Sudan Announces that US State Department will overturn Supreme Court Rulings
Sudan publicly refutes 8-0 SCOTUS ruling, claims State Department will dismiss victims’ judgments
May 26, 2020
Washington, DC-- Washington, DC-- For the second straight week, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with US embassy bombing victims against Sudan, dismissing Sudan’s final appeals and finalizing all liability and compensatory judgments. Nevertheless, in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that “the plaintiffs proved Sudan’s role in these attacks and established their entitlement to compensatory and punitive damages,” Sudan has continued to deny any responsibility for the 1998 bombing of US embassies and announced a tentative deal with the US State Department to overrule the SCOTUS judgments.
The Supreme Court affirmed lower court findings that Sudan provided Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda operatives with diplomatic passports, facilitated weapons and money transfers to the terror cells that bombed American embassies, and helped pick the embassy targets in retaliation against US sanctions against Sudan.
Yet State Department negotiators have inexplicably allowed Sudan to dictate terms for its removal from the State Sponsor of Terrorism list, demanding that the Trump Administration push Congress to overturn US victim claims and grant Sudan immunity for its role in the 1998 bombings.
The tentative deal Sudan and State Department publicly announced following the Supreme Court ruling would replace the Court judgments with a scheme that would allow Sudan to escape accepting responsibility for its role in the attacks and allow Sudan to pay victims and families only 1% of the total judgment.
Furthermore, the new scheme would set up a discriminatory payment structure whereby Sudan would be allowed to pay victims based on their nation of birth, rather than severity of injury. This would allow Sudan to avoid paying 1/3 of embassy bombing judgment holders entirely, and would allow Sudan to pay African American citizen victims 25x less of their judgment on average than white American victims holders.
This past week, Sudan announced it had seized over $4 billion in stolen assets from former government officials, providing Sudan with plenty of new resources to reach a fair settlement with victims. Victims have also offered to allow Sudan to extend out payment until after it is realizing the tens of billions of dollars in oil/mineral concessions following delisting from the SST.
Despite all of this, Sudan and the US State Department have continued to push for their unconstitutional and discriminatory forced settlement plan over victims’ objections. Yet even after a lobbying blitz by senior State Department personnel, the Sudan/State Department plan is facing growing opposition in Congress. Furthermore, the public insistence by Sudan’s new government that it has no responsibility for the consequences of providing Osama bin Laden with diplomatic passports and funding and arming terrorist cells raises serious questions about what Sudan will do if it is removed from the SST.