NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: I'm going to refrain from commenting on this until I hear what you have to say.


GI, Widow Win $102.6M for Attack (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,88380,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | February 20, 2006
SALT LAKE CITY - A soldier wounded in Afghanistan and the widow of his slain comrade were awarded a $102.6 million judgment from the estate of a suspected al-Qaida financier.

U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said the lawsuit may be the first filed by an American soldier against terrorists under the Patriot Act.

But Sgt. Layne Morris, of West Jordan, and the family of medic Christopher Speer, could have a difficult time collecting their award, because the assets of the suspected financier are unknown.

Other soldiers have difficulty identifying their attackers, making it difficult to hold individuals responsible.

Morris cited news reports - including interviews with his attacker's immediate family - indicating that Omar Khadr, then 15, had wounded him and killed Speer. The ruling, released Friday, cited similar evidence that the boy's father, suspected financier Ahmad Sa'id Khadr, was linked to al-Qaida and trained his son to attack American targets.

Morris and Speer, who served with the 19th Special Forces, were attacked with grenades and automatic weapons in a remote Afghanistan village. Shrapnel severed the optic nerve in Morris' right eye, blinding him.

Soldiers arrested the boy, who is being held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The Canadian government has protested the boy's imprisonment, because he is a minor.

In November, the U.S. government charged the boy with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy.

The ruling said the younger Khadr was 4 years old when his family moved from Canada to Pakistan, where his father co-founded a humanitarian relief organization that supported al-Qaida terrorist training camps. The boy returned to Canada in 1994, where he attended school for a year while his father was imprisoned in Pakistan on charges of funding the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan, the court said.

The next year the family allegedly traveled throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, meeting al-Qaida leaders including Osama bin Laden. It is believed the father was killed in a firefight in Pakistan.

Attorney Dennis Flynn said the U.S. and Canadian governments have frozen the assets of the elder Khadr.

how is this legal?

i dont get the connection between $100 mil and a 15 year old

I think it's pretty nutty. :)

Don't people risk the suspicion that the war would actually be vendetta? Is falling victim to attack in a military action the same as being assaulted?

That's pretty stupid.

That's pretty stupid.
How so?

how is this legal?

i dont get the connection between $100 mil and a 15 year old
As I understand it, the suit was against the father for training his son to shoot American targets. The father was wealthy, and the plaintiffs won. Ergo ... !

As I understand it, the suit was against the father for training his son to shoot American targets. The father was wealthy, and the plaintiffs won. Ergo ... !

alright, but how is it legal/possible to sue over something like that and to sue tha father for the son's injustice?
money grubbing anyone?

How so?
Because the guy was killed during a military operation.

I could make some kind of hat from it I suppose.. Do you have any scissors?

Because the guy was killed during a military operation.
So that means that he should have no hope of recovering damages from civilians who attacked him?

Because the guy was killed during a military operation.

He has a point, Eut. As much as I sympathise with the widows state now, they were both attacked in a combat area. Surely as soldiers they expected this could happen? It makes no sense they should get money for it from the Iraqis.

So that means that he should have no hope of recovering damages from civilians who attacked him?

Yes, that is what it means. The government should help him out, but to expect compensation from an enemy combatant for injuries sustained during a military operation is stretching it. I'd say it's a dangerous precedent for the US to set, since it's easy to see how it could be used against the US Army far more often.

So that means that he should have no hope of recovering damages from civilians who attacked him?
Yup.

When he signed up he accepted the risks.

He has a point, Eut. As much as I sympathise with the widows state now, they were both attacked in a combat area. Surely as soldiers they expected this could happen? It makes no sense they should get money for it from the Iraqis.

Iraqis???? Did I miss something? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/freak.gif

Yes, that is what it means. The government should help him out, but to expect compensation from an enemy combatant for injuries sustained during a military operation is stretching it. I'd say it's a dangerous precedent for the US to set, since it's easy to see how it could be used against the US Army far more often.
So you're saying it's specious to say that wealthy un-uniformed combatants cannot be treated any differently from uniformed combatants ( whether wealthy or not )?

When he signed up he accepted the risks.
Yes he did. I agree with that.

So that means that he should have no hope of recovering damages from civilians who attacked him?

Yes. Soldiers know what they are getting into when they join the military, know that they could get injured or killed. Expecting your enemy to pay you money for wounding you is just stupid.

this is ridiculous, the soldiers were engaged in a military confrontation in a warzone with a soldier of the opposing army and they want compensation? if they want compensation from anyone it should be from the US government that sent them there not enemy soldiers who were simply fighting their side of the war. and they were special forces - they only go in when the army's up to no good or going into a military hotbed where they should expect to be fired upon by opposing forces. it just seems utterly farcicle to me.

Iraqis???? Did I miss something? http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/freak.gif
No. Afghanis.

So you're saying it's specious to say that wealthy un-uniformed combatants cannot be treated any differently from uniformed combatants ( whether wealthy or not )?

I think that they only relevant distinction you'd be able to make is the uniformed vs. un-uniformed, and I doubt that that would be enough for a foreign court not to rule against the US. If Iraqi courts start finding US soldiers individually civilly liable for damages that they've caused, do you expect them to pay?

No. Afghanis.

Apologies. Down with the flu, got confused. Yes, Afghanis it is.

Yes. Soldiers know what they are getting into when they join the military, know that they could get injured or killed. Expecting your enemy to pay you money for wounding you is just stupid.
emphasis added

yeah, but that's the american way . . . :rolleyes:
just look at vioxx. sue because you might get hurt.
afghanistan, sue because they hurt you. out of jurisdiction and all that legal jazz is overlooked

I guess this will work both ways and the people that the US forces hurt will be able to counter sue?

That I want to get hurt by Al-Queda, but in sucks. It seems that now days the goverment can do whatever they want with your property, you are "supposedly" Al-Queda and the other guy (who we are pretty sure) is Al-Quada. So who has the money? The guy who didn't hurt the soilder. Wo gets sued? The one who didn't hurt anyone but had money.....

PS: Sorry for the speling

im not so sure how the patriot act works with this, please explain if i am god awfully wrong on this. i believe this is great, it is very similar to someone being shot on a street corner and then pressing charges on the shooter.

But this isnt a country vs country war, government vs government, and that is why it works in this situation, however if this was a country vs country war, i do not beleive this would be a great idea. to charge a soldier for doing their job is a little different then charging a terrorist for shooting at someone.

I guess this will work both ways and the people that the US forces hurt will be able to counter sue?

of course not. this is america, not some equality land democracy! only we get nice shiny priviliges!

I guess this will work both ways and the people that the US forces hurt will be able to counter sue?

Where? They'd have to come to America. Only here can you find a court nutty enough to take the case(and have a reasonable chance of winning.) :p

I guess this will work both ways and the people that the US forces hurt will be able to counter sue?
Presumably the justification for the law-suit is that, since the kid wasn't in uniform, he wasn't a soldier. Since he is being tried in the American Legal system (as opposed to war courts) he is just being treated like some jerk who wanted to throw hand grenades at people, and is liable for civil suits.
That said, I doubt this will really matter, as it doesn't look like anyone knows how, exactly, they would be able to collect. The money is "somewhere", the father is "presumed dead", and it is basically just a hollow victory.

I think that they only relevant distinction you'd be able to make is the uniformed vs. un-uniformed, and I doubt that that would be enough for a foreign court not to rule against the US. If Iraqi courts start finding US soldiers individually civilly liable for damages that they've caused, do you expect them to pay?
That's why I asked the question about the distinction between uniformed soldiers and non-uniformed combatants.

The Geneva Conventions seem to allow this distinction:

"After World War II, concerns over the treatment of civilian fighters -- specifically members of the French Resistance and Yugoslavian Partisan movement during the war -- prompted calls for protections for fighters traditionally accorded only to soldiers in conventional armies. So Article IV of the 1949 Conventions regarding prisoners of war added members of "militias," "volunteer corps" and "organized resistance movements," and established a four-fold test for their qualification:

"a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

"b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

"c) That of carrying arms openly;

"d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

"'If you do those four things, you're a POW,' says John Hutson, a former Navy judge who is dean of New Hampshire's Franklin Pierce Law Center. 'And when the war is over, you're repatriated and you can't be prosecuted for your soldierly acts.'

"Those who don't follow the rules, however, are considered war criminals who can be detained after the war and put on trial in front of military tribunals, a classification that President George W. Bush later applied to members of Afghanistan's Taliban, allowing the U.S. military to detain them indefinitely after the war there.

"In addition to ratifying the Geneva Conventions, in 1950 the United States incorporated the rules into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the laws that govern the nation's armed services, and into the Army's field manuals, which detail proper procedures for interrogating prisoners."

Presumably the justification for the law-suit is that, since the kid wasn't in uniform, he wasn't a soldier. Since he is being tried in the American Legal system (as opposed to war courts) he is just being treated like some jerk who wanted to throw hand grenades at people, and is liable for civil suits.

The kid is not subject to US law. Also, you are allowed to shoot and kill foreign occupiers. I would kill as many US soldiers as I could should they invade my country. They could sue me all they want for that - US law is meaningless outside the US.

Presumably the justification for the law-suit is that, since the kid wasn't in uniform, he wasn't a soldier. Since he is being tried in the American Legal system (as opposed to war courts) he is just being treated like some jerk who wanted to throw hand grenades at people, and is liable for civil suits.

So what if he wasn't in uniform? U.S. soldiers still know the risk of joining up. Partisans, insurgents, rebels, whatever you want to call them will all fight U.S. forces, uniforms or not. Finding a rich one and suing the person may be the American way but it should not happen in this case.

The kid is not subject to US law. Also, you are allowed to shoot and kill foreign occupiers. I would kill as many US soldiers as I could should they invade my country. They could sue me all they want for that - US law is meaningless outside the US.
Apparently, based on what the article says, the father who helped finance Al Queida had his assets frozen by the US and Canada. Might not be impossible for the plaintifs to collect.

The kid is not subject to US law. Also, you are allowed to shoot and kill foreign occupiers. I would kill as many US soldiers as I could should they invade my country. They could sue me all they want for that - US law is meaningless outside the US.
Like I said, it is an empty victory. There is no way they'll be able to collect.
Personally, I think the soldiers just should have shot him when he started throwing grenades at them and then went on about their business, but someone decided to imprison, someone else decided to start charging him under US criminal law, and that puts us here. Here being a civil suit, and subsequent victory (which was coming. American civil juries are such crap, they'll buy any sob story you offer them, and like nothing more than a bit of Western charity (that is, being charitable with other people's money)).

The kid is not subject to US law. Also, you are allowed to shoot and kill foreign occupiers. I would kill as many US soldiers as I could should they invade my country. They could sue me all they want for that - US law is meaningless outside the US.

not entirely true, other countries may sanction the us laws, or in specific cases. its really all up to what country your in, the relations between countries and even possibly your current leader

So what if he wasn't in uniform? U.S. soldiers still know the risk of joining up. Partisans, insurgents, rebels, whatever you want to call them will all fight U.S. forces, uniforms or not. Finding a rich one and suing the person may be the American way but it should not happen in this case.
So what if a woman get's raped. Women still know the risk of looking like sluts on Saturday night. Mad men, gropists, sex offenders, whatever you want to call them will all rape women. Finding the one who happened to do it and arresting him may be the American way, but we should give them nice big cookies instead.
Right conclusion, wrong reasoning, try again next time.

As a former infantryman, I find the idea silly.

Soldiers get shot at. Hopefully they don't get hit, but it happens.

They knew the job was dangerous when they took it - it's not like he was drafted.

Personally, I would rather that our military find the father and blow him away, than settle this in civil court. It's not like you'll ever recover any money. And don't tell me this is for "the symbolism".

If he had shot an unsuspecting civilian, I can see a lawsuit. But once again, I'd kill the man's father, his brothers and sisters, his friends, and the people that owed him money, and burn all of their houses to the ground.

Surely, being an 'occupying' soldier in someone else's country... you have to expect to get resistance?


I'm just thinking... if I trace my family tree back far enough, maybe I can find ancestors who were Redcoats when the US had their little 'uprising'.

Given a fair few years of appreciation, I'd say the US owes me big...

Surely, being an 'occupying' soldier in someone else's country... you have to expect to get resistance?

I'm just thinking... if I trace my family tree back far enough, maybe I can find ancestors who were Redcoats when the US had their little 'uprising'.

Given a fair few years of appreciation, I'd say the US owes me big...
Here ... I'll pay for your trouble. [ gives you a cookie ] :D

Given a fair few years of appreciation, I'd say the US owes me big...
Bad analogy. No government is being sued here, just the person who did the deed what their here for. So, if you can track down the descendents of the people who shot your ancestors, and provided that those descendents are wealthy, then your set.

So what if a woman get's raped. Women still know the risk of looking like sluts on Saturday night. Mad men, gropists, sex offenders, whatever you want to call them will all rape women. Finding the one who happened to do it and arresting him may be the American way, but we should give them nice big cookies instead.
Right conclusion, wrong reasoning, try again next time.

Two entirely different situations. A woman being attacked by some piece of shit when she had a right to her safety is one thing. Soldiers are being paid to go into a warzone and risk their lives to do their job.

Bad analogy. No government is being sued here, just the person who did the deed what their here for. So, if you can track down the descendents of the people who shot your ancestors, and provided that those descendents are wealthy, then your set.

Not at all.... if it is legitimate to sue the family of a person who took potshots at you as an interloper in their nation.... surely, it is just as legitimate to sue the 'organisation' that fostered such actions?

In this case.... since the US government, now, owes it's entire validity to it's declared independence... the whole nation must be liable.

Bad analogy. No government is being sued here, just the person who did the deed what their here for. So, if you can track down the descendents of the people who shot your ancestors, and provided that those descendents are wealthy, then your set.
Uh ... not quite. In the instant case, the father was an Al Queida financier, and trained his son to shoot Americans. He was therefore an accomplice before the fact. Holding someone's remote ancestors liable for wounding one of your own remote ancestors would be laughed out of court.

Not at all.... if it is legitimate to sue the family of a person who took potshots at you as an interloper in their nation.... surely, it is just as legitimate to sue the 'organisation' that fostered such actions?

In this case.... since the US government, now, owes it's entire validity to it's declared independence... the whole nation must be liable.
Heh! Good luck wid dat. :D

Uh ... not quite. In the instant case, the father was an Al Queida financier, and trained his son to shoot Americans. He was therefore an accomplice before the fact. Holding someone's remote ancestors liable for wounding one of your own remote ancestors would be laughed out of court.

This should have been laughed out of court, but wasn't. So many lawsuits in the US should have been laughed out of court, but weren't. So, that says very little.

That's how you stop terrorism, many moot lawsuits. I soon suspect that Al Queda will be so tied down by lawsuits they won't be able to attack anything for quite some time.

*insert Al Queda with a jew lawyer joke here*

Surely, being an 'occupying' soldier in someone else's country... you have to expect to get resistance?


I'm just thinking... if I trace my family tree back far enough, maybe I can find ancestors who were Redcoats when the US had their little 'uprising'.

Given a fair few years of appreciation, I'd say the US owes me big...

Hey, I'm over here in the UK now, and I think the UK idea of a five-star hotel sucks. There are Motel 6 in the US that have better accomodations than some of the five-star hotels in London.

So, since you have a score to settle from over 200 years ago...

Hey, I'm over here in the UK now, and I think the UK idea of a five-star hotel sucks. There are Motel 6 in the US that have better accomodations than some of the five-star hotels in London.

So, since you have a score to settle from over 200 years ago...

I wouldn't know...I don't think I ever stayed in a five-star hotel in London. I did stay in a very nice four-star (Euston Plaza... which is now the Hilton London Euston, so I don't know if it's still the same), which was a better price to quality ratio than just about anywhere else I've stayed.

On the other hand, I've also stayed at the Park Central, in New York... which was pretty unimpressive and phenomenally expensive ($400 per night).

So, limeys are still ahead on points...