# Blackwater demands U.S. court apply Shari'a law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513 "2008-06-19T20:21:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/1 "2008-06-19T20:21:30Z")
No, really. Story [here:](http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1112843.html) > [@](#): > > RALEIGH - To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Shari’a. > > 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. > > Erik Prince, who owns Blackwater and Presidential Airways, briefly discussed the lawsuit in a meeting today with editors and reporters at The News & Observer. Prince was asked to justify having a case involving an American company working for the U.S. government decided by Afghan law. > > “Where did the crash occur?” Prince said. “Afghanistan.” > > Joseph Schmitz, Prince’s general counsel, said Presidential Airways was asking the federal judge to follow past U.S. cases where courts have applied another country’s laws to resolve damages that occurred overseas. So there is some precedent for applying **foreign** law – but might there not be some constitutional, First Amendment objection to applying what is essentially **religious** law in a civil suit in the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/2 "2008-06-19T20:26:38Z")
Why don’t they just move the suit to an _Afghan_ court? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/3 "2008-06-19T20:37:07Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] Why don’t they just move the suit to an _Afghan_ court? 😕 [/QUOTE] They probably don’t have the extensive judge-buying program in place there that they do here… ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/4 "2008-06-19T20:40:25Z")
Uh, the company isn’t bringing the suit. The widows are. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/5 "2008-06-19T20:43:30Z")
asks ≠ demands, **BG**. That aside, if the precedent is to use the laws of the country where the crash occurred, I don’t see what the big deal is. Most countries don’t have such a strict separation of church and state as is found in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/6 "2008-06-19T20:48:25Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] No, really. Story [here:](http://www.newsobserver.com/front/story/1112843.html) So there is some precedent for applying **foreign** law – but might there not be some constitutional, First Amendment objection to applying what is essentially **religious** law in a civil suit in the U.S.? [/QUOTE] What if the country’s law is religiously based? Consider two countries. One uses a variant of Napoleonic civil law; the second uses rabbinical courts and Talmudic law. Now consider a set of facts that would permit a case filed in US federal court to be removed to the civil law country - which you acknowledge above has precedent. Are you suggesting that the identical set of facts would not permit removal to the rabbinical courts and Talmudic law country? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/7 "2008-06-19T20:53:39Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] They probably don’t have the extensive judge-buying program in place there that they do here… [/QUOTE] Really? I’d kind of assume that Afghanistan would be the bargain bin of judicial shopping. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/8 "2008-06-19T21:34:11Z")
Are these the same guys who think it’s a terrible idea to have the actions of their employees in Iraq be judged by Iraqi law? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/9 "2008-06-19T21:50:49Z")
In this case, the defendant wants Afghan law to apply because it doesn’t recognize vicarious liability. That means that the airline isn’t liable for its employees’ negligence. While the legal doctrine might be based on religious doctrine, it’s difficult to see this as a First Amendment case. The parties agree that the Restatement of Law, Second, Conflict of Laws applies to the dispute, and they are arguing about technical distinctions among the various rules and comments in that work. There’s nothing morally abhorrent about choosing one liablity rule over another. Is there an escape hatch in cases where the presumptively applicable law offends the public policies of the forum? Sure. Does it apply here? Nobody is making that argument, and I doubt there’d be much to it if they did. It’s pretty unpersuasive to argue something like that based only on the idea that another set of laws is more advantageous to your client. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/10 "2008-06-19T22:21:41Z")
In English, please? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![duality72](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duality72/32/3910_2.png) [@duality72](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duality72)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/11 "2008-06-19T22:25:49Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Are these the same guys who think it’s a terrible idea to have the actions of their employees in Iraq be judged by Iraqi law? :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] To be fair, I don’t think they want their actions in Iraq judged by Iraqi or American law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/12 "2008-06-19T22:40:24Z")
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove] In English, please? ☹ [/QUOTE] There’s an extra charge for that. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/13 "2008-06-19T22:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Really? I’d kind of assume that Afghanistan would be the bargain bin of judicial shopping. [/QUOTE] I was being facetious, obviously. It’s the widows who brought the suit in the first place, thus why Blackwater had no say in the venue. That’s more or less what they’re arguing now. They want shari’a law because, as **Gfactor** noted, there is no vicarious liability, which means they wouldn’t be liable for what happened to people in their employees’ care at the time of the deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/14 "2008-06-19T23:04:10Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] In this case, the defendant wants Afghan law to apply because it doesn’t recognize vicarious liability. [/QUOTE] U.S. law makes an employer liable for damages caused by an employee’s negligence, at least under some circumstances. Shari’a law does not. Which is why I said: > [@](#): > > That means that the airline isn’t liable for its employees’ negligence. > [@](#): > > While the legal doctrine might be based on religious doctrine, it’s difficult to see this as a First Amendment case. Courts choose which law to apply based on certain rules. The fact that the rules indicate that the laws of a jurisdiction apply does not mean the court is establishing a religion (which offends the First Amendment), even if the chosen law is based on a religion. > [@](#): > > The parties agree that the Restatement of Law, Second, Conflict of Laws There are several sets of choice of law rules out there. The Restatement (Second) is one of them. Cases say that the Restatement (Second) is the correct set of rules to apply to the choice of law problem in this case. The parties do not dispute this. > [@](#): > > applies to the dispute, and they are arguing about technical distinctions among the various rules and comments in that work. Instead the parties are arguing about which rule applies–the one on torts, generally, or the one on vicarious liablity. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing morally abhorrent about choosing one liablity rule over another. Vicarious liablity rules are just that–rules. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with a rule that says employers aren’t liable for their employees’ negligence. You could make a case that the smarter policy favors vicarious liability, but few choice of law rules are based on choosing the better rule of law. > [@](#): > > Is there an escape hatch in cases where the presumptively applicable law offends the public policies of the forum? Sure. There are rules about when courts may refuse to apply the laws of another jurisdiction, but they typically don’t hinge on whether the judge thinks the other jurisdiction’s law is dumb or backwards. A stronger showing must usually be made. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/15 "2008-06-19T23:16:20Z")
> [@](#): > > There are several sets of choice of law rules out there. The Restatement (Second) is one of them. Cases say that the Restatement (Second) is the correct set of rules to apply to the choice of law problem in this case. \*\*The parties do not dispute this. Instead the parties are arguing about which rule applies–the one on torts, generally, or the one on vicarious liablity. \*\* This is the part I was confused about - it is not mentioned in the original article. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/16 "2008-06-19T23:18:39Z")
[QUOTE=Throatwarbler Mangrove] This is the part I was confused about - it is not mentioned in the original article. [/QUOTE] I looked up the briefs. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/17 "2008-06-19T23:27:39Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] I looked up the briefs. 😃 [/QUOTE] I’m pretty sure that’s illegal in both shari’a law and US law…without the wearer’s permission, at least. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/18 "2008-06-19T23:31:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Instead the parties are arguing about which rule applies–the one on torts, generally, or the one on vicarious liablity. Could you explain what the rules are for each, respectively? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/19 "2008-06-20T00:10:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Section 175 of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws provides that, “\*n an action for wrongful death, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship under the principles stated in § 6 to the occurrence and the parties, in which event the local law of the other state will be applied.” Restat 2d of Conflict of Laws, § 175. [Motion to Dismiss at 5](http://www.gfactorconsulting.com/Downloads/145-1.pdf) > [@](#): > > Section 174 states that “[t]he law selected by application of the rule of § 145 determines whether one person is liable for the tort of another person.” [Memo in Opp. at 6](http://www.gfactorconsulting.com/Downloads/145-4.pdf) > [@](#): > > Section 145(1) states that the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to an issue in tort are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in section 6 of the Restatement. Id. at § 145(1). Section 145(2) of the Restatement identifies the contacts that the Court should consider in applying the section 6 principles to determine the law applicable to the relevant issue. Id. at § 145(2). Those contacts include: 1) the place where the injury occurred; 2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; 3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; and 4) the place where the relationship between the parties is centered. Id. at § 145(2). These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue. Id. at § 145(2). Id. at 8-9. ---
**Author:** ![Shamozzle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shamozzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shamozzle)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513/20 "2008-06-20T00:59:18Z")
It’s amusing that Blackwater and friends are in Afghanistan as an extension of the US military which itself is there to assert “Western Kick-ass-ification” which, ostensibly, includes implementing democracy and thus secularism. And Blackwater is cool with that it, it seems, until it’s inconvenient. Then, Sharia Law is the higher order. Or am I totally off base on that? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blackwater-demands-u-s-court-apply-sharia-law/453513.md?page=2)