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:
A Utah soldier blinded in one eye during a firefight in Afghanistan that killed his comrade has won a default judgment against a father accused of training his young son to be a terrorist.
Sgt. Layne Morris, of West Jordan, and the family of Army medic Christopher Speer, killed in the 2002 gunbattle, have been awarded triple damages of $102.6 million.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said in his ruling that the lawsuit may be the first filed by an American soldier under the anti-terrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act. While GIs serving abroad likely cannot identify their attackers, causing problems in future terrorist cases, that stumbling block “poses no barrier” in this case, said Cassell.
Morris, who served with the 19th Special Forces, cited news reports - including interviews with his attacker’s immediate family - indicating that Omar Khadr, then 15, had wounded him and killed Speer. Similar evidence also showed that the boy’s father, Ahmad Sa’id Khadr, was bagman to the terrorist organization al-Qaida and trained his son to attack American targets.
(Dawn House, “GI injured in Afghan war wins lawsuit”, Salt Lake Tribune, Feb 18)
Related posts
In crime and punishment; Utah
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.