Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:11:45.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Counterterrorism in American Civil Courts: The Role of Letelier v. Republic of Chile

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2020

Alan McPherson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The very rarity of these situations makes the legislation all the more important.

Samuel Buffone, lawyer for Isabel Letelier

On September 21, 1976, former Chilean Ambassador and Minister Orlando Letelier drove to his job in Washington, DC, in his Chevelle, accompanied by his coworkers, Ronni Moffitt and Michael Moffitt. As the Chevelle veered off Massachusetts Avenue into Sheridan Circle, the bottom of the car exploded upward, blowing off Letelier's legs and killing him within minutes. A short time after that, at George Washington Hospital, Ronni Moffitt died from a severed carotid artery. Michael Moffitt, sitting in the back, survived with minor injuries. Most observers of the brutal dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, which had overthrown Marxist President Salvador Allende in 1973 and jailed and then exiled Letelier, Allende's defense minister, pinned the crime on the Chilean despot, and the Departments of Justice and State came to the same conclusion within a few years. The assassination remains to this day the only instance of state-sponsored terrorism in Washington. In the 1970s and 1980s, it spawned several criminal lawsuits in the United States and Chile, the most important of which was not settled until 1995, and remnants of which continue to this day. In Chile, the case also inspired a wave of legal activism against impunity for human rights violations.

Type
Original Article
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

He is the author, most recently, of Ghosts of Sheridan Circle: How a Washington Assassination Brought Pinochet's Terror State to Justice. He thanks Silke Zoller for reading a draft of this article.

References

1. U.S. Senate, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act Amendments, 100th Cong., October 5, 1988 (Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office, 1989), 73.

2. For more details, see Dinges, John and Landau, Saul, Assassination on Embassy Row (New York: Pantheon Books, 1980)Google Scholar, and McPherson, Alan, Ghosts of Sheridan Circle: How a Washington Assassasination Brought Pinochet's Terror State to Justice (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. De Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1980), judgment entered, 502 F. Supp. 259 (D. D.C. 1980), execution ordered, 567 F. Supp. 1490, 575 F. Supp. 1217 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), rev'd, 748 F.2d 790 (2d Cir. 1984).

4. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Pub.L. 94–583, 90 Stat. 2891, October 21, 1976.

5. Singer, Eric, “Terrorism, Extradition, and FSIA Relief: The Letelier Case,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 19 (1986): 57–82Google Scholar. Singer's article is also largely about extradition and not FSIA. See also Bello, Judith Hippler and Barcroft, Peter A., “Chile—Criminal Jurisdiction—Prosecution of Officials of Secret Service for Assassination of Former Ambassador to the United States,” American Journal of International Law 90 (1996): 290–96Google Scholar, which covers the United States-based Letelier decisions but in the context of Chilean court decisions on the case, not of counterterrorism.

6. Examples of scholarship on commercial FSIA topics include Donahue, Timothy E., “Wanted: A Practical Application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to Foreign Reward Offers,” Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 35 (2012): 223–52Google Scholar; Tuninetti, Amanda, “Limiting the Scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act after Zivotofsky II,” Harvard International Law Journal 57 (2016): 215–51Google Scholar; and Myers, Jason E., “Preserving International Comity: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 and OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs,” Southern California Law Review 90 (2017): 913–44Google Scholar.

7. Elsea, Jennifer K., Suits Against Terrorist States by Victims of Terrorism (New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2009)Google Scholar.

8. In addition to the examples discussed in this paragraph are Feldman, Mark B., “Foreign Sovereign Immunity in the United States Courts, 1976–1986,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 19 (1986): 19–55Google Scholar; Kindall, M. P. A., “Immunity of States for Noncommercial Torts: A Comparative Analysis of the International Law Commissioner's Draft,” California Law Review 75 (1987): 1849–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Belsky, Adam C., Merva, Mark, and Roht-Arriaza, Naomi, “Implied Waiver Under the FSIA: A Proposed Exception to Immunity for Violations of Peremptory Norms of International Law,” California Law Review 77 (1989): 365–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Gergen, Jennifer A., “Human Rights and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,” Virginia Journal of International Law 36 (1996): 765–99Google Scholar.

9. Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/735/text (September 9, 2019). Cooper-Hill, James, The Law of Sovereign Immunity and Terrorism (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications, 2006), 121Google Scholar.

10. Amerada Hess Shipping Company, 830 F.2d 421, 428 (2d Cir. 1987).

11. Bradley, Curtis A. and Goldsmith, Jack L., “Pinochet and International Human Rights Litigation,” Michigan Law Review 97 (1999): 2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12. Scholarship on pre-9/11 United States government responses to terrorism is woefully thin. Beverly Gage in “Terrorism and the American Experience: A State of the Field,” Journal of American History 98 (2011): 73–94, wrote, of 1970s hijackings, that “there was little effort [by historians] to assess these events in the context of domestic political trends or even U.S. foreign policy,” and that “it remains difficult to say anything definitive about U.S. counterterrorism policy during these years,” at 79, 90. Only a few works focus on United States counterterrorism from the 1970s until September 11, 2001, including Simon, Jeffrey D., The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience with Terrorism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994)Google Scholar; McClintock, Michael, Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerrilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, and Counter-terrorism, 1940–1990 (New York: Pantheon, 1992)Google Scholar; Martin, David C. and Wolcott, John, Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of America's War Against Terrorism (New York: Harper & Row, 1988)Google Scholar; J. Brent Wilson, “The United States’ Response to International Terrorism,” in The Deadly Sin of Terrorism: Its Effect on Democracy and Civil Liberty in Six Countries, ed. David A. Chambers (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994), 173–209; Wills, David C., The First War on Terrorism: Counter-Terrorism Policy during the Reagan Administration (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)Google Scholar; and Mattia Toaldo, “Reagan and Libya: A History of Pre-Emptive Strikes and (Failed) Regime Change,” in An International History of Terrorism: Western and Non-Western Experiences, ed. Jussi M. Hanhimäki and Bernhard Blumenau (New York: Routledge, 2013), 210–27. Two of the few works that make an effort to bridge both eras are The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (New York: St. Martin's, 2004), and Naftali, Tim, Blind Spot: The Secret History of American Counterterrorism (New York: Basic Books, 2005)Google Scholar.

13. Exceptions include Murphy, John F., “Civil Liability for the Commission of International Crimes as an Alternative to Criminal Prosecution,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 12 (1999): 1–56Google Scholar, Dellapenna, Joseph, “Civil Remedies for International Terrrorism,” DePaul Business Law Journal 12 (1999/2000): 169–289Google Scholar, and Heiser, Walter, “Civil Litigation as a Means of Compensating Victims of International Terrorism,” San Diego International Law Journal 3 (2002): 1–49Google Scholar.

14. See, for example, The Wyndham Place Trust, Man's Wider Loyalties: Limitations of National Sovereignty (London: Hutchinson, 1970); Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1977)Google Scholar; Milward, Alan, Lynch, Frances M. B., Romero, Federico, Ranieri, Ruggero, and Sorensen, Vibeke, The Frontier of National Sovereignty: History and Theory, 1945–1992 (New York: Routledge, 1993)Google Scholar; Held, David, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Castells, Manuel, The Power of Identity—The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999)Google Scholar; Thakur, Ramesh and Malcontent, Peter, eds., From Sovereign Impunity to International Accountability: The Search for Justice in a World of States (New York: United Nations University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Bothe, Michael, O'Connell, Mary Ellen, and Ronzitti, Natalino, eds., Redefining Sovereignty: The Use of Force After the Cold War (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2005)Google Scholar; and Chandler, David, From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention (London: Pluto Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

15. von Mehren, Robert B., “The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976,” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 17 (1978): 33, 36Google Scholar.

16. Epstein, David and Baldwin, Charles S., International Litigation: A Guide to Jurisdiction, Practice, and Strategy (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010), 53, 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon, 7 Cranch 116 (1812). In Re State of New York et al. The Queen City, 41 S.Ct. 592 (1921).

18. Department of State Bulletin 26 (1952): 984. Elsea, Suits, 5.

19. Cooper-Hill, The Law, 61.

20. H.R. Rep. 94-1487, at 9 (1976).

21. Senate, Foreign Sovereign, 86.

22. Ford, signing statement, H.R. 11315, Washington, October 22, 1976, https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0055/1669721.pdf (September 9, 2019).

23. Jim Cannon, memorandum to Ford, Washington, DC, October 20, 1976, https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0055/1669721.pdf (September 9, 2019).

24. H.R. Rep. 94-1487, at 9 (1976).

25. Paul H. O'Neill, memorandum to President Gerald Ford, Washington, DC, October 18, 1976, https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0055/1669721.pdf (September 9, 2019).

26. Cooper-Hill, Law, 61, 64.

27. Michael M. Uhlmann, memorandum to James T. Lynn, Washington, DC, October 13, 1976, https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0055/1669721.pdf (September 9, 2019).

28. H.R. Rep. 94-1487, at 8 (1976).

29. H.R. Rep. 94-1487, at 6–7 (1976).

30. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605 (West).

31. H.R. Rep. 94-1487, at 20 (1976).

32. David Stewart, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: A Guide for Judges, Federal Judicial Center, 2013, https://permanent.access.gpo.gov/gpo50229/fsiaguide2013.pdf (September 9, 2019).

33. Ford, signing statement.

34. Darin, Joseph, “United States Quickly Shuts Door to Cuba in Most Recent Jurisdictional FSIA Case,” Suffolk Transnational Law Review 38 (2015): 509–22Google Scholar.

35. Kempton B. Jenkins, memorandum to James T. Lynn, Washington, DC, October 15, 1976, https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0055/1669721.pdf (September 9, 2019).

36. Von Mehren, “The Foreign,” 66.

37. H.R. Rep. 94-1487, at 7 (1976).

38. Patrick Symmes, “The Man Who Would Not Disappear,” Washington City Paper, September 22, 1995.

39. Cited in Jeremiah O'Leary, “2 Families Sue Chile for Damages in Letelier Case,” Washington Star, August 8, 1978.

40. United States of America v. Guillermo Novo Sampol et al., 636 F.2d 621 (1980).

41. Cited in Symmes, “The Man.”

42. No Author, “Letelier, Moffitt Survivors File Suit Here Against Chile,” Washington Post, August 9, 1978.

43. Herbert J. Hansell, memorandum to Deputy Secretary, August 16, 1978, unmarked volume, Box 11, Letelier Collection, National Security Archive, Washington, DC. For exact legal language, see Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F. Supp. 665, 666 (D.D.C. 1980).

44. Cited in Symmes, “The Man.”

45. Cited in Isabel Letelier, letter to Lottie Wexler, June 9, 1980, folder 21, box 45, Institute for Policy Studies (hereafter IPS) Collection, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison (hereafter WHS).

46. Laura A. Kiernan, “Judge Says Chile Can Be Sued For Bombing Death Damages,” Washington Post, March 12, 1980, B5.

47. 488 F. Supp. 665, 671 (D.D.C. 1980), citing H.R.Rep.No.94-1487.

48. 488 F. Supp. 665, 671 (D.D.C. 1980).

49. 488 F. Supp. 665, 672 (D.D.C. 1980).

50. No author, “Se inició demanda por Caso Letelier,” El Mercurio, June 21, 1980, A16.

51. Interview with Isabel Letelier, Santiago, July 19, 2017.

52. L/M Fund, memorandum to Key Contacts, Washington, November 5, 1980, folder 4, box 53, IPS Collection, WHS.

53. Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 502 F. Supp. 259 (D.D.C. 1980).

54. “Survivors in Letelier Case are Awarded $5 Million,” New York Times, November 5, 1980, A14.

55. L/M Fund, memo to Key Contacts, Washington, November 5, 1980, folder 4, box 53, IPS Collection, WHS.

56. Cited in Laura A. Kiernan, “Bomb Blast Victim's Kin Awarded $4 Million,” Washington Post, November 6, 1980, A4

57. Bradley and Goldsmith, “Pinochet,” 2155.

58. 488 F. Supp. 665, 673 (D.D.C. 1980).

59. Estate of Domingo v. Republic of Philippines, 694 F.Supp. 782 (W.D. Wash. 1988).

60. Liu v. The Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1989).

61. Stephens, Beth, Chomsky, Judith, Green, Jennifer, Hoffman, Paul, and Ratner, Michael, International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008), 92Google Scholar.

62. Dellapenna, “Civil Remedies,” 265. He cites Risk v. Halvorsen, 936 F.2d 393, 396–97 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom. Risk v. Norway, 502 U.S. 1035 (1992).

63. Neier, Aryeh, The International Human Rights Movement: A History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64. Cmiel, Kenneth, “The Emergence of Human Rights Politics in the United States,” The Journal of American History 86 (1999): 1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65. Keys, Barbara, Reclaiming American Virtue: The Human Rights Revolution of the 1970s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Renouard, Joe, Human Rights in American Foreign Policy: From the 1960s to the Soviet Collapse (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 6–7Google Scholar.

66. President Carter, inauguration speech, January 20, 1977, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=6575 (September 9, 2019).

67. Schoultz, Lars, Human Rights and United States Policy toward Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68. Cmiel, “The Emergence,” 1235.

69. Gergen, “Human Rights”; Humes-Schulz, Stacy, “Limiting Sovereign Immunity in the Age of Human Rights,” Harvard Human Rights Journal 21 (2008): 105–42Google Scholar.

70. Cicippio v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 18 F.Supp.2d 62, 64, 70 (D.D.C.1998).

71. Smith v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 101 F3d. 239, 246, 243 (1996).

72. Hennessy, Sean, “In Re Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act: How the 9/11 Litigation Shows the Shortcomings of FSIA as a Tool in the War on Global Terrorism,” Georgetown Journal of International Law 42 (2001): 861Google Scholar.

73. Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, Sec. 221(a)(1)(A), codified at 28 U.S.C. section 1605(a)(7).

74. Elsea, Suits, 1–7.

75. Hennessy, “In Re,” 863.

76. Hennessy, “In Re,” 857.

77. In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 349 F.Supp.2d 765, 796 (2005).

78. Singer, “Terrorism,” 70.

79. Murphy, “Civil Liability,” 28.

80. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg2891.pdf (September 9, 2019); and Stewart, The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 60.

81. Jenkins, memorandum.

82. Kiernan, “Bomb Blast,” A4.

83. L/M Fund, memorandum to Key Contacts, Washington, DC, November 5, 1980, folder 4, box 53, IPS Records, WHS.

84. Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 567 F. Supp. 1490 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).

85. Townley testimony, c. April 25, 1978, Digital National Security Archive (hereafter DNSA) collection Chile and the United States: U.S. policy toward democracy, dictatorship, and human rights, 1970–1990.

86. George Landau, memorandum to Secretary of State, Santiago, July 27, 1978, DNSA.

87. 96 Cong. Rec. 96-1157 (1980); Jack Anderson, “Chilean Airline Tied to Smuggling,” Washington Post, September 27, 1979; John L. Burton, letter to D. F. Pearce, Washington, DC, November 30, 1979, DNSA; Carl S. Rauh and Lawrence Barcella, letter to James R. Robinson, Washington, DC, November 30, 1979, DNSA; FBI report, “Lineas Aereas Nacional Chilena,” January 25, 1980, DNSA; and Richard Lally, letter to Benjamin Achenbach, May 30, 1980, DNSA.

88. “LAN desmiente,” Ultimas Noticias, June 20, 1980, 16; and “LAN no ha transportado materiales explosivos,” El Mercurio, June 20, 1980.

89. “¿Nuevas represalias?” Hoy, May 28–June 3, 1980, 9–12.

90. Patricia Verdugo, “En pistas chilenas,” Hoy, May 28 –June 3, 1980, 12–13.

91. 96 Cong. Rec. 96-1157 (1980); see also H.R. Rep. No. 720, (1980).

92. Richard Lally, Director of Civil Aviation Security, FAA, letter to John Burton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Activities and Transportation, Washington, DC, c. March 10, 1981, in 96 Cong. Rec. 96-1157 (May 9, 1980); and Wallig and Brinley Williams, Civil Aeronautics Board, to Director, Bureau of Compliance and Consumer Protection, May 21, 1981, DNSA.

93. Joseph Blank, Office of Civil Aviation Security, FAA, March 20, 1981, DNSA.

94. J. Brian Atwood, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, letter to John Burton, c. January 21, 1981, DNSA.

95. Martin Walker, “The Fight for Bread and Roses,” The Guardian, March 3, 1981, box 251, records of the Transnational Institute, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

96. Scott Armstrong, “Chilean Plane Leaves, Defying Letelier Judgment,” Washington Post, March 19, 1983, A1.

97. Tamar Lewin, “U.S. Judge Threatens Chilean Airline,” New York Times, December 20, 1983.

98. “Chile Airline Compliance Set,” New York Times, December 24, 1983, A40.

99. Cecilia Domeyko, “Buscando en LAN,” Hoy, January 17, 1984, n.p.

100. My translation. Cited in Domeyko, “Buscando.”

101. John J. Privitera, letter to Robert Borosage, April 10, 1984, Washington, DC, folder 10, box 24, IPS Collection, WHS.

102. Privitera to Borosage.

103. De Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 748 F.2d 790, 799 (2d Cir. 1984).

104. Singer, Terrorism, 73.

105. Cited in Senate, Foreign Sovereign, 74, 70.

106. John J. Privitera, memorandum, Washington, DC, June 20, 1985, folder 10, box 24, IPS Collection, WHS.

107. Cited in Senate, Foreign Sovereign, 71.

108. The bills were S. 1071 and H.R. 3137.

109. Senate, Foreign Sovereign, 3–4.

110. H.R. 3763 also enjoyed the support of the American Bar Association and of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). NAM wrote on behalf of its 13,500 member companies that the amendment would strengthen their case against “foreign entities [that] continue to use loopholes in the law as bases for refusing to accept their legal responsibilities.” See, Senate, Foreign Sovereign, 111.

111. Senate, Foreign Sovereign, 16, 17.

112. Ibid., 17, 19, 39.

113. Ibid., 51, 55.

114. Ibid., 62.

115. Samuel Buffone and John J. Privitera, “Chronology of Events: Letelier-Moffitt Assassination, 1976-August 1990,” August 1990, DNSA.

116. Phillip Trimble has found that United States “courts follow political branch direction in the creation and application of the body of [customary] law, in “A Revisionist View of Customary Law,” UCLA Law Review 33 (1986): 665, 696.

117. Jamie Gorelick, memorandum for the assistant to the president for National Security Affairs, Washington, DC, September 5, 1955, Domestic Policy Council and Jose Cerda, “Terrorism II [1],” Clinton Digital Library, https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/53606 (September 9, 2019).

118. Murphy, “Civil Liability,” 35–38.

119. Elsea, Suits, quotation on 1, 6–8.

120. Ibid., 9–11.

121. Epstein and Baldwin, International Litigation, 202.

122. Rocklage, Andrew, “Neglected Consequences of the Terrorism Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,” International Law 36 (2013): 483Google Scholar.

123. 138 S.Ct. 816 (2018).

124. Symmes, “The Man”; and Robert Pear, “U.S. Bills Chile in Killing of Letelier,” New York Times, October 13, 1988, A3.

125. David Colson, memorandum to Judge Sofaer, Washington, DC, May 16, 1988, Additional Release: Chile Declassification Project, 2015.

126. Cited in Kornbluh, Peter, The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability (New York: The New Press, 2003), 465Google Scholar.

127. Nancy Soderbeg, memorandum to Edward Kennedy, January 31, 1990, DNSA.

128. Mónica González, “EE.UU. insiste en indemnización para familias de las víctimas,” La Nación (Santiago), April 20, 1990, 6; and Robert Pear, “Chile Agrees to Pay Reparations to U.S. in Slaying of Envoy,” New York Times, May 13, 1990, A1.

129. Claudia Riquelme, “Un millón 600 mil dólares para Isabel Morel e hijos,” La Tercera (Santiago), January 13, 1992, 7.

130. Barbara Crossette, “$2.6 Million Awarded Families in Letelier Case,” New York Times, January 13, 1992, A11.

131. Buergenthal, Thomas and Murphy, Sean, Public International Law in a Nutshell, 2nd ed. (St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West, 2013), 291Google Scholar.

132. Anderson, Paige C., “Cyber Attack Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,” Cornell Law Review 102 (2017): 1087–114Google Scholar.