Question: The plaintiffs, current and former residents of the Republic of the Sudan a class action suit against Talisman Energy, Inc. and Sudan, alleging violations of international law stemming from oil exploration activities conducted in that country. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants collaborated to commit gross human rights violations, including extrajudicial killing, forcible displacement, war crimes, confiscation and destruction of property, kidnapping, rape, and enslavement for forced labor. Collectively, the plaintiffs claimed that these activities amounted to genocide. Talisman moved to dismiss this action on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of plaintiffs' standing, forum non conveniens, international comity, act of state doctrine, political question doctrine, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, and because equity does not require a useless act. Based upon what you have read in this chapter, is there a basis in U.S. law for the plaintiffs to proceed with their case? See Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 289 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).