vessel on the high seas in two thousand and ten because that event the court concluded did not take place in the united states and second she imposed the requirement not part of the st includes it means not to limit the definition to the listed items but rather to suggest that others might be included that share essential characteristics with those listed items and our that the modifying phrase is rather clearly intended to restrict the definition of the united states restrict the definition united states to the united states in such islands or is part of it and then it goes on to say you know that if it was it was state and in fact the vienna convention of diplomatic relations provides for that but that case of course those cases did not address the situation before your honor's it did not address the question of vessels american flag on the high sea the holding of that case was that embassy are not within the united states for purposes of section six you know five a five and we take no session was it a good thing in persons or that indicated that it had turned on the fact that was in iraq it was not in the united states and our submission is again that that is all that the court held in person or and in the ninth circuit decision the courts in those cases did not what they mean and others defined by what they include had congress intended to limit the definition of the united states to the territory continental when it's a war and territorial borders if you have to say that but he didn't say that it said instead that the definition includes those areas and suggests that the common thread connecting those areas and connecting us flagged ships is that over those places american jurisdiction is exclusive and cleaner that is true of ships sailing on the high seas and indeed the supreme court has said that on any number of occasions but you would agree that if we don't accept you are reading means and point again that very case to the fact that the speculate before the court included both kinds of definitions and that is what we have here so what do you do with the distinction between  the jurisdiction of the united states to prescribe reaches us player chips wherever whenever they are on the high seas that i understand but even the supreme court seem to recognize at the sailor on the ship might not have all that rights so that distinction it seems to me you know addresses are places in context which whether a baby born on an american ship is a natural born citizen of the united states those cases determine that for some purposes it would simply make no sense for the term the united states to be understood otherwise then geographically but in those statutes congress did not provide the definition the operative definition that courts were meant to interpret in applying the structure to facts before them here congress did do that and again stated the definition in terms of what german big problems with your interpretation if you're right what this statute now means is that when congress rewrote it eliminated two major provisions of  the foreign sovereign immunity had to use to be there in other words under the previous act it had to be a states a listed state sponsor of terror right yes court and the plaintiff had to be it's a national united states indicated that what it was attempting to do in the two thousand to eight amendments to the farms over here to that was to make it more make courts more available to victims of acts of terrorism wherever they occur around the globe and he indicated that in country in ways other than or in addition to the removal the repeal of the provision that required that states be on the streets bumping it did it for example by changing the caption of the sec interpretation it used to say jurisdiction or lawsuits against terrorist states against states doesn't say that anymore now it says terrorism exception to immunity shifting unity and the suspected sin is specifically that states are not our number do not deserve to not get do not warrant immunity in situations in which they are involved in ac defined by us law as terrorism before two thousand and eight there is no question but that we would not be so i would not be spending at this letter but since two thousand and eight when the law changed and congress repealed goodwater is there anything in the legislative history i mean i know we have to be careful about what to say here but is there anything which says you know we really want to all women a disregard for say having to be on the list of state sponsors of terrorism and we also don't want to restrict started out by telling you i thought it's very creator let me ask you my other question so your theory is then that under under the first clause in no immunity clause which is where you say your case comes right s national the defense is in either case will be beyond that will be the same the that the country could offer so what what how does a district judge decide whether it's going to allow a case to go forward arguments are not they have been considered and rejected by the supreme court this circuit and by all other courts that have considered them as the opponents concede israel is ministries have immunity under the foreign sovereign immunit sacked but they argue that two exceptions apply noncommercial toward exception in the terrorism exception judge jackson rejected both arguments as did the u s government in a statement of interest that it filed in the district or judge jackson was correct as was the u s government that this suit must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction let me address each of these exceptions the noncommercial toward exception says that a foreign government does not have immunity for tortious acts in have guidance both from the supreme court and this court in the person or case and i want to read the relevant language from the amerada hess case where the supreme court construe this particular language the supreme court quote we construe the modifying phrase continental and insular to restrict the definition of united states to the continental united states and those islands that are part of the united states that was not limited to the facts of the case that was a conclusion of law and judge table as you correctly pointed out this circuit reached the same decision in person also the appellant so argued that in trying to determine what includes means while it can be a term of enlargement that asked to be known by the company it keeps them certainly a ship bears nothing in common with territory and water so in this case both the amerada hess case and this court's decision in p clearly limit of the words territory and waters to the geographic united states and to rule for the appellants this court would have to conclude that both the supreme court namrata house and the circuit and point about confusing prescriptive jurisdiction with adjudicated jurisdiction of course congress does have broad power but the question is did they try in this case to remove the immunity your foreign governments and there's nothing that indicates that they did so in person or this case said that the issue was not the raul power of congress to exercise jurisdiction but a question of intent and the foreign sovereign immunity sacked and there's nothing that indicates that the  case if you were to accept the power lines arguments the need of their jurisdiction over foreign governments would be removed not only over forty thousand u s flagged vessels around the world but up to fifteen million pleasure craft registered in the different states as it appears that the best will in this case was that would be and enormous expansion of your u s jurisdiction and we would not be simply removing the jurisdiction over  removing the immunity of israel but of every country in the world of with respect to those forty thousand to fifty million pleasure craft so the immunity of close other close allies like the united kingdom or australia would be if the british navy attempted to rescue some u s nationals or british nationals on a ship off of somalia and something went wrong the the immunity of the british navy would be renew room again in person or i thought you said it  well that the possibilities are almost endless tort actions against foreign governments for acts and emissions we also have to think about reciprocity if this court were to decide to remove the immunity foreign governments it would be very difficult for the executive mansion to complain if other countries removed the immunity of the us government in the navy and the coast guard off of our vessels and then finally there's really nothing in the legislative history apply then it's it's not simply that you don't have to be a state sponsor of terrorism but that you don't even have to be an american or a member of the armed services you know the implication of this and you were heading there i think judge stated was that ever in the works in the united states would have jurisdiction to hear any claim by any foreign national against any foreign government in the world or any extra judicial nominee so for example if a foreign national is concerned that abandoning the double negative solve that problem or i mean i was asking about that in particular why did they what led congress to make a lot of change that created this your honor my guess is that this was simply a matter your point your bottom line and i take it is that yes you know this statutory language could be read if you just looked at that it could be read the way the point is what but that that would that would  as the supreme court has said in other courts have said we don't interpret simply provisions we have to interpret the entire statutory framework well put their point in this is that the two provisions here you interpret them both district of new york's decision in the carpenter case which did quite specifically address this argument and said that the that was a case against chile and which the plaintiffs tried to argue that chile put them be sued under the know five day under this theory and the eastern district of new york said while theoretically possible it would produce utterly absurd results and then went on to discuss the policy whence consequences that  afghan's that the u k and australia could be sued in afghanistan and iraq the second circuit then affirmed on that ground that every country in the world not just israel but every other country could be sued in federal court were not only alleged acts of terrorism but for extra judicial killings and then we have to also consider the reciprocal concerns if this court were to lift the read the terrorism exception to apply to all governments then it would be difficult for the executive branch complain if other governments were to remove the unity of the united states for acts of terrorism or alleged actually judicial killings so the policy consequences would be very broad and then once again on the legislative history while there's not much there it is hard to imagine that congress would have made this dramatic change without any suggestion in the record as judge bilious said justice scalia said congress does not hide elephants and mouse holes and then finally i think it's also worth looking at the justice you've got sponsors of terrorism act which congress passed last year over great controversy to remove the immunity of saudi arabia and other countries for acts of terrorism if saudi arabia ha been not immune previously under the terrorism exception it's hard to see why congress would have gone to all the trouble of passing jasta and the president having vetoed it so again i think it's the terrorism exception and i think it's hard to see that congress it is intended to apply to anything other than state sponsors although judge jackson did not address the issues we think this case would also be barred by the political question an of calling from can be resolved by the fact that he said territory and ships have nothing in common we submit that they have something very critical in common they have in common the critical