sanchez-
Espinoza, 770 F.2d at 206). Airline hijacking is one of a
very limited number of such actions, as it is almost never
committed by a state actor. The fact that the attacks of
September 11" were committed by private persons is thus
irrelevant to the terrorists’ liability under the ATCA. See
Burnett, 274 F. Supp. 2d at 100.

The terrorists’ egregious acts on September 11" also
violated other long-recognized norms of customary
international law. The international community has reached
a general consensus that the acts of Al Qaeda on September

11" were a crime against humanity. As Mary Robinson (the
U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights at the time of the
attacks) remarked: the September 11" attacks on the United
States were “an attack on the rule of law, democracy and
human rights,” constituting “a crime against humanity.”
Wendy S. Ross, U.S. Dep’t of State, Sept. /] Attacks Were
Crimes Against Humanity, Says UNHCR’s Robinson (Oct.
17, 2001), at http://usinfo.state.gov/topicai/pol/terror/
01101706.htm. Benjamin Ferencz, the former U.S. Chief
Prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes tnals, condemned
the attacks of September 11" as “clearly a crime against
humanity . . . because it is deliberate and intentional killing
of large numbers of civilians for political or other purposes.”
Interview by World Online with Benjamin Ferencz (Sept. 19,
2001), at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/cahCAH.html.
See also Human Rights Watch, Human Rights News,
September 11: One Year On: A Message to the Human
Rights Community (Sept. 9, 2002), at
http://www.hrw.org/press/ 2002/09/septll.htm (“The
September 11] attacks were a crime against humanity that
flouted the fundamental values of international human nghts
and humanitarian law.”); William A. Schabas, Punishment of
Non-State Actors in Non-international Armed Conflict, 26
FORDHAM INT’L L.J. 907, 923 (2003).

Since the post-World War I] Nuremberg trials of Nazi
criminals, crimes against humanity have been recognized to
encompass: “murder . . . or other inhumane act committed
against any civilian population, or persecutions on political,
racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the
law of the country where perpetrated.” United States v.
Flick, 6 Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg
Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, 1200
(1952) (quoting Control Council Law No. 10, art. II). “[Tjhe
ruling of the Nuremberg Tribunal memorialized the
recognition of ‘crimes against humanity’ as customary
international law.” Estate of Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios,

19

157 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (citing Princz v.
Federal Republic of Germany, 26 F.3d 1166, 1173 (D.C. Cir.
1994)). As such, crimes against humanity are actionable
under the ATCA. See Kadic, 70 F.3d at 236; Princz, 26 F.3d
at 1182-83; Estate of Cabello, 157 F.Supp.2d at 1360;
Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 343 F.3d 140, 156
(2d Cir. 2003) (citing BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD
TAYLOR, U.S.A., CHIEF OF COUNSEL FOR WAR CRIMES,
FINAL REPORT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY ON THE
NUERNBERG WAR CRIMES TRIALS UNDER CONTROL
COUNCIL LAW No. 10 109 (Aug. 15, 1949) (William S. Hein
& Co., Inc. 1997) (“[C]ertain ‘crimes against humanity’ are
proscribed by customary international law in part because of
‘[t]he force of circumstance’ and ‘the grim fact of worldwide
interdependence.””)). °

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
provides that a “crime against humanity” is any of certain
enumerated acts prohibited by international law, including
murder and torture, “when committed as part of a widespread
or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,
with knowledge of the attack.” U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9
(1998), art. 7 (emphasis added). Federal courts have adopted
this definition. See Mehinovic v. Vuckovic, 198 F. Supp. 2d
1322, 1353 (N.D. Ga. 2002) (invoking the language of the
Rome Statute in a suit brought under ATCA and TVPA by
Bosnian torture victims); see also Tachione v. Mugabe, 169
F. Supp. 2d 259, 279 n.76 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Jwanowa v. Ford
Motor Co., 67 F. Supp. 2d 424, 440 (D.N.J. 1999). Clearly,
the September | 1" attacks meet this standard.

Importantly, in Kadic, the Second Circuit held that
crimes against humanity do not require state action.’ 70

13. Additionally, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia expressly reaffirmed the principle of individual responsibility for

20

F.3d at 236 (following the customary international law
invoked by the U.S. at Nuremberg); see also Control Council
Law No. 10, art. II(2) (Prohibition against crimes against
humanity applies to “[a}ny person, without regard to . . . the
capacity in which he acted.”); /n re Krupp and Others, 15
LL.R. 620, 626-27 (U.S. Milit. Trib. Nuremberg 1948)
(private individuals liable for crimes against humanity); /n re
Krauch and Others (1.G. Farben Trial), 15 1.L.R. 668, 678-
79 (U.S. Milit. Trib. Nuremberg 1949).

B. The ATCA Is a Powerful Tool for the
United States in its War Against Terrorist

Organizations.

Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda need vast resources
to finance their attacks. See GREENBERG ET AL., supra, at 34.
Crippling the financial networks which allow terrorist groups

[t}he principle of individual responsibility and punishment
for crymes under international law recognized at
Nuremberg is the cornerstone of international criminal
law. This principle which is the enduring legacy of the
Nuremberg Charter and Judgment which gives meaning
to the prohibition of crimes under international law by
incur responsibility and are liable to punishment.

Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, 36 1.L.M. 908, 947 (1997). International law
does not require a crime against humanity to be both widespread and
systematic. /d. at 942 (emphasis added). One of these alternatives suffices
to meet the requisites of the “directed against a civilian population” prong.
Id. The Tribunal also noted that crimes against humanity could be
committed “in a systematic manner or on a large scale.” /d. The “large
scale” requirement is “sufficiently broad to cover various situations
involving multiplicity of victims, for example, as a result of the cumulative
effect of a series of inhumane acts or the singular effect of an inhumane act
of extraordinary magnitude.” /d. at 943.

21 r

to operate is essential to preventing future attacks. The
ATCA 1s key to this effort, as it enables alien victims of
terrorist attacks to sue their attackers and anyone who
financially supported the attacks. The ATCA also provides
alien victims with an incentive to assist the U.S. and our
allies in investigating and dismantling Al Qaeda’s financial
networks.

The Petitioner and the Solicitor General argue
baselessly that terrorists could invoke the ATCA to sue the
United States, its officials, or our nation’s allies in the war on
terrorism. Br. for Pet. 38-39, Br. for the U.S. at 52-53. It isa
gross distortion of the law to argue that the ATCA somehow
impedes the war on terrorism. First, the United States and
other sovereign nations are immune from suit under the
ATCA. Sanchez-Espinoza, 770 F.2d at 207; The Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 (2003).
Second, because Congress has. mandated that “a principal
goal” of United States foreign policy “shall be to promote the
increased observance of internationally recognized human
rights by all countries,” 22 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(1) (2003), it is
presumed that the United States, in fighting the war on
terrorism (either through its own agents and officers or those
of friendly nations), will respect human rights and abide by
the law of nations.'* Third, military actions of the United

14. Congress has consistently favored candid, public scrutiny of nations’
compliance with fundamental human rights to be an integral part of U.S.
foreign policy. To that end, Congress has directed the State Department to
comprehensively review and report annually on the status of internationally
recognized human rights in virtually every nation in the world, 22 U.S.C.A.
§ 215In; 19 U.S.C.A. § 2464, and on the status of religious freedom in
individual countries. 22 U.S.C.A. § 6412. Congress has also denied funding
to countries that commit a consistent pattern of gross violations of
internationally recognized human rights. 22 USCA § 2151n, 22 U.S.C. §
2304. In the 2002 State Department Reports, the United States
comprehensively evaluated foreign nations’ policies on terrorism. Thus, it
is disingenuous to claim, as Petitioner does (Brief for Pet. at 34-43), that

22

States cannot be challenged in federal courts as they are non-
justiciable political questions. Eminente v. Johnson, 361
F.2d 73 (D.C. Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 929 (1966).
Thus, lawsuits filed by terrorists under the ATCA would
quickly be disposed of by the district courts.

In the wake of the September | 1" attacks, Congress
undertook a broad reorganization of the government’s law
enforcement powers. See USA PATRIOT Act, Pub. L. 107-
56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Had Congress believed that any
statute, including the ATCA, could impede the war on
terrorism, it would have repealed the statute in its overhaul of
our laws. To the contrary, Congress has ignored recent calls
by lobbyists to repeal or ainend the ATCA. See, e.g., Big
Oil's Dirty Secrets, ECONOMIST, May 10, 2003, at 53, 54;
Daphne Eviatar, Profits at Gunpoint: Unocal’s Pipeline in
Burma Becomes a Test Case in Corporate Liability, NATION,
June 30, 2003, at 16. By declining to repeal the ATCA, even
after the September 11" attacks, Congress once again
affirmed its confidence in the district courts to fairly
adjudicate human right claims on a case-by-case basis
pursuant to the ATCA. This Court would exceed its proper
role were it to repeal a cause of action that has existed for
well over 200 years to protect foreign policy concerns that
Congress apparently does not share. See Barclays Bank PLC
v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 512 U.S. 298, 329 (1994)."°

permitting suits by alien-victims of terrorist attacks would impede executive
foreign policy. See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 963 F. Supp. 880, 893 (C.D. Cal.
1997) (when “the coordinate branches of government have already
denounced the foreign state’s human rights abuses, it is hard to imagine how
judicial consideration of the matter will . . . substantially exacerbate
relations. . . .”).

15. In Barclay's Bank, this Court disavowed any competence to determine
whether a state law interfered with U.S. foreign relations or whether
conversely Congress had decided to allow the state to act. 512 U.S. at 324-
31. Noting that “[t}he judiciary is not vested with the power” to decide how

23

The act of state and political question doctrines
permit courts, on a case-by-case basis, to dismiss specific
claims where adjudication would exceed the judiciary’s
proper role. Petitioner’s suggestion that this Court should
preclude all ATCA claims based on alleged foreign policy
effects, Br. for Pet. at 34-43, however, conflicts with this
Court’s well-established separation of powers principles.
Courts ordinarily have the obligation to decide a properly
presented case, even where the controversy may potentially
implicate foreign affairs. See W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v.
Environmental Tectonics Corp., 493 U.S. 400, 409-10
(1990). Courts cannot “shirk this responsibility merely
because [a] decision may have significant political
overtones,” Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Soc.,
478 U.S. 221, 230 (1985), or because it may embarrass
foreign governments. W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co., 493 U.S. at
409-10. This Court has never declared that the mere
possibility certain cases will impact foreign affairs grants it
the authority to wholly foreclose a cause of action created by
Congress. Not surprisingly then, courts have unanimously
rejected the argument Petitioner and his amici make now:
that ATCA claims are inherently non-justiciable. See, e.g.,
Alvarez-Machain v. Uniied States, 331 F.3d 604, 614 (9th
Cir. 2003); Abebe-Jira v. Negewo, 72 F.3d 844, 848 (11th
Cir. 1996)."°

to balance the competing concerns involved, id. at 328, the Court presumed
that Congress’ inaction evinced “a willingness to tolerate” a state law that
had engendered considerable diplomatic protest from other nations. /d. at
324 n.22, 327. If Congressional inaction implies tolerance of state intrusion
into foreign relations, surely Congressional inaction demonstrates toleration
of purported foreign policy effects of a statute Congress itself enacted. /d.
at 328.

16. As existing justiciability doctrines clearly do not permit the wholesale

evisceration Petitioner and his supporting amici seek, Petitioner claims that
the “same concerns” underlying the act of state doctrine counsel in favor of

24

—_— “ea

A blanket preclusion of the claims of deserving
plaintiffs would have a profound impact on the war on
terrorism. Repeal of the ATCA would mean that aliens
injured by terrorists attack within the U.S. could not sue the
terrorists in our courts. It would also mean that alien victims
of terrorists acts that occur abroad could not sue terrorists
who are present on our shores. It would be disingenuous of
our government to close its courts to foreign nationals
harmed by terrorists at a time when the United States seeks
global cooperation to fight terrorism. This is especially so,
as the U.S. expressly claims the right to prosecute terrorists
who use bombs in the U.S., even if the victim is an alien. 18
U.S.C. § 2332f(b)(1)(F).

Just as the government has the right to pursue and
punish those involved in terrorist acts in the U.S. against
alien victims, the victims themselves should have civil
remedies in U.S. courts. Disparate treatment of alien victims
of terrorist attacks trivializes the alien victims’ suffering and
signals that they do not deserve justice. Alarmingly, it gives
the impression that the United States is committed to ending
terrorism only within our borders, and not throughout the
world. Such an impression severely compromises the U.S.’s
moral stature in its efforts to fight terrorism. It simply cannot
be perceived by our allies that we are unconcerned with
protecting their nationals.

that result. Br. for Pet. at 37. This Court, however, has rejected the notion
that “the underlying policies are a doctrine unto themselves, justifying
expansion of the act of state doctrine (or, as the United States puts it,
unspecified ‘related principles of abstention’) into new and uncharted
fields.” W.S. Kirkpatrick, 493 U.S. at 409.

25

C. Congress Has Repeatedly Sanctioned the
Courts’ Interpretation that the ATCA
Creates a Cause of Action.

The First Congress passed the ATCA as part of
section 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the
court system of our fledgling nation and created federal
jurisdiction over issues of national importance, including
suits brought by aliens.'’ See Randall, supra, at 12; David
Cole et al., /nterpreting the Alien Tort Statute: Amicus
Curiae Memorandum of International Law Scholars and
Practitioners in Trajano v. Marcos, 12 HASTINGS INT’L &
Comp. L. REV. 1, 14 (1988). The ATCA was intended to
help secure the credibility of our nation within the
international community at a time when the United States
was young and weak. “Respect for international law was
seen by the founding and early generations of the Republic as
being an essential ingredient in the legitimacy of the nation.”
David J. Bederman, National Security: Globalization,
International Law and United States Foreign Policy, 50
Emory L.J. 717, 719 (2001).

Courts and legal scholars have gleaned the purpose
for the passage of the ATCA from the concerns and beliefs of
our leaders at the time it became law. See Tel-Oren, 726
F.2d at 782-84 (Edwards, J., concurring); Filartiga, 630 F.2d
at 887-88; see generally Anne-Marie Burley, The Alien Tort
Statute and the Judiciary Act of 1789: A Badge of Honor, 83

17. Our early leaders’ desire to uphold the law of nations is also reflected
in the debates at the Constitutional Convention. See Kenneth C. Randall,
Federal Jurisdiction over International Law Claims: Inquiries into the Alien
Tort Statute, 18 N.Y.U. J. INT’L L. & POL. 1, 12 (1985). John Jay declared
that “committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of the
courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government cannot
be too much commended.” THE FEDERALIST No. 3, at 43 (John Jay)
(Clinton Rosseter ed., 1961).

26

AM. J. INT’L L. 461 (1989); Anthony D’Amato, Comment,
The Alien Tort Statute and the Founding of the Constitution,
82 AM. J. INT’L L. 62 (1988). The Founding Generation
knew there were consequences for failing to offer adequate
judicial remedies to aliens injured by violations of
international law. See, e.g., Burley, supra, at 487; Randall,
supra, at 12. By granting aliens access to a functioning court
system, the Founders demonstrated to the international
community that the United States would protect the interests
of citizens of other nations in a fair manner. The Founders
also ensured that “individuals who flouted international law
would find no quarter in the United States.” Burley, supra, at
487. These concerns are as valid today as they were in 1789.

Ignoring this legislative history, the Solicitor General
curiously claims that the ATCA was only meant to apply to
acts within the territory of the United States. Br. for the U.S.
at 55. Even assuming arguendo that such a reading of the
ATCA were correct (which it is not), this would not preclude
alien victims of terrorist attacks from seeking redress when
attacks take place in the United States. Yet the Solicitor
General asks this Court to deny even this opportunity for
alien victims and their survivors to recover for their loss.

The Solicitor General further argues that, at best, the
district courts can hear disputes arising from matters on the
high seas. See Br. for the U.S. at 34. It impliedly asks this
Court to find that the ATCA only applies to international law
as of 1789. This simply does not follow. The ATCA’s
language is not aimed at violations of international customary
law or treaties of the United States regarding acts upon the
high seas; or treaties involving technology of the 18th
Century. By its plain meaning, the Alien Tort Claims Act
contemplates any “violation of the law of nations or a treaty
of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1350. The statute’s
language clearly contemplated that courts would apply
international law as it evolved. The Hague Convention of

27

1970 (codifying the international condemnation of aircraft
hijacking) is as equally binding on the United States as was
the Treaty of Paris of 1800, 7 Bevans 801 (expired July 31,
1809) (an agreement between the U.S. and the Empire of
France to keep pirates out of their respective ports and punish
any citizens who gave pirates aid). See U.S. CONST. art. VI,
cl. 2 (treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land”). The
nature of international law is that it must be examined “not as
it was in 1789, but as it has evolved and exists among the
nations of the world today.” Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 881
(citing Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199, 1 L. Ed. 568
(1796) (distinguishing between ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’ law

of nations)). Every court that has considered the question has

so held.

Congress reaffirmed the ATCA’s continued viability
when in 1991 it passed the Torture Victims Protection Act,
which it modeled after the ATCA. Congress noted that the
ATCA “has other important uses that should not be
replaced,” and that it “should remain intact to permit suits
based on other norms that already exist or may ripen in the
future.” H.R. Rep. 102-367(1), at 4 (1991), reprinted in 1992
U.S.C.C.A.N. 84, 86. The Solicitor General misleadingly
remarks that Congress twice chose not to alter the ATCA’s
language, citing only to Congress’s consideration of the
statute in 1911 and 1948. Br. for the U.S. at 18-19. The
Solicitor General fails to discuss that Congress also
reaffirmed the ATCA in 1991. The members of Congress in
1991 acted in accord with the wishes of the members of
Congress of 1789, 1911, and 1948, recognizing that the
inexorable march of time permits courts to apply evolving
norms of international law in an ever-changing world.

28

NR mee

CONCLUSION

Our nation is engaged in a global war on terrorism.
Congress enacted the ATCA so that foreign nationals would
have the authority to seek redress for violations of the law of
nations, which the attacks of September 11" most certainly
were. The efforts to defeat groups like Al Qaeda, and to
shatter their support networks, will not succeed with half-
hearted efforts to find them and seize their assets. The
Solicitor General, by asking this Court to unjustly deny alien
victims of terrorist attacks the right to a civil remedy,
undermines the very goals he purports to protect. The ATCA
is an effective weapon for pursuing those responsible for the
attacks of September 11" and holding them responsible for
their murderous actions. Thus, this Court should not
judicially repeal the ATCA, nor should it overrule the
twenty-five years of case law that holds the ATCA creates a
cause of action.

Respectfully submitted,

PENNY M. VENETIS

Counsel of Record
Constitutional Litigation Clinic
Rutgers School of Law - Newark
123 Washington Street

Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 353-5687

Counsel for Amici Curiae

February 27, 2004 ~

29

Appendix A
List and Descriptions of Amici Curiae

List of Amici Curiae

Barry Amundsen (brother of Craig Amundsen)

Kimi Beaven (wife of Alan Beaven)

Kelly Campell (sister-in-law of Craig
Amundsen)

Charles Greene (brother of Donald Greene)

Douglas F. Greene (brother of Donald Greene)

Regan Grice-Vega (wife of Peter Vega)

John Leinung (father of Paul Battaglia)

Elaine Leinung (mother of Paul Battaglia)

Alissa Rosenberg-Torres (wife of Luis Torres)

Paula Shapiro (mother of Eric Eisenberg)

Jack Shapiro (grandfather of Eric Eisenberg)

Dorothy Shapiro (grandmother of Eric Eisenberg)

Descriptions of Victims

Craig Amundsen worked as a computer graphics illustrator
for the Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel command
at the Pentagon. A husband and father of two children, Mr.
Amundsen, age 28, is also survived by family and friends in
Missouri and lowa, where he was raised.

Paul Battaglia started off as an intern during high school
with Marsh & McLennan, which he parlayed into a full-time
position as risk consultant upon graduation from SUNY
Binghamton. He was 22 years old when he died. ;

Alan Beaven, age 48, was killed on fligit 93 in Pennsylvania
while trying, with other passengers, to take control of that
flight after it was hijacked. A citizen of New Zealand, Alan
Beaven was an accomplished environmental lawyer who
specialized in clean-water cases. Before his death, Mr.
Beaven was about to try one last case before taking a year-
long sabbatical. Mr. Beaven had three children.

Eric Eisenberg, employed by Aon, was 32 years old when
he died. He was an expert computer technician. His mother,

who spoke with him after the first plane hit the tower,
believes he stayed behind to help evacuate other neople.

Donald Greene died on Flight #93, which crashed in
Pennsylvania. The CEO and first vice president of Safe-
Flight, an aviation company based in New York, Mr. Greene
was a licensed pilot. He was the father of two children.

Luis Torres was, briefly, a paratrooper in the Columbian
military. A native of Colombia, he came to the U.S. via
Mexico in the late 1980's. He started a new job as a senior
currency broker at Cantor Fitzgerald on September 10, 2001.
Peter Vega was a firefighter with Ladder Company 118 in
Brooklyn. A husband and father, Mr. Vega, age 36, was
married for five years before his death. He was a veteran of
the U.S. Air Force.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0704%3A28. Public record. Not legal advice.