A small number of the victims of the US "war on terror," who had suffered detention, interrogation, torture, or extraordinary rendition or lost relatives to drone strikes, sued for damages. Almost all of them were blocked by procedural obstacles, such as sovereign immunity and the political question doctrine. By contrast, when victims of terrorism sued, courts found ways around similar procedural obstacles. Judges tended to divide along party political lines. And compensation schemes were similarly inequitable: victims of the 9/11 attacks (and subsequent bombings) were generously compensated; civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq who had been injured or lost kin received little if any compensation.