There is a powerful strain of thought in the United States which sees the world as essentially capable of reduction to a series of legal processes, and more specifically American legal processes. Acts of war by foreigners are seen as ‘crimes’, legal infractions, rather than acts of war, and anything that happens anywhere can be a source of legal action (and income) for American lawyers.
A case in point is the strange Biom case. David Boim, a 17 year old American, was murdered in Israel by some Palestinian psychos associated with Hamas and this ends up as the subject of a civil lawsuit by his parents in Chicago.
The actual details of this case are not what concerns me and gawd knows I am far from sad to see bad things happen to Islamist groups in the United States or anywhere else, but the logic underpinning this sort of thing strikes me as being based on a great many questionable and downright dangerous assumptions.
David Boim was an American, but he chose to leave America and go to another country with its own laws and courts, so surely Israel is where any legal issues should be sorted out as that is where he was murdered. Moreover, as the case in Chicago seems to be based on suing people for their political support of Hamas, if those organisations in the USA are legal, is allowing them to be sued for their political views really acceptable? If however they are declared to be proscribed organisations by the American state, surely they should not exist at all within the USA and that would presumably be a criminal matter, not a civil one.
Would it be regarded as acceptable in the USA for American organisations in some third country with links to the Republican Party or just the US government generally, to be sued by people critical of US foreign policy? Can the relatives of people killed by US troops in Iraq sue US commercial or political interests in Europe based on their presumed support for US policies? It strikes me as a ludicrous notion much like the preposterous ‘libel tourism‘ used by the odious Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz to silence US author Rachel Ehrenfeld (amongst others) by using British court rulings.
Yet as long as people in the USA are sanguine about US courts being used to sue people for things that happen outside the USA, they can hardly complain if others use foreign courts against US citizens for things they do in the USA (such as publishing a book, for example).
And how have the Brits handled things when their own subjects were killed in Israel? The case of James Miller springs to mind……
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/11812.htm
It is an issue for the Israeli legal system.
“Speculation”? By who? I find it hard to imagine the UK government asking for extradition as how would a UK court establish their jurisdiction?
While I’m not quite sure exactly who the correct persons/entities are to be named in such suit, I suppose the protection the US and other western countries get is political. That is, other countries, regardless of politicians’ rhetoric, wants to have solid relations with the US. If such suits against the US (and other industrialized nations) could be successfully prosecuted, US companies would generally start removing assets from jurisdictions that would enforce any judgments from those suits.
Daniel, I do not understand the point you are making.
A good post Perry.
I don’t see any basis for this from the story you are citing. The basis for their suit is a series of laws banning funding to front groups for terrorist organizations. Surely a national government has the right to do this on national security grounds? The only issue is that the character of the law in the US is such that it funnels “charity” money raised in the US to people who might have been these groups’ victims (or are relatives of their victims). It amounts to saying that organizations in the United States can be held liable for donating money to foreign organizations that use it to fund operations which kill American nationals. Sounds … difficult to prove and hard to apply, but not ethically wrong.
The people filing the suit are probably abusing the law. This wouldn’t be the first time that has happened in the United States, nor is this kind of abuse of the law for personal vendettas even remotely an America-only phenomenon.
If it helps any, the case was eventually decided against the plaintiffs by a Federal Court.
Clearly it is not acceptable – which seems to be the thrust of the Federal Court’s ruling.
The way I understand the law this family was (ab?)using, they are not allowed to sue the actual people who killed their relative in Israel – only the front organizations in the US that might have funded them. In other words, the suit doesn’t extend to what foreign nationals on foreign soil do – it only applies to what people on US soil and under US jurisdiction do.
Perry,
I agree with your take; while perhaps the unwashed masses aren’t versed in the particular intricacies of this particular case and issue (which seems to largely be a question of what constitutes proper jurisdiction for application of particular laws), US citizens are hardly “sanguine” about the current state of legal affairs (when the phrase “trial lawyer” conjured up strong anger in focus groups and lawyers were ranked as one of the most despicable professions, the American Trial Lawyers Association changed their name to the amusing American Association for Justice).
Rather, it’s something most of us are rather powerless to stop. Disdain for the legal profession runs very deep. I wonder how many Democrat voters know that the Trial Lawyers are the largest donator to the Democratic party.
Perry, I intended (I guess unsuccessfully) to address your question about what’s to stop people from other countries, say Iraq, from suing people/entities that supported US policies that resulted in civilian casualties.
Although there is perhaps nothing the US and/or private companies/individuals could do to prevent the lawsuit itself, ultimately if these types of lawsuits were a serious threat, those private companies/individuals would start pulling assets out of countries that would enforce any judgment in those types of action. I would imagine most countries would not be willing to lose the benefits US investment has to their economies for the sake of mainly symbolic lawsuits. Therefore, it would seem that most countries would find it in their interests to draft statutes that permit these types of lawsuits in such a way that they target what clearly qualify (as much as anything can) as terrorist organizations and their state sponsors.
Of course, this doesn’t address whether allowing these types of lawsuits is a good idea in the first place.
Surely you jest. Are companies pulling out of the USA because the USA is prone to the extraterritorial exercise of its laws? Also I think you seriously underestimate the transcendent loathing of the USA held by an awful lot of people in an awful lot of countries. People are often far from rational and that includes governments.
I agree these sorts of suits are kind of ridiculous. Bomb if you must, but sue only as a last resort.
Better still, fly over with a B-52 and drop American lawyers on the offending party (no parachutes of course).
The problem is the number of lawyers in congress.
Lawyers should not be allowed to be legislators. It’s a conflict of interest. The people making ther living from the law should not be writing the laws. I’d like to see a constitutional ammendment to this effect – but it will never happen.
The situation is getting slightly better, but we have a long way to go.
reference
reference
As an American fed up with American lawyers all I can say is that Shakespeare was right …
NotALawyer
An excellent suggestion.
Perry,
As I see it, the problem with lawyers (in general) is: they get paid when monies are transfered from one party to another.
Whether it’s ‘ambulance chasers’ or contracts, lawyers look for, or try to create, ‘unique’ theories to be able to stick their proboscis in to these revenue streams.
-mk
It has been bothering me for several years that the relentless accretion of power by the legal profession goes on with little or no serious opposition by other social and cultural elements in our society.
At this point, the government, at all levels, is completely controlled by members of the bar. Most administrative and legislative members of influence, elected or not, are lawyers. The judiciary, of course, is composed of lawyers.
The endless regulatory agencies, commercial entities, for profit and non-profit groups, boards, commissions, and a myriad of other lobbying and activist groups are run by, advised by, or represented by lawyers.
There are, of course, legitimate legal issues that lawyers should be involved in resolving in many areas of our social life. It strikes me as improper, however, to have every question, every decision, every product, every service, every social relationship either dependent on legal approvals and clearances or subject to endless litigation which, by some odd coincidence, always ends up enriching and empowering a group of lawyers far out of proportion to the relief or reward for any other parties to the dispute.
It seems to me to be extemely odd that lawyers should be in charge of medical policy, educational policy, industrial products and processes, military issues, media issues, and international relations.
The answer to every question seems to be to pass a new law, develop some administrative guidelines, or in some way make a legal issue out of any and every conceivable aspect of our social life.
I am not the first to note that this is an unhealthy tendency in our culture, especially in the US. I can find no positive aspect to the idea of a relatively small and incestuous professional guild having such widespread control over, and a powerful influence in areas where it does not have control, so much of the depth and width of our social, cultural, and economic activities, not to mention the overbearing political presence of lawyers in both elected and non-elected positions.
I do not know the answer to resolving this issue, if it is as serious as it seems to have become. The very people and social entities that would have to address it are part and parcel of the problem.
In the final analysis, I’m afraid it is a cancerous form of conflict of interest, in which the makers of the rules, the admistrators of the rules, and the interpreters of the rules are all members of the same restricted guild, answerable to no one, and enriching themselves by a parasitical form of “feeding” off every social transaction we engage in.
We have seen this situation, or analagous ones, develop in societies in the past, and it has a deleterious, stultifying effect on the culture, even as it gives a superficial impression of stability and legality.
When every social or personal issue is subject to a maze of legal maneuvering, and eventually decided based on some obscure legal process that not even the participants can understand any longer, then something precious and vital gets lost in the labrynth.
[…]
Moreover, as the case in Chicago seems to be based on suing people for their political support of Hamas,
No. They are being sued for providing material (financial) support to a terrorist organization.
If these people had confined themselves to political advocacy, the suit would have been dismissed on 1st Amendment grounds. There is a legal difference between saying nice things about group X, and giving money to group X. Saying nice things is protected, giving money is restricted.
if those organisations in the USA are legal,
Hamas was classified as a terrorist organization circa 1995.
is allowing them to be sued for their political views really acceptable?
Is that what is going on here? I was under the impression they were sued because they gave money to a terrorist organization that was responsible for the death of a US citizen.
Would it be regarded as acceptable in the USA for American organisations in some third country with links to the Republican Party or just the US government generally, to be sued by people critical of US foreign policy?
In order for that comparison to be valid, those American organizations would have to be banned in the third country, and it would have to be legal for foreign individuals or groups to donate money to American political parties.
Can the relatives of people killed by US troops in Iraq sue US commercial or political interests in Europe based on their presumed support for US policies?
If there is a law in Europe permitting such a thing, yes. But why would someone bother? I’m fairly sure relatives of people killed by US troops in Iraq can file suit in US courts against the US government, or individual solders directly. You may have heard of the restitution paid to the families of Iraqi civilians killed by accident, that money is a legal settlement.
I understand your point about the US legal system, Perry. One of the drawbacks to having the limits and powers of the branches of government delineated completely, in writing, is that we tend to pursue remedies and strategies as far as humanly possibly within those limits, beyond what the rest of the world might consider “common sense.”
With that said, however, Hamas is clearly defined in the US as an illegal organization. While the lawsuit is certainly a contortion of logic and completely tone-deaf on the international level, it falls juuussst on the right side of absurd because the groups did actually fund Hamas, so you have a criminal defendant in the United States whose crime (in a huge stretch) led to the death of a family member of the plaintiff.
Where the “stretch” gets resolved is in the fact that there was (and still is) a sizable backlash against islamic terrorists and it’s not difficult to imagine a sympathy verdict being rendered to award assets, which have been seized by the government anyway, to the families those funds have been used to harm. Also, as the story notes, the case was framed (presumably in both the media and in court) in terms of drying up Hamas’ funding.
I wouldn’t read too far into this ruling as a precedent that could be used in cases with less, ah, emotionally loaded personalities than financiers for enemy groups and the families of their victims. Not that the lawyers won’t try, of course.
Seems strange to me that folks who fancy themselves libertarians to be bashing lawyers like that. Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and move to a country where they’re not quite as prevalent. A few off the top of my head: Cuba, Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea.
So far as there being a lot of lawyers in government who want to pass a lot of laws, it’s a democratic country, warts and all. The electorate says, “there ought to be a law,” and their elected officials are happy to oblige. There’s a reason why the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul exist at the fringe of the American political landscape.
Perry, a quick rebuttal — the US can get away with having these laws given its economic strength (them who has the gold makes the rules). As a real life example of these laws not being abused in other countries, in France — not necessarily a hotbed of pro-American sentiment — a court threw out a similar type of lawsuit against Don Rumsfeld — not the most admired man in Europe.
A: I’m an American.
B: I just read the post and do not have a great deal of time to ponder it…. but….
This is a great topic (IMO) that deserves a great deal of thought.
Off the top of my head, I think what your not considering is how your arguments track like those of the Euro left and right… they sound exactly like those of the left and old right…. Sorry.
So, my point… is about legitimacy. As a proponent of liberal democracy / the US-ish ‘system’… yes, we can sue over such things… because our understanding of morality and the working of state actors is legitimate… and those that murder us working within such systems… is not… and as such, subject to legal action.
Meaning what? My argument that it is absurd to try and apply US law via a causal chain of political support to events outside the US? Or that using a British court to intimidate a US author is unacceptable? Please explain.
Why?
Meaning what? Legitimate how? In what way does an American understanding of how state actors work give an American court legitimacy to rule on something relating to a politically motivated murder in Israel?
In what way were the murderers of David Biom working within a system that in any way involved American law? Surely the only relevant law is Israeli law.
My whole point is that extending US law to people on a causal link based on political support for something that happened thousands of miles outside the USA is not just bizarre, it is a bad idea.
In apprehending and punishing the murderers, yes.
The lawsuit was filed against charity organizations based in the US* which were funnelling money to organizations that US law forbids them funnelling money to. In that case, the relevant law is surely US law?
*Of course, various articles on this case I read have different versions of the story. The article linked in Perry’s post claims Biom’s killers were named in the suit. The article I linked in my last comment lists only US-based charities and individuals. Obviously if the suit names the killers on the basis of a murder that happened in Israel, it is outside US jurisdiction should have been thrown out. If it only involves charities based in the US, however, I see no legal problem with the suit (though I personally disagree with a policy of giving seized assets to victims’ families).
Actually I agree Joshua. If the killers were not named, I have less problem with that particular suit.
Excerpt from the Play:
Note that the statement was made by a supporter of socialist scum, and that (unlike the supporter statements which Ron Paul is blamed for), CADE actually validates the supporters’ statement with ‘Nay, that I mean to do.’.
Shakespeare could not have agreed with every word uttered by every character in his plays. Please, if you use that statement, attribute it properly, to the character, and attribute the character to the author.
I’m not a lawyer, I just like Shakespeare, and hate to hear him abused.
Leaving aside the international aspects of this subject, law suites are a great way to deal with terrorist organizations that maintain an above ground political front organization. For example, the Ku Klux Klan has been pretty much wiped out by them. Most of the property that once belonged to the United Klans of America, now belongs to Civil Rights organizations. The Klan in Alabama no longer has a headquarters building, real estate, publishing office, newspaper, or anything else as far as I know.
Except that is actually what I am talking about.
Perry, you’re getting there. The American left does believe that very sincerely. You also see it in American society all the time, through trial lawyers reducing ‘oppression’ down to ambulance-chasing lawsuits.
In the nether regions of my brain, I have wondered if a mafia renaissance might not be such a bad thing. There was none of this litigating bullshit before RICO. Now, scions of American families go to become lawyers so that they can play an increasingly arcane “legal system” to their advantage. Litigation in the United States today is much less concerned with securing justice than with mobilizing the leviathan against an enemy private party (IBM’s patent trolling extortion of Sun Microsystems and other innovators, enviros using the court system to make mining investment impossible, women who walk away with most of what the husband earned along with main custody basically because they want to, etc).
I think there would be much less of all that if force were not so monopolized by the state as it is in the United States (and even more so in Europe–even Russia has a broader range of recourse, ie mafias, in the event of breach of contract).
Rich Paul
At the risk of getting into a “watering competition” over the true meaning, Shakespeare’s opinion or applicablity of the Shakespeare reference, I will merely point out that it is the “common perception” that Shakespeare’s character advocates the elimination of lawyers. It is the “common perception” because it fits so neatly with the general (common) perception of lawyers.
Your mileage may vary, Batteries not included, Some assembly required.
Two points:
1.) The whole “international law” concept is an interesting one. Adolf Eichman was tried for murder in Israel, although the Nazis never gassed a single Israeli (or Palestinian at the time) citizen. The U.S. seems to be moving towards the same ethos: if you harm a U.S. citizen anwhere in the world, we’re going to come after you, regardless of where the crime took place. I think we may all be guilty of double standards, here. We’d like to say that all countries have a sovereign right to make their own laws, right up until one of our own is murdered by the police in some African backwater for exposing corruption, or is facing execution for smuggling drugs in some SE Asian country.
2.) As for politics and lawyers in the United States, it’s a sad fact that litigation has run away from us, mostly with the support of the Democrat Party and their major cash provider, trial lawyers. It’s small wonder the Democrat Party loves trial / tort lawyers: both groups survive by creating a class of victims, then enriching them — at the expense of the productive.