Soldier wins judgement against Al Qaida financier

By extending civil liability to acts of terrorism overseas, the Patriot Act has unleashed a new weapon of mass destruction at Al Qaida: The Plaintiff’s Bar. Last Friday, they achieved their first victory. (Dawn House, “GI injured in Afghan war wins lawsuit”, Salt Lake Tribune, Feb 18)

4 Comments

  • How long until the PB starts taking cases naming our soldiers as defendents?

  • “How long until the PB starts taking cases naming our soldiers as defendents?”

    They started that YEARS ago. MANY years ago.

    And actually, it isn’t quite analogous anyway – our soldiers are uniformed combatants acting as designated agents of the United States. As long as they are following lawful orders (meaning orders lawfully given, not necessarily orders that aren’t illegal), any lawsuits SHOULD be against the USA, not the soldier.

    By contrast, the people in question aren’t agents of any government and as such, as personally liable for their actions.

    Whether or not it’s a good idea to try to drag them to court is a different discussion (and a good one), I’m just pointing out that your analogy doesn’t hold.

  • I disagree that the situations aren’t analogous.

    What constitutes a “lawful combatant” has changed in recent years.

    in the past a partisan (regardless of which side ho opposes) wasn’t considered a criminal by the US – he was a citizen/soldier. We’ve supported many of these groups over the years – like the Afghani mujhadeen. Today those we called freedom fighters in the past would be criminals.

    An Amercian soldier isn’t shielded from suits filed in other jurisdictions – jurisdictions that may have a different definition of what it is and is not lawful to do in combat.

    I think what I’m trying to say is that who is and is not “allowed” to give orders is very much vulnerable to different interpretations. Even the US doesn’t have the same policy on that today as the did when I joined a decade and a half ago.

  • “What constitutes a “lawful combatant” has changed in recent years.”

    “Even the US doesn’t have the same policy on that today as the did when I joined a decade and a half ago.”

    No it hasn’t, and yes, it does.

    This is based on definitions in the Geneva Conventions, and it hasn’t changed in my lifetime (or your, unless you are quite old).

    LOCALS who engage in combat are given far wider berth to fight (as they are, ostensibly, defending their homes), and we have indeed supported such groups (and even “unlawful” groups, actually).

    Other than locals, a group must wear “uniforms”, broadly defined as clothing that is recognizable and identifiable on the battlefield as belonging to their unit. They must also have a proper chain of command, so that when there is a ceasefire agreed to at the top, they are bound to it, etc.

    Amereican soldiers acting under lawful orders are indeed shielded in other jurisdictions, given that such jurisdictions are party to the Geneva conventions. Some countries have chosen not to honor that.