We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

‘Moronic’ does not quite do this justice

A United States federal judge has ruled that Iraq provided material support to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group al-Qaeda for the September 11, 2001, attack and is liable to pay $US104 million ($163 million) in damages to two victims’ families. The ruling, by Manhattan District Judge Harold Baer, is the first court decision stemming from the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Where does one begin? Cretinous? Idiotic? Ludicrous? Laughable?

The notion a US court would think it had any standing or authority to order Saddam Hussain’s Ba’ath Party, let alone the future post-Ba’athist government of Iraq, to do anything whatsoever is almost beyond belief. How divorced from reality is this? Judge Harold Baer and the people involved in this case must be suffering from serious metal delusions. I filed this article under the category ‘North American Affairs’ and ‘How very odd!’ because is sure has hell has nothing to do with ‘Middle East & Islamic’.

37 comments to ‘Moronic’ does not quite do this justice

  • S. Weasel

    Damn. I’d hoped you guys wouldn’t pick up on this one. I heard it on the drive home this afternoon and experienced an instant full-body wince.

  • snide

    ‘Full-body wince’. Wow. I like it.

  • James Merritt

    It will be interesting to see the evidence used by the judge to make his decision. One would think that the “preponderance” of the evidence that must have been provided to the court might surely have made something closer to an airtight case for war than we saw in the congress throughout the whole buildup to the Iraq war. That is to say, if Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, et. al., could make a case that convinced a judge of a strong enough link between Iraq and Al Quaeda to award damages (no matter how absurd the idea that any such judgment will ever be enforced), why wasn’t that case made in Congress and provided to the US people? Or if it was, and was as weak as the public case I saw prior to the war, then perhaps the judge is simply being too generous. Either way, I’ll be watching to see how this goes…

  • Tom T.

    I have not read the decision and have no comment on its merits.

    As to enforcement, however, while it is obviously impossible to enforce such a judgment in Iraq, the plaintiffs are presumably hoping to try to enforce it against whatever frozen Iraqi assets may exist in the United States. This possibility is not frivolous on its face, but as a political matter, it’s probably a non-starter. Such assets would be subject to innumerable competing claims, and the US might prefer to release them purely for the purpose of Iraqi reconstruction anyway.

    My bottom line is that the notion of enforcing such a judgment is probably stupid but not obviously crazy.

  • Byron

    Strange that it wasn’t thrown out of court due to lack of jurisdiction. I guess everybody wants in on the anti-terrorist bandwagon.

  • Byron

    Strange that it wasn’t thrown out of court due to lack of jurisdiction. I guess everybody wants in on the anti-terrorist bandwagon.

  • To me enforcement is just a side issue… the notion an American judge thinks he can stick his oar in these waters at all is what makes me laugh.

    It is the idea a US court not only thinks its writ is anything more than toilet paper outside the USA but that these people think anyone other than Americans, and Americans in American at that, even should pay any attention to them is bizarre.

    I had a surreal personal experience once with a guy who worked for the US state department who I met in Bosnia in 1994. The guy started lecturing a bunch of English speaking and slightly drunk Croatian officers that I knew about The Law, in itself not unreasonable in the context of the discussion, but when he started actually quoting US statutes at them it when they disagreed with him, it became clear he was not suggesting they needed to model their behaviour on BiH or Croatian law, but on US law! The Croatians just laughed in his face rather than kicking him in the teeth, which I though was rather a pity at the time.

  • J. Holden

    Everybody just calm down. The ruling is understood to be ‘symbolic’ more then anything else. The court and the plantiffs do not actually expect to collect anything. Of course if they can collect they will be happy to.

  • M. Barsch

    I heard about this on Fox News yesterday and the commentator, a former judge, explained (as best I can relate to you) that:

    1. It allows the plaintiffs to try and collect from the assets of the defendants which are frozen in US jurisdictions.

    2. The reason that the verdict was given in favor of the plaintiffs was that none of the defendants appeared in court and thefore it was basically a default judgement (in the US if you don’t show up in a civil trial or send an attorney to defend you, you lose by default).

  • Chris Josephson

    It is rather funny. Seems as if this Judge believes his court is in Brussels.

    Quote from NY Daily News:

    “Under a newly modified Belgian law, charges of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity may be brought in local courts regardless of where the crimes occurred. And neither the victims nor the perpetrators need be Belgian.”

  • James Merritt

    So are you telling me that we can sue a foreigner here in our courts, who cannot appear to contest the proceedings because he is being hunted to ground by our military elsewhere in the world; when he doesn’t appear, he loses by default, and the ensuing judgment can be enforced against his assets in this country?

    Not that Saddam doesn’t deserve a world of bad breaks, but I shudder when I think that the next guy we pull this maneuver on may not be nearly as bad a guy as Saddam; only as foreign, and as impotent to prevent the theft of his property.

    I thought asset forfeiture was bad when they were just taking people’s savings accounts, homes, and cars! Whew!

  • Jon

    James

    You may sue someone in any state where that person or group committs a tort(civil wrong) against you. There is some complicated legal theory behind this but think of it this way- if X ordered you to be attacked in your state, sent a goon to attack you, but X remained in another country, obviously you could sue him for his actions, even if X never set foot in your country.

    The fact that he is prevented from appearing because our military is attempting to capture him- well you could try to convince the judge that such pursuit is an excuse not to show up and contrest the action, but I don’t think an American judge would be very sympathetic.

  • Jon

    James

    You may sue someone in any state where that person or group committs a tort(civil wrong) against you. There is some complicated legal theory behind this but think of it this way- if X ordered you to be attacked in your state, sent a goon to attack you, but X remained in another country, obviously you could sue him for his actions, even if X never set foot in your country.

    The fact that X is prevented from appearing because our military is attempting to capture him- well X’s lawyers could try to convince the judge that such pursuit is an excuse not to show up and contrest the action, but I don’t think an American judge would be very sympathetic. As far as X’s assets- you are entitled to them technically- but good luck collecting on your judgment.

  • Jon

    James

    You may sue someone in any state where that person or group committs a tort(civil wrong) against you. There is some complicated legal theory behind this but think of it this way- if X ordered you to be attacked in your state, sent a goon to attack you, but X remained in another country, obviously you could sue him for his actions, even if X never set foot in your country.

    The fact that X is prevented from appearing because our military is attempting to capture him- well X’s lawyers could try to convince the judge that such pursuit is an excuse not to show up and contrest the action, but I don’t think an American judge would be very sympathetic. As far as X’s assets- you are entitled to them technically- but good luck collecting on your judgment.

  • Jon

    Please forgive me & my Commodore 64- technical difficluties.

  • Warmongering Lunatic

    It’s within U.S. jurisdiction for a very simple reason: the tort happened on U.S. soil. Because that’s where the attack occured. Much like, if I hire somebody to burn down Mr. de Havilland’s home, Mr. de Havilland can sue me in British court for the losses he incurred as part of his home being burnt down.

    If you have a better suggestion of where Mr. de Havilland should file suit for my having his home burned down, be my guest and say so. Is the correct answer so obvious that “Britain” is obviously moronic, cretinous, idiotic, ludicrous, and laughable? Or is it merely moronic, cretinous, idiotic, ludicrous, and laughable that Mr. de Havilland should have any legal recourse to recover damages from me whatsoever?

  • Warmongering Lunatic:

    1. It was an act of terrorism, not a tort, and your own president has made it clear that it was also an act of war, hense the justification for invading both Afghanistan and Iraq. The notion you can sue someone for an act of war shows how far common sense has been thrashed out of people.

    2. Does this mean my family should have sued the German government of Konrad Adenauer in 1949 for the death of several relations during the war and property damage, all caused by bombs landing here in London? I shall ring my Samoan lawyer forthwith!

  • Jon

    Perry de Havilland

    It may still be viewed as a tort, in the context of American legal jurisprudence (hence the title of this post). I am not familiar with the cases on point but saying that an act of terrorrism is not a tort is almost certainly wrong.

    With regards to an act of war being a tort, your point is well taken, but legally a claimant could argue that merely because the POTUS says it was an act of war does not mean it was in legal fact, an act of war. The president may or may not have the ability to pronounce on such matters ( legally I don’t know who would make such a determination).

    Your second point certainly illustrates the foolishness of such a hyper-technical distinction, but there is an argument to be made that acts of terrorism are unlike acts of war. Otherwise you give a free pass to domestic terrorists.

    Finally, remember that the judge is bound by precedent on the tort matter (again I have no idea what the relevant precedents are), but more importantly bound by “public opinion.” Ultimately its a symbolic verdict.

  • The trouble it that the ‘symbolism’ at work here is that US courts regard their writ as extending worldwide.

  • Buried somewhere in legislation passed by Congress quite a long while ago, well before 11SEP2001, is the proviso that terrorist acts shall subject the perpetrators and their affiliates to the possibility and likelihood of tort claims in US courts. Others with far greater legal research resources can probably find the relevant statues for you.

  • Try statutes instead of statues…makes a lot more sense that way.

    🙂

  • Kevin L. Connors

    I’m affraid your ire is mis-directed here, Perry. The judge is totally within his authority according to the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. §1350. This has also been in the news recently in the case of Issac v. Cuba.

    You right to be miffed, but blame Congress.

  • Jon

    Perry de Havilland

    There is something to what you are saying but I think the court is really saying that if you attack our citizens we will hold you legally accountable. The “arrogance of it is one thing but, on a practical level, there are assets in America that can be seized so it is not neccesarily a “worldwide writ”

    Additionally, wasn’t something similarly done in regards to the Lockerbie/Pan-Am explosion? Similar in the sense that a court pronounced on individuals outside there traditional sphere of influence. I have never looked into it formally, does anybody know?

  • Jon

    That should have read “there maybe assets in America or assets seized by Americans”

  • T. Hartin

    Chill, Perry. The wrongful act was committed on American soil, the defendants were given every opportunity to defend themselves, and nobody is trying to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction.

    The issue of collecting the judgment also doesn’t trip my trigger. If there are assets in the US, well and good, no extraterritoriality there. If there are assets overseas, the plaintiffs have the same rights as anyone else to get the judgment recognized and enforced overseas. I just don’t get it.

    This is easily distinguished from what the Belgian court is trying to do. That court has absolutely no connection to the events that it is trying to exert jurisdiction over, whereas the US court has jurisdiction because of where the wrongful act occurred.

  • T. Hartin: Which brings me back to my suggestion that my family should have sued the German government of Konrad Adenauer in 1949, in a British court, for the death of several relations during the war and property damage, all caused by bombs landing here in London.

  • Nick

    Normally this site is quite sensible, but this story seems to have momentarily unhinged you. As has been pointed out, the qualifications attached to this case got lost in your ludicrously overboard descriptions (‘moronic’? ‘cretinous’? please.), but don’t let that stop you from continuing to hammer the square peg in the round hole. Go bash the BBC some more (which should be an easy task!), and maybe that will get this bug out of your system.

  • chris

    that belgian story is old and they changed the law recently.

  • S. Weasel

    Pete:

    A Belgian lawyer representing 10 Iraqis is preparing to ask a Brussels court to indict Gen. Franks for having “command responsibility” over purported war crimes committed by coalition forces.

    Washington Times, May 8, 2003

  • “The trouble it that the ‘symbolism’ at work here is that US courts regard their writ as extending worldwide.”

    I quite agree, but it’s also really old news. The US government has been imposing US laws on foreigners who have never committed a crime in the US (or never even visited the US) for at least 15 years. There have been some fairly high-profile cases, the most recent being Dimitri Sklyarov.

    In the past the Feds have sent armed men to kidnap someone and smuggle him back the US, where he is tried for acts committed outside the US. On one occasion, a President even conquered a country (killing thousands) in order to arrest an embarrassing former employee for things he had done in his own country.

    Where do you think the Belgians got the idea for their “war crimes” court? The only difference here is that it’s a civil case, not criminal.

    I’m surprised this type of Fed misbehavior isn’t better known in the UK. I’d think it’s the kind of thing that anti-US newspapers in foreign countries would really love to write about.

  • It is quite well known, Ken, and according to Nick, it unhinges us.

    Now think of the effect it must have on folks who are not well disposed to America.

  • T. Hartin

    “my family should have sued the German government of Konrad Adenauer in 1949, in a British court, for the death of several relations during the war and property damage, all caused by bombs landing here in London.”

    A couple of problems here – I don’t know if the Adenauer government was the legal successor of the Hitler government, such that it could be held responsible for its actions. I rather doubt it, but it is a very interesting question also surfacing in the current foofaraw over “odious” debts in Iraq.

    Second, I don’t know if acts of war were regarded as compensable torts in England in 1949. As pointed out above, there is a federal statute on the books in the US that covers what happened at the WTC.

    Maybe you should have sued the English government for its negligence in failing to protect you from German bombs.

  • T. Hartin: that is exactly my point… it is a ludicrous notion to hold the Adenauer government, who took power under de facto Allied supervision, responsible for Nazi bombs in London.

    And it is just as ludicrous to hold whatever government come to rule Iraq responsible for whatever the Ba’athists may or may not have done… and what it says in US statues does not make it any less daft.

    Hell, at the moment the de facto government of Iraq are the UK and US governments as occupying powers. Are they responsible for shelling out for Saddam Hussain’s deeds? The whole thing is bizarre.

  • All that being said, Judge Baer is a very funny guy. A while back he outlawed the federal death penalty. He didn’t really have grounds for it, but what the hell, it was worth a shot, right?

    I’d like to see the advance sheets on the case before I go hop, skipping and jumping to conclusions.

  • Jon

    Ken

    Your analogy is inaccurate- the case maintains that a crime was comitted in the states by the defendants. You can disagree with that conclusion, but certainly the court has jurisdiction over crimes committed against US citizens.
    As far as the defendants not entering the US- if I send someone to your country to kill you, don’t you think that your country should be able to prosecute me even though I have never physically been in your country.
    In reference to your second paragraph- the US is prepared to offer a full apology for enforcing UN sanctions.
    With regard to Iraq, is not clear that the current nation would be liable, only the previous regime.

  • Jan Krusat

    It is funny how US courts of justice seem to pull cases from all over the world into their jurisdiction.
    A few years ago there was a railway accident in Germany, where several people were killed, as far as I know no American citizen was injured.
    The plaintiffs werenot happy with the compensation alloted to them by a German court ( (where compensations are usually limited and don´t reach the crazy amounts awarded in the US). Also nobody could be held personally responsible, because the accident seemed to stem
    from a faulty design of a wheel of a high speed train, which was properly approved. Now the plaintiffs are trying to sue the German railway company in the US to receive a higher compensation.

    Jan

  • Since many of you complain about the jurisdiction issue, you can find that kind of technical info on the case at the following link:

    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1051121852966