Michelle Malkin » Blackwater asks Federal court to judge them under Sharia law

Blackwater asks Federal court to judge them under Sharia law

By see-dubya • June 19, 2008 05:42 PM

Here’s an odd item: a plane crash over Afghanistan in 2004 killed three U.S. soldiers, and their widows are suing military contractor (and perennial moonbat bugaboo) Blackwater. The NTSA says Blackwater’s airline was at fault, but Blackwater’s lawyers have an interesting defense:

The lawsuit “is governed by the law of Afghanistan,” Presidential Airways argued in a Florida federal court. “Afghan law is largely religion-based and evidences a strong concern for ensuring moral responsibility, and deterring violations of obligations within its borders.”

If the judge agrees, it would essentially end the lawsuit over a botched flight supporting the U.S. military. Shari’a law does not hold a company responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their work.

Well, choice-of-law disputes are insanely complex, especially in international cases. And Blackwater’s lawyers are doing their thing, which involves arguing the rules in their clients’ interests in court no matter what the cost to society of the rulings they seek and the precedents they establish.

But this strikes me as more than a bit galling coming from Blackwater, which pushed so hard for immunity from Iraqi jurisdiction as a condition of operating in Iraq. In fact Iraq was pretty angry about the hard-fought exception and threatened to revoke it. But Blackwater (and the US) demanded it in order to do their job and protect their contractors on the ground.

And now that their procedures in Afghanistan have attracted a lawsuit from the families of soldiers they were protecting, it’s an about face:they’re all about the sharia.

I’ve defended contractors against the left’s incessant sniping before, but I can’t really defend begging to submit to sharia like that. Pick a legal system, Blackwater, and stick with it.

_________
{Post by See-Dubya}

Posted in: Afghanistan, Sharia

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (33)

trackbacks (3)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

#1

On June 19th, 2008 at 5:47 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

If they want to be governed by Sharia, does that mean we skip a trial and just behead them right now?

Perhaps they might wish to rethink this.

Respectfully,

eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
http://www.tygrrrrexpress.com
#2

On June 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, Romeo13 said:

I gotta side with Blackwater here.

The reach of the American court is getting ridiculous. This is a lawsuit, which since it happened in Afganistan, should fall under Afgani law.

And even better, why was the NTSB involved in this? Do they have worldwide jurisdiction?
#3

On June 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, Byantine said:

Actually, this could have a good result. If the Florida court throws out the arugment of using Sharia law, then it would be much harder for future litigants with all kinds of lawsuits from getting their way with our law.

However, if the Florida court does apply Sharia, it could possibly lead to bad results. I’m sure the 5 annoited ones on the SC wouldn’t mind extending the ruling to more ludicrous applications. They’ve sure done that recently.
#4

On June 19th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, oldcollegeguy1980 said:

Interesting defense.

I would love to know how the internal deliberations into that decision went. Kind of a fly on the wall for entertainment.
#5

On June 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

Once the lawyers make their recommendation, Blackwater management puts themself at peril if they ignore that recommendation.
#6

On June 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

I’ve defended contractors against the left’s incessant sniping before, but I can’t really defend begging to submit to sharia like that. Pick a legal system, Blackwater, and stick with it.

Asking lawyers to stick to principles? I’m still laughing.
#7

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm, John Ansell said:

I don’t really have an opinion on this one so can somebody tell me what the ACLU feels about that. I’ll take the opposite. thanks.
#8

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm, Byantine said:

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:01 pm, John Ansell said:
I don’t really have an opinion on this one so can somebody tell me what the ACLU feels about that. I’ll take the opposite. thanks.

It’s a tough one here. The ACLU can pick the side of a Big Bad Evil Capitalist Corporation, or the side of widows of American servicemen. Neither seems to be a side the ACLU finds itself on very often.
#9

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

This is another example of how the law is all arts and sciences. It’s all mutable depending on the tact of the pin-striped pirate handling the case. “If the glove don’t fit you must acquit!”
#10

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:12 pm, zorro said:

Having seen other air crash law suits here in the states end with insane judgements, I’ll have to give Blackwater the benefit of the doubt at this time.
#11

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pm, txvet2 said:

BTW, Seedubya, an interesting update for you on the Fox site - on the subject of habeas corpus for detainees at Guantanamo…. and others:

#53) Boumediene v. Bush (decided June 12, 2008)

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the 5-4 opinion in favor of Lakhdar Boumediene and other Guantanamo Bay detainees. In the latest and perhaps most significant War on Terror case before the high court, the narrow majority ruled each of the alleged terrorists held by U.S. forces in Cuba is entitled to challenge their detention in a U.S. courtroom. Justice Kennedy wrote that the detainees “have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus. They are not barred from seeking the writ or invoking the Suspension Clause’s protections because they have been designated as enemy combatants or because of their presence at Guantanamo.”

Chief Justice Roberts penned the main dissent and was troubled by the justification of the majority’s ruling. “One cannot help but think, after surveying the modest practical results of the majority’s ambitious opinion, that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants.”

This is the third time the high court has ruled against the Bush administration and the congressionally-approved methods for adjudicating the now 270 detainees at Guantanamo. Responding from Rome, President Bush said, “We will abide by the court’s decision. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with it. It was a deeply divided court. And I strongly agree with those who dissented.” Within hours of the opinion’s release there were already indications that lawyers working on behalf of the detainees would seek hearings in U.S. courts. Late in the day, the Justice Department release a statement expressing disappointment in the court’s ruling and that it remained under review. However, “Boumediene involved a challenge to the procedures that Congress and the Executive have established to permit enemy combatants at Guantanamo to challenge their detention during ongoing hostilities. Those enemy combatants who have been charged by a military commission with war crimes are afforded numerous additional protections in connection with those trials. Military commission trials will therefore continue to go forward.”

#52) Munaf v. Geren (decided June 12, 2008)

Chief Justice Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion of the court against two American citizens held in Iraqi prisons. The two, Shawqi Omar and Mohammad Munaf, are believed to have been part of insurgent efforts in Iraq against the coalition forces. Accordingly, they have been held in Iraq and processed through those courts. But to this point their detention has been in American-run prisons and each fears transfer into outright Iraqi custody. To pre-empt such a move, the two men appealed to United States courts for consideration. The high court ruled that while the habeas corpus protection does extend to American citizens held overseas by American troops, it does not apply under these circumstances to these two individuals.

Interesting that these two decisions came back-to-back.
#12

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:24 pm, Laree said:

MTP update predictable. No news here.

http://imustruth.typepad.com/index/2008/06/rip-mtp.html
#13

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pm, terrig said:

Hmmh, this is somewhat heartbreaking. I am not a fan of Blackwater though.
#14

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:28 pm, brooklyn red said:

Sharia law in a US court? No. We have our own laws thank you…

OK, well maybe in divorce court
#15

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm, et said:

I support Blackwater in this one. What their attorneys are saying in essence is that the American court system has so degraded that their clients have a better chance of fair treatment in a third world court system.
#16

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:50 pm, John Ansell said:

brooklyn red Gets divorce
brooklyn red Gets divorce
brooklyn red Gets divorce

There Brookly, you’re freed.
#17

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm, nyc123me said:

It’s beating the moonbats at their own game, gotta admire the balls.
#18

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:55 pm, nyc123me said:

As mentioned above, if American justice is going to be applied to Guantanamo Bay detainees, then I see no reason why Afghani law should not be applied to Blackwater. It’s just playing the dhimmis at their own game, and they wont like it.
#19

On June 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pm, right_on said:

If our court systems all played by the same rules and interpretations, I would agree, Michelle. But, in my opinion, they do not.

How can anyone defend or prosecute a case when the law is left up to the interpretation of one judge?

And suing the government in the time of war??? Families not seeking justice, nor closure…but compensation. It’s always about the money. NO?
#20

On June 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pm, Speakup said:

A version of the soldiers and sailors act, for mercenaries.
#21

On June 19th, 2008 at 7:28 pm, spo-con said:

Are you sure John Edwards isn’t running that show ?
#22

On June 19th, 2008 at 7:48 pm, diaphanous said:

ET, have your head examined.

While our justice isn’t perfect, it sure is a far cry better than any other system. Perhaps sharia doesn’t also allow facts to come out in discovery which seems to stop a lot of lawsuits. Perhaps blackwater was at fault?

I say use our courts. Any inch we give sharia to take a foothold, it will take 10 feet more.
#23

On June 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pm, Christian Soldier said:

NTSA does it mean National Transit Safety Admistration? I’ll look it up on Google search.

I’ll be back!!!
#24

On June 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Christian Soldier said:

OK National Training an Simulation Association: Cool! NTSA….

I agree w/ # 2 …..

This lawsuit society is out of hand!!!!!

Those that know me –know that I side w/ my troops and their families—but!

I’m tired of lawyers and courts SUPREME AND OTHERWISE running the show!!!
#25

On June 19th, 2008 at 8:37 pm, Die Hippie, Die said:

On June 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pm, Christian Soldier said:

You forgot to add “LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE! LOTE!”

Are you feeling well?
#26

On June 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pm, les said:

nyc123me #17 “…then I see no reason why Afghani law should not be applied to Blackwater. It’s just playing the dhimmis at their own game, and they wont like it.”

nyc123me, are you calling the 3 widows of the dead soldiers dhimmis. What happened to supporting our troops? Does your support stop when they died so you can enjoy your freedom?
#27

On June 19th, 2008 at 9:02 pm, Christian Soldier said:

# 24 DHDie… OKKKKKK

I’ve had two Margaritas (sp) at my favorite place soooo I’ve Mellowed ….

and I “right bedder”
#28

On June 19th, 2008 at 9:02 pm, Christian Soldier said:

LOTE>>>>ANY ONE!!!!?????>>>>>
#29

On June 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pm, nyc123me said:

les don’t be an idiot.

Then again, you only have to look as far as Cindy Sheehan.

BTW, how does my supporting NOT suing the troops and civilian support in a war zone NOT equal supporting them in your book? Please explain. Or in your book you support the troops by suing them? This is like suing the manufacturers of bullets for killing US soldiers.
Oh wait, I probably just gave their lawyers another idea..

The wives might be in it out of anger and grief, but the lawyers who instigate it are in it for the money. You wanna throw a hissyfit? there’s you target, not me.
#30

On June 19th, 2008 at 11:34 pm, nbarry said:

Ah, the legal principle of jurisdiction, namely, who’s law applies? It seems so elementary until you realize that we fought a civil war over it. Since I am not a lawyer, I leave it to the pros to decide this issue with respect to Blackwater.
#31

On June 20th, 2008 at 4:57 am, Jet Jaguar said:

Lesser Of Two Evils?
#32

On June 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am, les said:

nyc123me #29

BTW, how does my supporting NOT suing the troops and civilian support in a war zone NOT equal supporting them in your book? Please explain. Or in your book you support the troops by suing them?

I am not advocating suing the troops. It is not the troops or the US government being sued, it is a private contractor. If they are liable in the death of the three soldiers, why should they not be held to US standards. It is US taxpayer money afterall paying the contractors, right.
#33

On June 20th, 2008 at 5:42 pm, purplepeep said:

I’d avoid throwing myself into a system of “law” where just showing up dressed wrong could get you beheaded.

Sharia “court” to Blackwater lawyers:
“The design on your neckties are clearly mocking the name of Allah (a fave regional desert moon deity)! You must die for this blasphemy!!!”

“Unintended consequences”, as the buzz phrase goes.