brief - Iran 911 Case

every year since 1984. Ex. 3, Byman Affid. 15; Ex. 8, Clawson Affid. 40; see Estate ofHeiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006). Since 1980, eachof the State Department‘s annual reports on terrorism 22 describes the Iranian state‘sconsistent involvement in acts of terror. Ex. 13, State Department Country Reports onTerrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism [excerpts regarding Iran] 1980-2009; AppendixF [selected excerpts]; Ex. 6, Lopez-Tefft Affid. 66-95. The State Department‘s 1992report puts the overall conclusion most plainly:The Iranian regime has practiced state terrorism since it took power in1979; it is currently the deadliest state sponsor and has achieved aworldwide reach. . . . Tehran‘s leaders view terrorism as a valid tool toaccomplish the regime‘s political objectives, and acts of terrorism areapproved at the highest level of government in Iran. . . . Iran is also theworld‘s principal sponsor of extremist Islamic and Palestinian groups,providing them with funds, weapons, and training. . . . Khartoum [Sudan]has become a key venue for Iranian contact with Palestinian and NorthAfrican extremists of the Sunni branch of Islam.See Ex. 13; Ex. 6, Lopez-Tefft Affid. 79.In its 1987 report, the U.S. State Department observed that a frequent proxy forimplementing Iran‘s terrorist policy option is Iran‘s creation, Hizballah (see alsoAppendix G):[Hizballah is] known or suspected to have been involved in numerousanti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicidal car bombing in Beirut inOctober 1983 and the US Embassy annex in September 1984. The groupis responsible for the kidnapping and continuing detention of most, if not22 These State Department reports, thoroughly prepared and with each word being carefully weighed, arehighly respected by researchers on terrorism. Ex. 8, Clawson Affid. 40. It is well-settled that theState Department‘s Country Reports constitute admissible evidence under Rule 803(8)(c) of theFederal Rules of Evidence, and may be relied on ―not merely . . . [for] factual determinations in thenarrow sense, but also . . . conclusions and opinions that are based upon a factual investigation.‖Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 143-144 (2nd Cir. 2000)(upholding district court‘s heavyreliance on State Department country report on Liberia for ―facts concerning Liberia‘s civil war‖ and―its effect on the judicial system there.‖); Flatow v. Iran, 999 F.Supp. 1, 8-10, 14, 17 (D.D.C.1998)(relying in part on State Department report concluding that Iran generally provided materialsupport to Islamic Jihad to hold Iran liable for the death of an American citizen killed by members ofIslamic Jihad).38