Trump Sides With PLO: In a Legal Case Against Them and Their Terrorist Attacks

Yasser Arafat: 4th PLO Leader (1969 until his death in 2004) 

succeeded by Mahmoud Abbas 

(Did Trump know him??)

Mahmoud Abbas: President of the State of Palestine, Palestinian 

National Authority, and the PLO 

(Oval Office: May 2017)

Major Update From the Supreme Court (April 2, 2018).  The original post follows this update: 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court rejected the appeal from American victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East more than a decade ago. The justices are not commenting Monday in ending a lawsuit against the PLO and Palestinian Authority in connection with attacks in Israel in 2002 and 2004 that killed 33 people. 

A lower court tossed out a $654 million verdict against the Palestinians.

The Trump administration sided with the Palestinians in calling on the high court to leave the lower court ruling in place. The federal appeals court in New York said U.S. courts can’t consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States. 

The victims sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, passed to open U.S. courts to American victims of international terrorism.

======================================================

Original Post Follows From Here:

Pretty startling and troubling headline to say the least: Trump sides with terrorists – case in point described in this report:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Despite its bumpy relationship with the Palestinians, the Trump administration is siding with the PLO urging the Supreme Court to reject an appeal from American victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East more than a decade ago. The victims are asking the high court to reinstate a $654 million verdict against the PLO and Palestinian Authority in connection with attacks in Israel in 2002 and 2004 that killed 33 people and wounded hundreds more.

A Federal Appeals Court in New York tossed out the verdict back in 2016. It said then that U.S. courts can’t consider lawsuits against foreign-based groups over random attacks that were not aimed at the United States.

The victims then sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act, signed into law in 1992. That law was passed to open U.S. courts to victims of international terrorism, spurred by the killing of American Leon Klinghoffer during a 1985 terrorist attack aboard the Achille Lauro cruise ship.

Again the appeals court disagreed. In late June, the justices asked the administration to weigh in on the case, as they often do in cases with foreign policy implications. The DOJ filed its brief eight months later, saying there was nothing in the appeals court ruling to “warrant this court’s intervention at this time.”

This from a very key and savvy lawyer: Ted Olson in his unusually strong language for a Supreme Court filing wrote:  “The government is not being square with the court.” Olson further said the administration was being cagey about its view of the law, even after the lower court cut back on its use by attack victims to try to hold groups financially liable, and he added: “If the appeals court decision is left in place, it would close the courthouse door to U.S. victims of “many acts of terrorism overseas in which terrorists maim and kill indiscriminately, without regard to nationality.”

Olson then pointed to recent attacks in Belgium, Britain, France, and Spain as examples. Even Klinghoffer’s relatives would have no case, unless they could prove he was killed because he was American, rather than Jewish, he said.

The Trump administration said it is “far from clear” that so many claims would be kept out of court.

Democrats and Republicans in both houses of Congress also are calling on the court to take up the victims’ case.

Further and by example from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) (who was a sponsor of the law) said part: “The Trump administration had the opportunity to stand with American victims of terrorism by defending and restoring the law. But it failed to do so. The Supreme Court should not.”

Historical Note: In 1969, Yasser Arafat and his Fatah took over the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – the organization had been created by the Arab League five years earlier – and effectively declared Palestinian independence from the region’s power players.

In the years that followed, the various armed factions of the PLO restored the term “Palestinian” into the international media lexicon through a series of high-profile acts of violence in many cases targeting Israeli civilians, including bombings, cross-border raids, airplane hijackings and the 1972 Munich Olympic hostage massacre. The world took notice.

In 1974, for example, the UN recognized the PLO as “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people,” and Arafat, in military uniform that included a holster that may or may not have contained a weapon, became the first representative of a non-governmental entity to address the General Assembly, saying to the world: “Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand,”

I Note: Trump had earlier infuriated the Palestinians by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and announcing plans to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, so, I surmise this move, another Trump slick “deal” for which the high court should NOT toss, but somehow Trump thinks if it is tossed it will make the PLO happy and not pissed at him - ergo: Art of the Deal, I suppose???

“The Trump con clearly once again in the spotlight.”

Nevertheless, I call this the biggest WTF moment for sure in our history – that is for any president to side with any terrorist organization which the PLO is in such a move. 

I would further say that this could be an excellent case to use to impeach Trump for such a blatant treasonous act – a legal term for sure. 

Naturally, the PLO is calling on our high court to reject the appeal. 

Let’s hope the USSC has more sense and will rule 9-0 for the victims. 

Stay tuned – this is surely a biggie as they say. 

Thanks for stropping by.