Sudan Continues to Deny Role in 1998 Embassy Bombings & Legitimacy of U.S. Courts
Embassy Victims Optimistic Following Scathing Questions from Supreme Court Justices
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Eric Sapp
February 25, 2020 esapp@eleisongroup.com / 703-863-6403
WASHINGTON, DC – During U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments yesterday, justices delivered blistering questions to Sudan’s lawyer. Justices also repudiated Sudan’s continued refusal to acknowledge U.S. Court judgments that Sudan played a “critical” role in the 1998 embassy attacks. Despite Sudan’s continued denials and refusal to meet with victims to negotiate a just settlement to their claims, embassy bombing victims remain optimistic that their strong showing in Court yesterday and the overwhelming support they have received from Congress and President Trump’s Administration will ultimately force Sudan to satisfy their judgments.
“We were heartened by what we witnessed in Court and are grateful and encouraged by the strong support we have from President Trump’s Administration and Congress,” said Doreen Oport, who worked for the U.S. embassy and was injured in the bombing. “With the legal battle now behind us, the only question remaining is if Sudan will stop denying the legitimacy of U.S. Courts and finally work directly with us, the victims of its past terrorist acts, to resolve these claims.”
Sudan’s American legal team began oral arguments by rejecting the final rulings of U.S. Courts that Sudan’s protection, funding, and provision of diplomatic passports to the terrorists who bombed American embassies played a “critical” role “without which [al Qaeda] could not have carried out the 1998 bombings.” As victims sat in the audience, Sudan’s lawyer instead claimed that Sudan is not responsible for the attacks and “that Sudan, at most, was negligent in controlling people within its borders.”
However, justices were not impressed.
Justice Ginsberg rejected Sudan’s claim that it did not knowingly support Al Qaeda in one of her first questions: “Are you maintaining that Sudan might have withheld their aid to Al Qaeda just to prevent exposure to punitive damages?”
Justice Breyer expressed incredulity at Sudan’s central legal argument: “Well, that's a pretty — I mean, you have to say something like that. And, boy, we're in outer space, I think.”
Justice Alito said Sudan’s arguments did not hold together: “I don't know where your argument based on these state claims is going.”
Justice Kagan seemed to flatly reject the reasoning behind Sudan’s claim that they should not be held accountable for their support of terrorism: “And, boy, that seems awfully complicated and probably not what Congress had in mind.”
Victims have offered Sudan a plan to resolve their claims that takes into account the current economic hardships Sudan faces as a result of its past support of terrorism and corruption. The victims’ plan, which has been shared with the U.S. State Department and Sudan, would allow Sudan to extend out payments until a point when it can satisfy claims using the significant economic wealth that will be generated once it is removed from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List. So far, Sudan has not responded to outreach from victims. More details on the victim’s plan can be found here.
Press conference photos and Doreen Oport’s full statement following oral arguments can be found at: www.sudanterrorvictims.org/press. For further details on the press conference or to schedule an interview with victims, please contact: Eric Sapp: esapp@eleisongroup.com, 703-863-6403
###