The revolutionary founding fathers of American democracy declared that they wanted “a government of laws and not of men.” But in a twist on that noble intention, the United States is fast becoming a government of neither men nor laws, but of lawyers.

The difference is important, especially in light of the recent spate of criticism in the US press about the Saudi royal family. Only weeks ago, one of the wealthiest and most influential lawyers in the United States took aim at Princess Haifa, wife of Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, claiming that she had financed Osama Bin Laden’s terrorists and aided their murderous Sept. 11 attacks.

Amazingly, no fewer than four US senators echoed these serious charges on international news shows saying these charges were credible.

Americans everywhere began calling for an end to US-Saudi relations and drastic punishment for the “terrorist” princess and her royal relatives. The lawyer behind this frenzy, Ronald L. Motley, represents those injured and killed in the Sept. 11 tragedy and their relatives. “These are not the ravings of a redneck from South Carolina,” says Motley, speaking about himself. “We’ve got proof.”

He has yet to produce any proof, however. Not that he needs to. The American system of civil justice is vastly different from that of Saudi Arabia and many other countries. Proof is the last thing shown in a US court when a person is accused of some wrongdoing. One can make the most outrageous allegations in a lawsuit on little more than a wild idea.

Lawyers call this “discovery,” and it commences when the person accused, often quite groundlessly, has to come forward and defend themselves. During this process, lawyers for both sides investigate the alleged “facts of the case.” If there aren’t any facts to begin with, at least one lawyer hopes that some will turn up.

Sometimes this is legal strategy, to pressure that person or others into implicating someone else. And sometimes it is extortion, to pressure the accused into paying money to end the annoyance. Allegations of all kinds are brought against people every day in American courts, and later dropped without so much as an apology. Slanders are protected if made in the courthouse. Our free speech is an important value of our democracy, but it sometimes runs amuck.

As the days pass with little more than the “ravings” of Motley, it is becoming increasingly clear that some allegations, especially those against Princess Haifa, are insubstantial. Allegations targeting the Islamic banking system are more curious. Islamic banks are different from their Western counterparts in that they restrict the interest that can be charged on debts, and discourages consumer debt. But Islamic banks are in fact run by the central banks, which are Western banks. If monies were sent to terrorists, they were sent through the Western banking system. Yet no Western bank or nation has been sued.

Motley’s attacks on Saudi royalty did garner much attention, however, and attention is something he wants and needs in his quest. “All roads lead to Saudi Arabia,” Motley recently told The Wall Street Journal.

And for Motley, a billionaire trial attorney, those roads are paved with gold. If they weren’t, it’s unlikely he’d find the time to travel them.

Motley made his fortune in asbestos and cigarette smoking lawsuits against large corporations by taking up to thirty percent of the total recoveries. But these once-lucrative suits are now drying up, and Motley has turned to the tragedy of Sept. 11. He claims he is “following the money” in order to punish the terrorists, and believes he could win an award against Saudi Arabians and others in the trillions of dollars.

The long-standing “Act of State” and political exception doctrines usually prevent lawsuits like Motley’s from being brought. These doctrines protect the ability of the US government to conduct affairs of state, and recognize the sovereign authority of other states’ abilities to handle their internal affairs. Diplomacy works in conjunction with these doctrines to help states resolve disputes between their citizens.

As a result, the US government will sometimes request an American court to dismiss a lawsuit that interferes with foreign relations.

In fact, the Bush administration recently sought the dismissal of a lawsuit against Exxon Mobile Corp.’s natural gas operations in Indonesia. The administration claimed that the lawsuit, brought by a non-governmental organization, “would risk a potentially serious adverse impact on significant relations related directly to the ongoing struggle against terrorism.”

Nobody suggested that the trial lawyers would be better at fighting terrorism than the governments involved.

Recently, however, the US Congress, which is also full of former trial lawyers untrained in diplomacy and international law, has chipped away at these sovereignty protections, expanding the rights of private citizens but weakening the power of states to keep their citizens safe.

Originally, Congress’ idea was to deputize such citizen-plaintiffs as “private attorneys general” to act in cases where the government, for whatever reason, was reluctant to. That the government might have a good reason for being reluctant, one that would benefit the community over the individual, no matter how injured, appears to be unimportant to congressmen, who continue to view themselves as lawyers first and public servants second.

And it does not help that, despite America’s undisputed military supremacy and the speed of its military response to the Sept.11 attacks, the mastermind of that event eludes our grasp and remains alive. It is therefore difficult for the Bush administration to ask the federal court that Motley’s lawsuit be thrown out, even if it jeopardizes the stability of the Middle East.

Motley says he doesn’t care about that. Nor does he worry about US diplomacy or the safety of US citizens who are not his clients: “The fact that it complicates the life of some baggy-britches Foggy Bottom guy is not my concern,” he says.

Or is it?

Of course, the “baggy-britches Foggy Bottom guy” whose “life” Motley is complicating is none other than President Bush who, unlike Motley, is accountable to the American people.

Motley recently told the Wall Street Journal that he is being advised and given intelligence information in his lawsuit by his friend, Democrat Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Edwards, himself a millionaire plaintiffs’ trial lawyer, is also a member of the select Senate Intelligence Committee which has overseen much of the investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Currently of North Carolina, Edwards was born in South Carolina and is close to Motley who, like many other trial lawyers, heavily funded Edwards’ Senate campaign.

Press reports indicate that more than $4 of every $5 raised by Edwards’ political action committee (PAC), New American Optimists, has come from lawyers or their family members. More than 90 percent of Edwards’ PAC money in the first quarter of 2002 came from plaintiffs’ trial lawyers like Motley.

One such lawyer, Fred Barton, donated $100,000 to Edwards’ PAC during the second quarter of 2002. Barton, who once called for a “jihad” against Washington lobbyists working to cap tort suit recoveries, clearly delights in the political pull his wealth has bought: “I picked up my Wall Street journal last night and what did I learn? ‘The plaintiffs’ bar is all but running the Senate.’ Now, I really, strongly disagree with that, particularly the words ‘all but,’” Barton said.

Most recently, Sen. Edwards, whose current office is his only experience in politics, has put out feelers about running for president as the Democratic Party candidate against President Bush in 2004.

And South Carolina, Motley’s home state, has an early presidential primary in which Edwards must make a decent showing to be taken seriously as a contender for President Bush’s job.

Since Sen. Edwards is not well-known nationally and recent polls place him running a close last to the controversial Al Sharpton, Edwards will need both recognition and money to place himself in contention. Presumably, some of this money will be coming back to him from whatever funds his friend, Motley, can squeeze out of those defendants he has named in his lawsuit, of which the wealthiest and most “reachable” are members of the Saudi royal family. It is a brilliant quid pro quo.

And all the while, Sen. Edwards can make President Bush “look bad” for “doing nothing” to stop terrorism.

It is time to remind Sen. Edwards of his responsibilities — the confidentiality of Senate Intelligence Committee work, the sanctity of his office, and the respect owed to allies. If mistakes were made, find them out. If justice can be done, do it. But don’t play a trial lawyer’s game of “chicken” with Middle East policy so that your lawyer friends benefit over the welfare of the citizenry. Lives and legacies of trust and honor are at stake.

Of course, Motley has already told us that he doesn’t care. But Edwards has a sworn duty to care, or he should step down. If he would rather be a trial attorney, he can surely go back to his old practice. Or join his friend Motley’s law firm, where he seems to be working as co-counsel anyway.

Arab News Features 23 December 2002