NationStates Jolt Archive

Wed Jan 16, 12:30 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US judge has ordered Libya and six intelligence officials to pay billions of dollars in damages to relatives of Americans killed in the 1989 suitcase bombing of a French airliner over Niger.

US District Court Judge Henry Kennedy on Tuesday awarded more than six billion dollars (4.06 billion euros) to the estates of seven US victims, 44 immediate family members and the US firm that owned the DC-10 jet, court documents show.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080116/ts_alt_afp/uslibyaattackscourt_080116173055

I cant wait to see what is next..
*gets popcorn* :D

So much for national sovereignty...

the article confuses me, is Libya using Euro's now:confused:

also I will like to see how this judge intends to get the money (though by all means saying "checks in the mail" will probably work)

also I will like to see how this judge intends to get the money...I dont know..

How do the Big boys get the little boys lunch?
extortion.


pay up, or else we will fuck-you-up, one way or another.

Eh. Judges in all countries do this. It's a completely masturbatory gesture meant to elicit some sort of nationalistic pride-swelling in the chest cavity and/or get the people hounding him about this off his back and/or provide a "look how compassionate I am to other citizens of my country; I'm a friend of the little guy" example on his resume should he run for senate or parliament or whatever. He knows full well it ain't gonna happen.

Eh. Judges in all countries do this.I dont think so.

t(^_^t),... a middle finger brandishing smiley, is what I think of that judge.

But srsly,... how does he expect them to pay for the damages? Or is this just another political ruse to gain popularity? Then again, the world is still a mad mad place to live, so, deep down inside, I already knew what not to expect,... reason.

I cant wait to see what is next..
*gets popcorn* :D

I think he's trying to compensate for his really small penis. *nods*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

also I will like to see how this judge intends to get the money (though by all means saying "checks in the mail" will probably work)

http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2006/10/02/iran-enters-legal-fight-over-oriental-institute-relics/

This article (I know it's old) talks about a somewhat similar situation that involves a museum at the University of Chicago and Iranian artifacts. Basically the clients are trying to get the museum to sell the artifacts to pay for the damages. Last time i checked, it was still unresolved.

Judges in all countries do this. It's a completely masturbatory gesture meant to elicit some sort of nationalistic pride-swelling in the chest cavity...
Sometimes there's more to it. The Australian High Court just recently ruled that the Japanese whale hunt is against Australian law, which matters in so far as some of the hunting grounds are under Australian jurisdiction.

Of course, this can only be enforced in one of two ways: either the Japanese vessel goes into an Australian port, or the Australian Navy boards the ship - under Australian law they'd now have the right to do so. Under International Rules they probably don't, hence why the government is refusing to do anything about it.

I would've sworn the thread was gonna be about Scalia or Thomas.

So basicly they're making Libya pay for terrorism that they supposedly supported?

Oh Sh*t lets hope no one does that for the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction

That doesn't apply here. For one things, it's not a criminal case...

So basicly they're making Libya pay for terrorism that they supposedly supported?

Oh Sh*t lets hope no one does that for the US.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=23500

He's a fucking war criminal. We shouldn't dance around it any more.

That doesn't apply here. For one things, it's not a criminal case...

This is actually an interesting question. If one accepts the validity of universal jurisdiction in criminal cases, then surely a similar position concerning civil cases is not far behind.

... surely a similar position concerning civil cases is not far behind.civil laws are very different from one country to another.. some Laws are ridicule/laughable in some countries.

Just try -outside the US- suing a FastFood for burning yourself with a cup of coffee. ;)

civil laws are very different from one country to another.. some Laws are ridicule/laughable in some countries.

Just try -outside the US- suing a FastFood for burning yourself with a cup of coffee. ;)

Didn't say it would be easy, or was a good idea, or makes sense. Just an interesting question. Universal jurisdiction for criminal cases is controversial enough as it is, for exactly these reasons, after all. Although, globalized economics and multinational corporations seem to make some kind of attempt at international civil law necessary.

Ah, the joys of having law with no meaningful law enforcer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_politics).

Universal jurisdiction for criminal cases is controversial enough as it is, after all.if there is to be Universal Criminal cases.. It has to be applied from International Law. Not US Law. (or any particular Country's Law).

if there is to be Universal Criminal cases.. It has to be applied from International Law. Not US Law. (or any particular Country's Law).

International law is the law (or tradition, custom, etc.) of particular countries. Perhaps what you're looking for is supranational law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supranational_law).

Good luck getting anyone to submit to the jurisdiction of the World Congress.

International law is the law (or tradition, custom, etc.) of particular countries. Thats ridiculous.

The US should NOT try to impose its Law on the other Nationstates.. so far the only creatures with any claim of internationality are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

the article confuses me, is Libya using Euro's now:confused:No, that's just to put the value in a meaningful currency that isn't rapidly declining.

It does have some practical effects: unless the decision is overturned (which it might well be, on the grounds that the executive should control foreign relations or some-such argument), Libya has to avoid any US banks or its money might be seized.

Hmm... from what I know the biggest implication of this is that judges will be able to order US businesses trading with Libya to pay or partially pay the fines imposed. I can't remember where I read that though.

In before people start suing America for the actions of its citizens.

Thats ridiculous.

The US should NOT try to impose its Law on the other Nationstates.. so far the only creatures with any claim of internationality are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

You're displaying your ignorance of legal jurisprudence, in favor of your previously constructed ideologies.

There's a long history of people suing other country's governments in their own country's civil courts.

You're displaying your ignorance of legal jurisprudence, in favor of your previously constructed ideologies.

There's a long history of people suing other country's governments in their own country's civil courts.

In before people start suing America for the actions of its citizens.

Perhaps not then......

Perhaps not then......

I believe the Italians have sued the US government before, the US has responded with the diplomatic equivalent of "I am rubber and you are glue...", but it's been done.

I believe the Italians have sued the US government before, the US has responded with the diplomatic equivalent of "I am rubber and you are glue...", but it's been done.

Man, international politics can be so much fun sometimes.

Um, welcome to private international law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_international_law)...it's hardly a new thing.


I bet you'd be absolutely shocked to know that, for example, a court in Canada can and will apply say...French law when necessary. And a court in Germany will from time to time apply Maltese law. Been going on at least as far back as the Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_mickey

Interesting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7191278.stm):

Libya has not said whether it will appeal, but the American lawyers appear confident of getting the money.

They say that if Libya does not pay up, they will be able to get a court order to obtain it from American companies with which Libya is now doing business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_mickey

Congraturation! A winrar is yuo!

Thats ridiculous.


Welcome to the chaos that is international relations.


...so far the only creatures with any claim of internationality are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court


Since membership (and, therefore, acceptance of jurisdiction) is entirely voluntary, their "authority" is minimal at best. At present, the only meaningful enforcer of international law is the individual state.

I believe the Italians have sued the US government before, the US has responded with the diplomatic equivalent of "I am rubber and you are glue...", but it's been done.

"The Italians", as in the government of Italy or as in Random Mario?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=23500

He's a fucking war criminal. We shouldn't dance around it any more.


When I hear War Criminal, I think Nazis and the dude in Kosovo. I wouldnt put Bush on par with them.

He hasnt committed Geoncides (yet)