Suing governments over terror no sure thing despite U.S. September 11 lawNEW YORK (Reuters) - Families of Sept. 11 victims and others who may seek to sue foreign governments accused of supporting terrorism in the United States still face significant legal hurdles, despite a boost from passage of a law allowing such cases to proceed.  The new Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, grants an exception to the legal principle of sovereign immunity in cases of terrorism on U.S. soil.  Passage of the law over a presidential veto could allow relatives and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to move forward with a case they filed more than a decade ago against Saudi Arabia in New York federal court. Still, it will be hard to prove a foreign nation is responsible for acts of terrorism, said attorneys and professors with expertise in international law, who expected drawn-out legal wrangling. “We may find that at the end of the day, after years of litigation, that the link is not sufficiently established even for Saudi Arabia,” said Curtis Bradley, a law professor at Duke University.  The law says plaintiffs must show the foreign state “knowingly or recklessly provided material support or resources” to designated terrorist groups, not that the countries were simply negligent or looked the other way.  Congress on Wednesday overwhelming voted to pass the law, overturning President Barack Obama’s veto. Before the law, American victims of terrorist acts could only sue countries designated by the U.S. State Department as state-sponsors of terrorism, currently Iran, Syria and Sudan. Now, any country can be sued if there are allegations of support for known terrorists that carry out attacks on U.S. soil.  Existing tort law requires plaintiffs to prove that support played a “substantial factor” in the victims’ injuries, a high bar, said Jimmy Gurule an expert in international criminal law at the University of Notre Dame.    This could be challenging in the Sept. 11 case since an independent commission on the 2001 attacks did not find sufficient evidence of Saudi involvement. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks and most of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.  “We have a high degree of confidence we can meet that burden. The Saudis think we can’t,” said Jack Quinn, co-counsel for more than 2,000 family members of Sept. 11 victims.  The families sued Saudi Arabia in 2003, seeking to hold the country responsible. The proceedings have been stalled on the question of Saudi Arabia’s immunity Quinn said the plaintiffs will now ask the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the issue in light of the new law.  If the court says the case can move forward, both sides will use discovery to seek documents and take depositions of witnesses and experts.  “We will next attempt to complete the development of evidence and find out what the truth is and on the basis of that, let the chips fall as they may,” said Quinn.   But even under the new law, the White House can still request a court to halt this and other potential lawsuits. The law allows a court to put a proceeding against a foreign state on hold if the United States says it “is engaged in good faith discussions” with the country to resolve the claims.  The stay provision and other changes were added to address concerns raised by the White House, Saudi Arabia and companies like General Electric and Dow Chemical Co. Obama is likely to request such a stay, said Bradley. Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law, said this revision and others injected uncertainty into the law and could result in litigation aimed at clarifying the bill’s language. “The next step in this is either a whole bunch of lawsuits being placed on indefinite hold or a whole bunch of litigation to figure out the meaning of all these obstacles that Congress snuck back into the bill at the last minute,” said Vladeck. Even with the revisions, detractors of the new law worried that it could inspire other countries to retaliate by enacting their own statutes that could drag the United States or U.S. companies into court. Some U.S. lawmakers said Congress may revisit the law to narrow it further.  Ultimately, though, if the victims of terrorist acts win a court  judgment against a foreign government, other cases have shown that collecting damages can be a slog. A Reuters analysis last year found that in the 10 years following the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of lawsuits filed under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act and similar laws more than tripled compared to the decade before with plaintiffs winning billions of dollars worth of judgments in U.S. courts.  But judgments awarded against organizations or governments are often unenforceable and even when there are assets that can be claimed in the United States, their value often falls short of the award. (reut.rs/2dexDdV) politicsNews
suing governments terror sure thing despite september lawyer york reuters families victims others may seek sue foreign governments accused supporting terrorism united states still face significant legal hurdles despite boost passage law allowing cases proceed the new justice against sponsors terrorism act pasta grants exception legal principle sovereign immunity cases terrorism soil passage law presidential veto could allow relatives survivors attacks move forward case filed decade ago saudi arabia new york federal court still hard prove foreign nation responsible acts terrorism said attorneys professors expertise international law expected legal ranging we may find end day years litigation link sufficiently established even saudi arabia said curtis bradley law professor duke university the law says plaintiffs must show foreign state knowingly reckless provided material support resources designated terrorist groups countries simply negligent looked way congress wednesday overwhelming voted pass law overturning president barack obama veto before law american victims terrorist acts could sue countries designated state department terrorism currently iran syria sudan now country sued allegations support known terrorists carry attacks soil existing tort law requires plaintiffs prove support played substantial factor victims injuries high bar said jimmy rule expert international criminal law university notre dame this could challenging case since independent commission attacks find sufficient evidence saudi involvement claimed responsibility attacks hijackers saudi nationals we high degree confidence meet burden the saudi think said jack quinn family members victims the families sued saudi arabia seeking hold country responsible the proceedings stalled question saudi arabia immunity quinn said plaintiffs ask circuit court appeals reconsider issue light new law if court says case move forward sides use discovery seek documents take deposition witnesses experts we next attempt complete development evidence find truth basis let chips fall may said quinn but even new law white house still request court halt potential lawsuits the law allows court put proceeding foreign state hold united states says engaged good faith discussions country resolve claims the stay provision changes added address concerns raised white house saudi arabia companies like general electric dow chemical obama likely request stay said bradley stephen vladeck university texas school law said revision others injected uncertainty law could result litigation aimed clarifying bill language the next step either whole bunch lawsuits placed indefinite hold whole bunch litigation figure meaning obstacles congress stuck back bill last minute said vladeck even revisions detractors new law worried could inspire countries retaliate enacting statutes could drag united states companies court some lawmakers said congress may revisit law narrow ultimately though victims terrorist acts win court judgment foreign government cases shown collecting damages log a reuters analysis last year found years following attacks number lawsuits filed act similar laws tripled compared decade plaintiffs winning billions dollars worth judgments courts but judgments awarded organizations governments often enforceable even assets claimed united states value often falls short award politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Suing governments over terror no sure thing despite U.S. September 11 lawNEW YORK (Reuters) - Families of Sept. 11 victims and others who may seek to sue foreign governments accused of supporting terrorism in the United States still face significant legal hurdles, despite a boost from passage of a law allowing such cases to proceed.  The new Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, grants an exception to the legal principle of sovereign immunity in cases of terrorism on U.S. soil.  Passage of the law over a presidential veto could allow relatives and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to move forward with a case they filed more than a decade ago against Saudi Arabia in New York federal court. Still, it will be hard to prove a foreign nation is responsible for acts of terrorism, said attorneys and professors with expertise in international law, who expected drawn-out legal wrangling. “We may find that at the end of the day, after years of litigation, that the link is not sufficiently established even for Saudi Arabia,” said Curtis Bradley, a law professor at Duke University.  The law says plaintiffs must show the foreign state “knowingly or recklessly provided material support or resources” to designated terrorist groups, not that the countries were simply negligent or looked the other way.  Congress on Wednesday overwhelming voted to pass the law, overturning President Barack Obama’s veto. Before the law, American victims of terrorist acts could only sue countries designated by the U.S. State Department as state-sponsors of terrorism, currently Iran, Syria and Sudan. Now, any country can be sued if there are allegations of support for known terrorists that carry out attacks on U.S. soil.  Existing tort law requires plaintiffs to prove that support played a “substantial factor” in the victims’ injuries, a high bar, said Jimmy Gurule an expert in international criminal law at the University of Notre Dame.    This could be challenging in the Sept. 11 case since an independent commission on the 2001 attacks did not find sufficient evidence of Saudi involvement. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks and most of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.  “We have a high degree of confidence we can meet that burden. The Saudis think we can’t,” said Jack Quinn, co-counsel for more than 2,000 family members of Sept. 11 victims.  The families sued Saudi Arabia in 2003, seeking to hold the country responsible. The proceedings have been stalled on the question of Saudi Arabia’s immunity Quinn said the plaintiffs will now ask the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the issue in light of the new law.  If the court says the case can move forward, both sides will use discovery to seek documents and take depositions of witnesses and experts.  “We will next attempt to complete the development of evidence and find out what the truth is and on the basis of that, let the chips fall as they may,” said Quinn.   But even under the new law, the White House can still request a court to halt this and other potential lawsuits. The law allows a court to put a proceeding against a foreign state on hold if the United States says it “is engaged in good faith discussions” with the country to resolve the claims.  The stay provision and other changes were added to address concerns raised by the White House, Saudi Arabia and companies like General Electric and Dow Chemical Co. Obama is likely to request such a stay, said Bradley. Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law, said this revision and others injected uncertainty into the law and could result in litigation aimed at clarifying the bill’s language. “The next step in this is either a whole bunch of lawsuits being placed on indefinite hold or a whole bunch of litigation to figure out the meaning of all these obstacles that Congress snuck back into the bill at the last minute,” said Vladeck. Even with the revisions, detractors of the new law worried that it could inspire other countries to retaliate by enacting their own statutes that could drag the United States or U.S. companies into court. Some U.S. lawmakers said Congress may revisit the law to narrow it further.  Ultimately, though, if the victims of terrorist acts win a court  judgment against a foreign government, other cases have shown that collecting damages can be a slog. A Reuters analysis last year found that in the 10 years following the Sept. 11 attacks, the number of lawsuits filed under the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act and similar laws more than tripled compared to the decade before with plaintiffs winning billions of dollars worth of judgments in U.S. courts.  But judgments awarded against organizations or governments are often unenforceable and even when there are assets that can be claimed in the United States, their value often falls short of the award. (reut.rs/2dexDdV) politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: suing governments terror sure thing despite september lawyer york reuters families victims others may seek sue foreign governments accused supporting terrorism united states still face significant legal hurdles despite boost passage law allowing cases proceed the new justice against sponsors terrorism act pasta grants exception legal principle sovereign immunity cases terrorism soil passage law presidential veto could allow relatives survivors attacks move forward case filed decade ago saudi arabia new york federal court still hard prove foreign nation responsible acts terrorism said attorneys professors expertise international law expected legal ranging we may find end day years litigation link sufficiently established even saudi arabia said curtis bradley law professor duke university the law says plaintiffs must show foreign state knowingly reckless provided material support resources designated terrorist groups countries simply negligent looked way congress wednesday overwhelming voted pass law overturning president barack obama veto before law american victims terrorist acts could sue countries designated state department terrorism currently iran syria sudan now country sued allegations support known terrorists carry attacks soil existing tort law requires plaintiffs prove support played substantial factor victims injuries high bar said jimmy rule expert international criminal law university notre dame this could challenging case since independent commission attacks find sufficient evidence saudi involvement claimed responsibility attacks hijackers saudi nationals we high degree confidence meet burden the saudi think said jack quinn family members victims the families sued saudi arabia seeking hold country responsible the proceedings stalled question saudi arabia immunity quinn said plaintiffs ask circuit court appeals reconsider issue light new law if court says case move forward sides use discovery seek documents take deposition witnesses experts we next attempt complete development evidence find truth basis let chips fall may said quinn but even new law white house still request court halt potential lawsuits the law allows court put proceeding foreign state hold united states says engaged good faith discussions country resolve claims the stay provision changes added address concerns raised white house saudi arabia companies like general electric dow chemical obama likely request stay said bradley stephen vladeck university texas school law said revision others injected uncertainty law could result litigation aimed clarifying bill language the next step either whole bunch lawsuits placed indefinite hold whole bunch litigation figure meaning obstacles congress stuck back bill last minute said vladeck even revisions detractors new law worried could inspire countries retaliate enacting statutes could drag united states companies court some lawmakers said congress may revisit law narrow ultimately though victims terrorist acts win court judgment foreign government cases shown collecting damages log a reuters analysis last year found years following attacks number lawsuits filed act similar laws tripled compared decade plaintiffs winning billions dollars worth judgments courts but judgments awarded organizations governments often enforceable even assets claimed united states value often falls short award politicsnews