USS Cole attack: Trump's Justice Dept backs Sudan over US terrorist victims in Supreme Court lawsuit

The Trump administration has brutally repressed the country of Sudan – and against American terrorist attack victims – in a lawsuit currently before the Supreme Court, angering victims and veteran groups.

The case centers on the bombing of USS Cole, American warship, by al-Qaeda on October 12, 2000. The ship was docked in Yemen to refuel when suicide bombers in a small, explosive-filled boat attacked it, killing 17 American sailors and injuring 39 others. It was one of the deadlier and more brutal attacks by al-Qaeda at the time and was soon overshadowed when planes struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon less than a year later on 9/11.

In 2010, Victims of the USS Cole attacked and their spouses filed a federal lawsuit against the Northeast African country of Sudan, arguing that it had provided support for the terrorists who led the attack – an allegation the country denies.

David McNew / Newsmakers via Getty Images

Sudan's Islamist government worked closely with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in the early 1990s, providing the group with a safe haven and other support, but eventually out kicked bin Laden and his organization in 1996 – several years before the Cole attack. Yet the victims argue that the group was in charge of the situation.

"Sudan's material support …" "Continuous flow of funding," "money, weapons, logistical support," "diplomatic passports," and "religious blessings," were crucial in enabling the attack on the USS Cole, "lawyers for the families said in court papers outlining their case.

Sudan has also been on the US list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1993 and has been one of the world's most trusted countries.

US Navy / Getty Images

In 2012, US District Court judged the USS 'victims' favor, ordering Sudan to award them $ 315 million.

But then things got complicated. Sudan appealed the decision, saying its government was not properly notified of the lawsuit. And here's why: The USS Cole feels their federal lawsuit to Sudan's embassy in Washington, DC, and its foreign ministry in Khartoum, the country's capital. In effect, Sudan said the lawsuit was not valid because it was sent to the wrong address.

That led to a Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, where lawyers for both the American victims and the Sudanese government made their cases. Sudan, though, has found itself with a surprising ally in the lawsuit: the Trump administration.

And guess what? They could win.

The case is about where to send a lawsuit to a foreign country. Seriously.

The fuss over the address on the lawsuit's envelope with longstanding international law.

Two statutes are the most important here. First, there is a 1961 international convention known as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The United States of America and the United States of America and the US say it prohibits people from sending a country to embassy because it would threaten the mission's "inviolability."

In other words, a country's diplomats, embassies, and diplomatic residences are not subject to the laws of the foreign countries where they are stationed, but rather to the laws of their home countries.

The second – and one that is mainly in this Supreme Court case – is a US law, the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It must be made to notify a foreign government of a lawsuit, it must be "addressed and dispatched … to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned."

These laws, the US and Sudan argued in the Supreme Court, that Khartoum was improperly served with the lawsuit – and therefore, the justices should overturn the previous ruling in the victims' favor.

If you think Washington and Khartoum's case is silly, that's not entirely true, three lawyers at the US-based international law firm Steptoe & Johnson wrote in January.

"While the rules of service of a foreign currency may seem arcane and technical, they must be navigated carefully in any US lawsuit involving foreign governments, regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute," Michael Baratz, Steven Davidson, and Brian Egan wrote. "Otherwise, a plaintiff risks dismissal on procedural grounds that are avoidable."

The Sudanese Embassy and the White House did not respond to Vox's multiple requests for comment. The US Department of Justice said it had no comment.

Mark Wilson / Getty Images

Kannon Shanmugam, the victims' lawyer, who declined an interview for this article, told the nine justices. Overturning the previous win would require them to restart the process.

Khartoum, to argue for it, would have to go to Khartoum to deliver the lawsuit, and it was also reasonable to assume the case.

It's unclear which way the Supreme Court will rule based on yesterday's hearings. Right-leaning Chief Justice John Roberts and left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan seems to be permissible. Meanwhile, the newest justice – conservative Brett Kavanaugh – and liberal Justice Stephen Breyer both appeared to be in favor of Sudan's foreign ministry.

But the biggest question remains: What would the US side do with Sudan, a country that for years harbored Osama bin Laden and is on the State Department's state sponsors of terrorism list?

Why is the US is on Sudan's side

Assistant Solicitor General Erica Ross, the Justice Department's lawyer for the Supreme Court Hearing, made it clear why America is backing Sudan and not US victims of a heinous terrorist attack under the same circumstances that we ask abroad, "she told the justices.

In other words, the United States does not have the legality of the United States of America. That would almost certainly make it easier for people around the world to sue the US.

So the Trump administration is responsible for a repressive government in order to protect itself from future legal trouble. That's not a moral stance, but it is a very self-interested one. And the US has worried here.

For example, the US military is helping in the war in Yemen. The US also has sanctions on Iran Iranian citizens to get food, water, and medicine.

If Yemenis or Iranians wanted to sue the US government over these actions, it would be a full document to the appropriate people in the State Department that it would be to just drop it off at an American embassy in or near their countries.

It makes it cold, calculating sense for the US to Sudan with this lawuit. That, of course, does not make the victims and families of the USS Cole attack any less angry.

"Our own country, siding with the country that harbors terrorists," David Matthew Morales, who was injured on the ship, told reporters on Wednesday. "It was very hurtful." He carries a small piece of a loose blown metal from USS Cole with him wherever he goes.

Updated to include Justice Department's response that it had no comment after publication.