Opinion ID: 534554
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction under the foreign sovereign immunity act

Text: 27 The FSIA is the sole basis for obtaining [subject matter] jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts. Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 109 S.Ct. 683, 688 (1989). See H.R.Rep. No. 94-1487, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6604, 6610. 28 U.S.C. § 1604 (1982) generally provides that foreign states are immune from suit in the United States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607. Similarly, section 1330(a) confers original jurisdiction on district courts over any non-jury civil action against a foreign state ... for relief in personam with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity under sections 1605-1607.... 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) (1982). Consequently, this suit must fit within one of the exceptions to immunity listed in sections 1605-1607 or this court lacks jurisdiction and the ROC is immune from suit. Section 1605(a) provides that: 28 [a] foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case-- 29   (5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above [commercial activities], in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, ..., occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment.... 30 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5) (West Supp.1989) (emphasis added). This exception does not apply, however, to claims based upon the exercise of or failure to exercise a discretionary function. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5)(A) (West Supp.1989).
31 Liu's allegations were sufficient to bring this suit within the tortious activity exception of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(5). Liu sued for damages for the wrongful death of her husband which occurred within the United States. Section 1605(a)(5) removes immunity for torts committed either by a foreign state or its agents acting within the scope of their employment. Liu alleged both grounds: 1) that the ROC was involved in the conspiracy to kill Henry Liu; and 2) that Wong acted within the scope of his employment in ordering the assassination. 32 The district court eventually ruled that the act of state doctrine precluded inquiry into the alleged ROC involvement in the conspiracy and that Wong's act was not committed within the scope of his employment under California law. Consequently the court held that the ROC was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for Liu's damages. This determination constituted a decision that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because section 1605(a)(5) requires that acts of agents of a foreign state be within the scope of their employment. 33 The 'scope of employment' provision of the tortious activity exception [of the FSIA] essentially requires a finding that the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to the tortious acts of individuals. Joseph v. Office of Consulate General of Nigeria, 830 F.2d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 905, 108 S.Ct. 1077, 99 L.Ed.2d 236 (1988). In Joseph, we held that state law, not federal common law, governs whether an employee's action is within the scope of employment in determining the applicability of the FSIA. Id. See also Skeen v. Federative Republic of Brazil, 566 F.Supp. 1414, 1417 (D.D.C.1983) (citing First Nat'l City Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611, 622 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. 2591, 2598 n. 11, 77 L.Ed.2d 46 (1983)). 34 Whether the ROC is liable under respondeat superior is crucial not only to the issue of the court's jurisdiction, but also to the merits of the appeal from the denial of Liu's motion for partial summary judgment on the wrongful death claim. Section 1606 of the FSIA provides: 35 As to any claim for relief with respect to which a foreign state is not entitled to immunity under section 1605 or 1607 of this chapter, the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances; but a foreign state except for an agency or instrumentality thereof shall not be liable for punitive damages.... 36 28 U.S.C. § 1606 (1982). The FSIA does not create a federal rule of liability to be applied in an action involving a foreign state. 37 There are two choice of law questions that must be resolved prior to determining whether the ROC is liable under respondeat superior. First, we must decide the choice of law rule applicable to the respondeat superior issue determinative of jurisdiction under the FSIA. Second, assuming that we have jurisdiction under that Act, we must ascertain the law to be applied in determining whether the ROC is liable on the merits. 38 We have held that federal common law provides the choice of law rule applicable to deciding the merits of an action involving a foreign state. See Harris v. Polskie Linie Lotnicze, 820 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (9th Cir.1987). In Harris, the parents of a passenger killed in an airplane crash in Poland sued the Polish airline in federal court in California. The FSIA applied to the suit because the Polish airline was an instrumentality of the state of Poland. The plaintiffs argued that California's choice of law rules should determine the substantive law of damages because the parties sued in California. We rejected this argument and held that federal common law provided the appropriate choice of law rule in cases arising under the FSIA. Id. at 1003. We adopted the Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws (1969) approach, which creates a presumption that the law of the place where the injury occurred applies unless another state has a more significant relationship to the [tort] and to the parties. Id. at 1003-04; see also Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Law § 175 (1969). Consequently, we held that the substantive law of Poland applied because the accident occurred in Poland and Poland's relationship to this action is at least as significant as California's. Harris, 820 F.2d at 1004. 39 In Joseph, a landlord sued in California district court for damages to a house, located in California, that was rented to a Nigerian consular officer. On interlocutory appeal, Nigeria claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction under the FSIA. We held that California's law of respondeat superior, not federal common law, applied to determine whether the tortious acts of Nigeria's employees were within the scope of employment for purposes of the tortious activity exception in the FSIA. Joseph, 830 F.2d at 1025. Understandably, in Joseph we never discussed which choice of law rule we applied because California was the place of the forum, the place of injury, and the place where the tortious act or omission occurred. 40 Our decision in Joseph can be reconciled with Harris, because Joseph did not explicitly reject federal common law's applicability in determining the appropriate choice of law rule for cases arising under the FSIA. Consequently, we apply the federal choice of law rule to determine the applicable law of respondeat superior on the merits. If a different choice of law rule applied to determine the applicable respondeat superior law for jurisdictional purposes under the FSIA, it would be cumbersome, present grave practical difficulties, and could result in different substantive laws being applied in the same suit. We do not believe that Congress intended different choice of law rules to apply. We therefore hold that the federal choice of law rule controls the applicable law of respondeat superior both for jurisdiction under the FSIA and on the merits. 41 California is the place where the injury occurred, and under the federal choice of law rule, its law will apply to the merits of the action unless the ROC has a more significant relationship to the tort and the parties. Although the ROC has some connection with the tort and the parties, we cannot say that it has the more significant relationship. California and the ROC have offsetting interests in the parties to this suit: Henry Liu was domiciled in California when he was killed, and the ROC and other ROC nationals are parties to the suit. California, however, has a significant interest in ensuring that its residents are compensated for torts committed against them, and in discouraging the commission of such torts within its borders. We conclude that California's relationship to the tort is at least as significant as the ROC's. See Harris, 820 F.2d at 1004. Consequently, based on the federal choice of law rule, California's law of respondeat superior will determine whether Wong's act was within the scope of his employment for purposes of jurisdiction under the FSIA and on the merits.
42 An employer is vicariously liable for the torts of employees committed within the scope of their employment. See, e.g., Alma W. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 123 Cal.App.3d 133, 138-39, 176 Cal.Rptr. 287, 289 (1981).  'This includes willful and malicious torts as well as negligence.'  John R. v. Oakland Unified School Dist., 48 Cal.3d 438, 447, 769 P.2d 948, 953, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766, 771 (1989) (quoting Martinez v. Hagopian, 182 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1227, 227 Cal.Rptr. 763, 766 (1986)). 43 California follows the enterprise theory of liability: 44 California has adopted the rationale that the employer's liability should extend beyond his actual or possible control over the employees to include risks inherent in or created by the enterprise because he, rather than the innocent injured party, is best able to spread the risks through prices, rates or liability insurance. 45 Rodgers v. Kemper Constr. Co., 50 Cal.App.3d 608, 618, 124 Cal.Rptr. 143, 148 (1975); see also Carr v. Wm. C. Crowell Co., 28 Cal.2d 652, 656, 171 P.2d 5, 7 (1946); Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, 41 Cal.3d 962, 969, 719 P.2d 676, 678, 227 Cal.Rptr. 106, 109 (1986) (employer liable for employee's negligence even when employee violated express company rule). A country such as the ROC cannot spread risks like a private business by means of the prices it charges for a product. But by means of the public fisc, it similarly can spread risks which would otherwise fall on the individual harmed by the tortious conduct of the country's employees. See generally John R., 48 Cal.3d at 450-51, 769 P.2d at 955, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 773. 46 California has established a two-prong test to determine whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment. Generally, an employer will be liable for an employee's wrongful act if 1) the act was required or incident to the employee's duties or 2) the act was reasonably foreseeable to the employer. See Alma W., 123 Cal.App.3d at 139, 176 Cal.Rptr. at 289; see also Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 967-68, 719 P.2d at 678-79, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 108-09. In this case, we find that Liu has established facts sufficient to meet the first prong of the test and therefore do not address the issue of foreseeability. Although the issue of scope of employment is ordinarily a question of fact, the issue becomes a question of law when the facts are undisputed and no conflicting inferences are possible. Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 968, 719 P.2d at 679, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 109. 47 In assessing whether an employee's wrongful act was required by or incidental to his duties, the law defines occupational duties broadly. Alma W., 123 Cal.App.3d at 139, 176 Cal.Rptr. at 289. If an employee[, however,] substantially deviates from his duties for personal purposes, the employer is not vicariously liable for the employee's actions. Id.; see also Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956, 960, 471 P.2d 988, 990, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188, 190 (1970); Carr, 28 Cal.2d at 656, 171 P.2d at 8; Golden West Broadcasters, Inc. v. Superior Court, 114 Cal.App.3d 947, 957, 171 Cal.Rptr. 95, 100 (1981). 48 The ROC contends that it is not liable for Wong's action because the ROC courts expressly found that Wong was motivated by a personal grudge to kill Henry Liu. The district court stated that: 49 The [ROC] courts found that Wong believed Liu was damaging the ROC by both words and deeds. The courts also found that Wong knew Liu was not satisfied with his performance as the Director of the DIB, that Liu had some materials that were not advantageous to him, and that Liu was going to initiate some action that would be detrimental to him. 50 The ROC contends that the courts actually found that Wong used this ostensible nationalism story only to persuade Chen Chi-li to murder Henry Liu, but did not actually believe this himself. The ROC courts, however, never stated that the nationalism story was merely a guise to lure Chen Chi-li into murdering Henry Liu. We agree with the district court's interpretation of these findings. Henry Liu was an historian and journalist who had criticized ROC leaders in the past. It is logical to assume that the action Henry Liu was going to take against Wong was another article criticizing another ROC leader, in this case Wong. Wong's response might be considered motivated by a personal grudge under the internal law of the ROC; however, under California law it is sufficiently job related to impose vicarious liability on the ROC. See Carr, 28 Cal.2d at 656-57, 171 P.2d at 8. 51 In Carr, the California Supreme Court held that an employer was liable for its employee's act of throwing a hammer at the plaintiff, a subcontractor's employee, after the plaintiff had criticized the other's work. The supreme court stated: 52 Not only did the altercation leading to the injury arise solely over the performance of Enloe's duties, but his entire association with plaintiff arose out of his employment on the building under construction. He had never seen plaintiff before the day preceding the accident, and had never conversed with him before the dispute over the plate. He testified in addition ... that he had no personal grudge against [the plaintiff]. 53 Id. at 657, 171 P.2d at 8; see also Martinez v. Hagopian, 182 Cal.App.3d 1223, 1230, 227 Cal.Rptr. 763, 767 (1986) (the employer was not vicariously liable because [t]his assault arose out of an argument between the visitors and the workers concerning one worker's treatment of a visitor's wife. The dispute had no connection with any aspect of harvesting grapes.). 54 In this case, the dispute between Liu and Wong arose out of Liu's dissatisfaction with Wong's performance as Director of the DIB. There is no evidence of any personal altercation unrelated to Wong's official duties. We see no principled distinction between this case, where Wong acted in part to prevent Liu's criticism of his performance as Director of the DIB, and the employee in Carr who intentionally threw a hammer after another person criticized his work. 55 Even if we assume, despite the absence of evidence, that Wong acted partly out of a personal grudge not engendered by his employment as a high official in the ROC government, California courts have made clear that a mixed motive is sufficient to impose vicarious liability on the employer. See John R., 48 Cal.3d at 447, 769 P.2d at 953, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 771 ( 'where the employee is combining his own business with that of his employer, or attending to both at substantially the same time, no nice inquiry will be made as to which business he was actually engaged in at the time of injury, unless it clearly appears that neither directly nor indirectly could he have been serving his employer.'  (quoting Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n, 28 Cal.2d 756, 758-59, 172 P.2d 1, 3 (1946)); see also Alma W., 123 Cal.App.3d at 140, 176 Cal.Rptr. at 290 (Though there may be those cases where personal motivations so mingle with the employee's pursuit of occupational duties that it is arguable whether the employee's action is incidental to his duties, this is not such a case.). 56 The ROC courts' findings indicate that Wong acted in part to benefit the ROC. The courts stated that Wong believed that Henry Liu was damaging the ROC by his criticism of its government. Wong apparently believed that it would benefit the ROC to silence a known critic. We realize that the ROC incurred no benefit but rather suffered substantial detriment and embarrassment from Wong's act. Nevertheless, if Wong's complicity in the assassination had not been revealed, the ROC would have benefited from the silencing of a critic. If actual benefit, from the standpoint of hindsight, were required respondeat superior would practically be eliminated because damages usually offset any benefit. 57 California no longer requires that an act benefit the employer before vicarious liability will attach. See Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 969, 719 P.2d at 679, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 109-10. It does not follow, however, that benefit to the employer must be eliminated as a relevant factor determining whether conduct falls within the 'scope of employment.'  Childers v. Shasta Livestock Auction Yard, Inc., 190 Cal.App.3d 792, 805, 235 Cal.Rptr. 641, 647 (1987) (actual benefit is still a relevant factor in determining whether an employee's act is within the scope of employment). Similarly, the employee's intent should also be a relevant factor in determining whether conduct is within the scope of employment. See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 at 504 (1958) (listing as one factor whether [conduct] is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master); accord United States v. Beusch, 596 F.2d 871, 877 (9th Cir.1979) (The acts of an agent may be imputed to the principal, but only if it is the agent's purpose to benefit the principal, thus bringing his acts within the scope of his employment. (citations omitted)). We believe that California courts would recognize that the intent of the employee is a relevant factor in determining whether an employee's act was wholly personal or sufficiently connected with the employment to justify shifting the risk of loss to the enterprise. The employee's intent is especially relevant when the act is an intentional tort which, if discovered, will rarely actually benefit the employer. See Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 969, 719 P.2d at 679, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 109-10. 58 Another factor present in this case is that Wong used the ROC facilities entrusted to him to help Chen Chi-li and Shuai prepare for the assassination. Wong sent both men to the DIB training school for four days, and provided them with a dossier on Liu prepared by the DIB. As the ROC correctly states, the mere use of facilities entrusted to the employee is insufficient to impose liability on the employer. See Alma W., 123 Cal.App.3d at 140, 176 Cal.Rptr. at 290 (Where an employee pursues his own ends, the use of property or facilities entrusted to him ... is an inadequate basis for imputing liability to the employer (emphasis added)). Although Wong's use of facilities alone would be insufficient to impute liability to the ROC, this factor combined with Wong's use of his authority to accomplish a task, partly for the benefit of his employer, is sufficient to impose vicarious liability on the ROC. 59 In White v. County of Orange, 166 Cal.App.3d 566, 212 Cal.Rptr. 493 (1985), the court held that a municipality could be held vicariously liable for a deputy sheriff's misuse of his authority. A policeman stopped a woman, and without explanation, placed her in his patrol car and drove to an isolated area. The deputy repeatedly threatened to rape and murder her. Several hours later, he returned the woman to her car after she promised to go on a date with him. The court stated that: 60 A police officer is entrusted with a great deal of authority. This authority distinguishes the situation here from the facts of Alma W. Unlike a school custodian, the police officer carries the authority of the law with him into the community.... The officer's method of dealing with this authority is certainly incidental to his duties; indeed, it is an integral part of them. 61 White, 166 Cal.App.3d at 571, 212 Cal.Rptr. at 496. 62 The district court refused to follow White because it is poorly reasoned and lacks any meaningful analysis. The district court also stated that White had not been followed by any other cases. The district court was also concerned that White would, in effect, make a government liable whenever employees misused their office to commit torts. The ROC cites numerous cases for the proposition that White is not good law in California. We find those cases distinguishable on the facts. 63 All of the cases cited by the ROC involved sexual assaults committed by employees. See John R., 48 Cal.3d 438, 769 P.2d 948, 256 Cal.Rptr. 766 (school district not vicariously liable for a school teacher's alleged molestation of a student); see also Jeffrey E. v. Central Baptist Church, 197 Cal.App.3d 718, 243 Cal.Rptr. 128 (1988) (Baptist Church not liable for a Sunday School teacher's repeated molestation of a child); Rita M. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, 187 Cal.App.3d 1453, 232 Cal.Rptr. 685 (1986) (Roman Catholic Church not vicariously liable for priests' alleged sexual contact with a minor parishioner); Alma W., 123 Cal.App.3d 133, 176 Cal.Rptr. 287 (school district not liable for the sexual assault on a student by a school custodian on school property). 64 In all those cases, the courts were concerned with purely personal acts by an employee. In John R., the supreme court stated that [a] more personal escapade less related to an employer's interests is difficult to imagine. John R., 48 Cal.3d at 447, 769 P.2d at 953, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 771. Likewise the court in Alma W. stated that the employee's action was prompted by wholly personal motivations, [and] was clearly not required or incidental to his duties as a school custodian. Alma W., 123 Cal.App.3d at 140, 176 Cal.Rptr. at 290. As discussed earlier, Wong's act of ordering the assassination of Henry Liu was not wholly personal but arose from his employment as Director of the DIB. See Carr, 28 Cal.2d at 654, 171 P.2d at 7 (It is sufficient, however, if the injury resulted from a dispute arising out of the employment). 65 In John R., the California Supreme Court specifically declined to decide whether White was properly decided or whether the job-created authority theory has any validity in evaluating vicarious liability for the torts of police officers. John R., 48 Cal.3d at 452, 769 P.2d at 956, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 774. Instead, the supreme court found that imposing vicarious liability in the case before it would not advance any of the goals ordinarily served by respondeat superior. Id. at 451-52, 769 P.2d at 955-56, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 773-74. The California Supreme Court has recognized three reasons for imposing liability on an enterprise:  '(1) [I]t tends to provide a spur toward accident prevention; (2) it tends to provide greater assurance of compensation for accident victims, and (3) at the same time it tends to provide reasonable assurance that, like other costs, accident losses will be broadly and equitably distributed among the beneficiaries of the enterprises that entail them.'  Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 967, 719 P.2d at 678, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 108. (quoting 5 F. Harper, F. James & O. Gray, The Law of Torts, § 26.5, at 21 (2d ed. 1986)). 66 The supreme court was concerned that imposition of vicarious liability for a teacher's sexual misconduct with a student would harm the educational enterprise by deterring school districts from encouraging or authorizing teacher-student contacts, and by making insurance harder to obtain and thereby diverting needed funds from the classroom. John R., 48 Cal.3d at 451, 769 P.2d at 956, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 774. Last, the supreme court refused to spread the loss because the connection between the authority conferred on teachers to carry out their instructional duties and the abuse of that authority to indulge in personal, sexual misconduct is simply too attenuated to deem a sexual assault as falling within the range of risks allocable to a teacher's employer. Id. at 452, 769 P.2d at 956, 256 Cal.Rptr. at 774 (emphasis added). 67 In this case, we do not find that the consequences of imposing liability are unacceptable. See id. Imposition of vicarious liability would not undermine the overall effectiveness of a foreign government or its intelligence apparatus. Although a sexual assault by a teacher may be too attenuated to justify spreading the risk of loss to the beneficiaries of the enterprise, an employee's misuse of authority, done in part with the intent to benefit the employer, is within the risks broadly allocable to the enterprise. When an employee, such as Wong, uses governmental authority in a mistaken attempt to benefit his employer by silencing an outspoken critic of the government, there is nothing inequitable about spreading the loss among all the beneficiaries of the government. 68 Last, the ROC contends that it should not be liable for Wong's act because Wong violated ROC internal law prohibiting murder, and none of its other officials knew of or sanctioned his act. First, the mere fact that an employee violated an employer's express rules is not dispositive. See Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 970, 719 P.2d at 679, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 109. If this were a complete defense, then  'few employers would ever be held liable.'  Id., 719 P.2d at 680, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 110 (quoting W. Prosser & W. Keeton, The Law of Torts 502 (5th ed. 1984)). Likewise, the fact that the ROC officials did not sanction Wong's act or were unaware of it is irrelevant because under respondeat superior an employer is held vicariously liable for the risks inherent in his enterprise irrespective of his own personal fault. Perez, 41 Cal.3d at 967-68, 719 P.2d at 678, 227 Cal.Rptr. at 108. 69 We can accept the ROC courts' findings that no other official was aware of or sanctioned Wong's wrongful act and still find that Liu has established as a matter of law that Wong's act was committed within the scope of his employment as Director of the DIB. Consequently, we reverse the district court's denial of Liu's motion for partial summary judgment and its decision that the ROC could not be vicariously liable for Henry Liu's death. 70 Because we conclude that the ROC is liable under respondeat superior, we also hold that there is subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA, unless Wong's conduct falls within the discretionary function exception to that act. 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a).
71 The existence of a discretionary function under the FSIA is analyzed under the general principles established under the same exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a) (1982). See Joseph, 830 F.2d at 1026; see also Letelier v. Republic of Chile, 488 F.Supp. 665, 673 (D.D.C.1980). 72 In Berkovitz v. United States, 486 U.S. 531, 108 S.Ct. 1954, 100 L.Ed.2d 531 (1988), the Supreme Court established a two-part inquiry for determining whether a government employee's act falls within this exception. First, the courts must determine whether the government employee had any discretion to act or if there was an element of choice as to appropriate conduct. See id., 108 S.Ct. at 1958; see also Arizona Maintenance Co. v. United States, 864 F.2d 1497, 1502 (9th Cir.1989). [I]f the employee's conduct cannot appropriately be the product of judgment or choice, then there is no discretion in the conduct for the discretionary function exception to protect. Berkovitz, 108 S.Ct. at 1959. Second, if the action involves some discretion, then courts must determine whether the exercise of that discretion is  'grounded in social, economic, and political policy....'  Id. (quoting United States v. S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense (Varig Airlines), 467 U.S. 797, 814, 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2765, 81 L.Ed.2d 660 (1984)). 73 This exception is inapplicable in this case because Wong had no discretion, according to the ROC courts, to violate the ROC law that prohibits murder. Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Taiwan provides that: [a]n act performed by a public official in the course of carrying out his duties and pursuant to the order of his superior is not punishable unless such public official knew that such order was contrary to the law  (emphasis added). In Berkovitz, the Supreme Court stated that the discretionary function exception will not apply when a federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow. In this event, the employee has no rightful option but to adhere to the directive. Id., 108 S.Ct. at 1958-59 (emphasis added). Consequently, we hold that the discretionary function exception is inapplicable when an employee of a foreign government violates its own internal law. See Letelier, 488 F.Supp. at 673 (Whatever policy options may exist for a foreign country, it has no 'discretion' to perpetrate conduct designed to result in the assassination of an individual or individuals, action that is clearly contrary to the precepts of humanity as recognized in both national and international law.).