proceedings going on and the colombian court and finally as if i have time i'd like to say something about the foreign affairs the action which is political question of foreign affairs starting with the two grounds on which the plaintiffs complained were tinto case and in this case the state department submitted statements of interest that said that there would be adverse effects or could be adverse effects to us foreign policy because of the existence of the litigation and neither statement of interest that the state department said that there was a specific conflict in a way or that the case had to be dismissed they expressed the foreign policy concerns of the united states government in the rio tinto case the specific conflict there was a statement by the state department that the existence and further proceedings in that lawsuit would interfere with an ongoing peace process that was going on within papua new guinea that the united states had an important interest in this case the concerns i would submit are much more generalized policy concerns that really don't have very much to do with anything that's in our i would statement which basically says that the ministry of foreign affairs wishes to add that the government of colombia is of the opinion that any decision in this case may affect the relations between colombia and the united states that's  knowing nothing about why it might affect the relations between the united states and colombia no elaboration whatsoever unlike the very detailed statement that the government of papa new guinea gave and which the united states government been any cases that have been dismissed on that ground for more than twenty years of litigation the reason why some cases have been this recent most only on that ground is that there are a number of cases arising out of the end of world war circus opinion is you case regarding during and comfort women where the state department provided an extensive statement of interest outlining sixty years worth of executive action in the form of treaties executive agreements and other formal a five billion dollars settlement against german companies and the german government and as part of that settlement had agreed to come before us courts if anyone challenge that settlement and that's what happened someone challenged someone didn't that the planets may have and as we've said in our producer i think that this is this is there an extension of the foreign affairs doctrine that really has absolutely no support in law that there are three different parts of federal law and that's clear and garamendi and garamendi there was an executive agreement i mean in that case there's a question about is an executive agreement enforceable in that matter under the supremacy clause and clearly the supreme court thinks that a n executive greenman is particularly when it's associated with the resolution of claims after a war which is where which this horrid plan than the deutsch case which is the zenith of presidential power and there's a actually finding the predicate acts that would allow him to to enforce this under the foreign affairs stack and so he was wrong on both of those grounds i think both and i think we all tend to go all the real tender doesn't deal with the foreign affairs have waived this argument by not raising in their answering brief that's something the court will have to figure out in terms of whether this is actually before you or not but what the united states government says is there's a proceeding in colombia and that proceeding ends and there's a final judgment and there colombian law there's a double prohibition against double recovery and therefore the plan of small be able to get any recovery in this case now in the district court that issue came up in the context of the court's form nine convenience analysis not in the context of international comedy and what i would say argued to the court with respect to international comedy is proceeding that's that's going on there this district court found that there was no true time flick and that ends the matter from the standpoint of of of the international comedy decision and i think with the district court  indicated that after the statement of interest had been submitted there there were some further developments outside of the litigation that may or may not have some bearing on the litigation the court was basing it relevance that is legally and that's a legal decision we understand we have to face that we understand it's got a good breeze but it's not a granted this vote is the case at the beginning of the line because they've done it in a second yeah on line is that the court the court should reverse the district court on the political question and foreign relations granted we also have an issue with respect to the t v applying to corporations that's been briefed that doesn't dispose of everything but that's a separate issue so we think the case should be reversed we think that the district court remain and should consider the issues in their current posture since we haven't actually been before the strict court for three years and the court should decide many cases alleging human rights abuses in foreign countries by foreign governments and were corporate u s corporations in this case alone the plaintiffs here have brought successfully a civil action to recover us and have reportedly substantial monetary judgment against the colombian military for all of their injuries from this alleged and that repulse me gives rise to the ability of this court to rely on specific foreign policy reasons seeking dismissal in syria this is entirely different the united states state department here has said and the district court found we have a preference for handling the standard domingo alleged bombing incident if it's in the wall whole scheme of our foreign policy interests in colombia which are very important and complex we're spending billions of dollars fighting in a counterinsurgency there at the same time we're trying to promote and encourage in the state department's words in the statement of interest we're trying to encourage legal ramp responsible legal message mechanisms responsible legal mechanisms to address human rights issues and that's what's happened in this case through the village and efforts of the state department as it is laid out in a very specific stansell record here of the state department activity very much on like the rio tinto case where the record we are doing this we are addressing that was attached to the state department's statement of interest submitted to the district court r g disfiguring is addressing this is investigating this that's in february of zero four a couple of months later you have a department's diplomatic efforts they're trying to do two things fight the insurgency which is after all colombia is the third largest recipient is a record shows year of u s military aid after israel in egypt so there's a big effort to fight the insurgency with u s purchased helicopters and training and all of that at the same time help the colombian judicial institutions to address human rights abuses and that's why that's why the that is not present there that talking about what usually when you talk about disrespect you're talking about a record that is not present here well i think the record here is very similar to the record in quotes that statement from the state department saying adjudication will have an adverse effect on our foreign policy interests that's exactly what they're seeking out there suggesting that the court need not reach the constitutional issue a political question we think that's perfectly appropriate we didn't raise international comedy in the district court we did raised it in our grief it's been fully briefed so we support that ground but whether you go to political question or whether you or whether you you use the international comedy rationale at the heart of this is our foreign policy as expressed by the state department with a full record of efforts to promote the colombian judiciaries efforts to look at the human rights government and its party in the us district court that circumstance does not affect the viability of those two doctrines at all judge school for this reason the action brought in columbia was brought for its full due to fully compensate the plaintiffs for their injuries now they could have sued accidental as well but they don't have to just like in a plane crash you can just sue the airline collect all your  military only they recovered their full damages not just a little piece of it under columbia law and therefore they they can't get more damages under the single recovery rule from occidental that's a neutral legal principle that applie across the author of many jurisdictions the clumpiness once you've brought this lawsuit to collect for your injuries from the government you can sue somebody else and get a duplicative recovery that's the law in california as well so the fact let me addressed counsel's argument that somehow international comedy could be respected here if you just went back to the district court and litigated this case that appeared to be consuls counsel suggest substantial remedy for plaintiffs we're going to let them we're going to defer to them and and the rule of the colombian legal system we're not going to go back and litigate this case while we  efforts by the state department which have been ongoing beginning back in january of two thousand and three and even before then the state department briefing which is part of the record says the secretary of state was down meeting with the minister of defense in the  we want you to address this through your own institutions that has continued that has produced a substantial recovery for work for plaintiffs and that is the heart international comedy doctrine can apply because there's no conflict here that that that's simply not the case there is a fundamental conflict between the notion of the  it's one of the holocaust survivor cases that's that's a compelling precedent for what's going on here deferring to the alternative remedy in colombia let me just address briefly before i see the remainder of my time to the foreign affairs doctrine which which counsel addressed that the district court properly concluded that the state court claims your were constitutional preemption of the state will claim that's the same analysis that applies to international comedy applies under the and applies under the political question doctrine and the district court found that those were compelling interest as  your honor isn't it please the court chair and swinging from the department of justice for the united states going to begin by thanking the court for allowing me to participate this morning i welcome the opportunity to present the foreign policy interests of the united states that are implicated by this litigation and as we've set out in our brief although the district court weighed and considered those foreign policy interests under the political question doctrine we think it is appropriate for this court first to consider before addressing the constitutional question of just issue delivery whether those same interests would alternately support dismissal as a matter of international comedy i think the international committee doctrine is particularly appropriate here because many of the nature of the interest identified by the united states and the district court relates specifically to the existing and ongoing legal proceedings in colombian courts relating to the very same underlying dispute which is the basis for the plaintiff's claims the plaintiffs here have chosen to bring suit for those harms in colombian courts they did so long before they ever instituted the case here they have won a substantial monetary judgment based on the colombian court's findings that the bombing was carried out by colombian air force officers acting in violation of international law and that the colombian government is responsible for the full amount of the harm incurred now that decision is on appeal it is pending and it is entirely appropriate for th court to dismiss the claims awaiting the outcome of that proceeding i would note also that there are ongoing criminal prosecutions of two of the three air force officers involved in the bombing and again the manifest possibility for tension conflict or second guessing by the district court of those colombian proceedings implicates significant foreign policy interests on the part of our government i think this case is a particularly appropriate one as well for application of comedy because of the nature of the other issues that the plaintiffs have asked this court to resolve ranging from the political question doctrine to foreign affairs preemption to the scope and breadth of the alien tort statute there could not be a more difficult set of issues i think to bring before this court and yet the consideration of them is completely unnecessary as a straightforward matter of a neutral principle of comedy had the plaintiffs sought to bring these very claims now in the colombian court system we have evidence in the record from the defendants expert that the claims would be suspended pending the outcome of the existing appeal and then resolved in accordance with that appeal and i think the same approach is appropriate here to discourage the kind of international forum shopping that we get when we do not give force and effect to the decisions of foreign court noted we don't think it's necessary for the court to consider either the alien tort statute question on which we briefed or the question of the foreign affairs doctrine or what we view as a sort of lesser included version of that argument clear that the court has not yet addressed the question whether the elian twit statute would permit the recognition of a cause of action for aiding and abetting a violation of international law i think under the standards set out by the supreme court and so plaintiffs have identified they are almost exclusively in the context of criminal violations or in the context of a straightforward substantive long norm and as a matter of federal law the supreme court's holding  is not enough to imply a private right of action for civil aiding and abetting liability and the implication that would be particularly anomalous in the context of the alien tort statute where in  a more compelling set of circumstances in which that would be the case not only because of the aiding and abetting nature of the claim but also because it seeks to challenge ultimately the lawfulness of the conduct of a foreign government military actions against its own citizens within its own borders and in that context i think there should be a particularly high hurdle before the court which would recognize a common law claim finally the common choice of law interest in coming to the united states or canada they were driven out by the government and by paramilitaries and the record is replete with the specific death threats that cause these plaintiffs now to be in asylum in canada and in the united states they can't go back without being killed and the district judge knows that and knew it and that's why the district judge said that that occidental could be sued in its home city rather than forcing the plaintiffs to go down to colombia and kill get killed and so there's a reason there's not forum shopping this is the only game in town for them to get relief with respect international comedy they have yet to cite a case that applies international comedy and anything even remotely close to the appropriate for him and that he would not defer either plan to national calamity or international expansion reasons and the record is absolutely clear that there was an ample basis for the exercise of that discretion based on all the factors in  torture victim protection act they disagree with that and their arguments were rejected and so some down the line including this argument that you can't look into the way foreign governments treat their own citizens which is at the heart of the entire mind tort statute cases that started in one thousand nine hundred with the florida decision and because my time is about six minutes six seconds i would say that the the arguments that the government has made about central bank and all the other things are laid out