Are you asking for precedent in which Americans sued a terrorist organization for a tort committed on American soil? I doubt very seriously any such thing has ever happened before. But, without being a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, something I’ve always thought was the strength of our court system is that they can handle cases even when it is the first case of its kind. This make sense, if our courts lacked the ability to adequately rule on cases in which the particulars are wholly new, then creates a chicken and an egg problem since all particulars have their “first case” at some point in history and the courts have to be able to get past that for the body of precedent to be established.
Again, without being a lawyer or a constitutional scholar my understanding of the role of a judge in a case in which the particulars are wholly new and for which there is not any strongly associated precedent is to basically analyze the specifics of the case and make a decision based on what statutes and precedents are already there. Meaning it would be the judge’s job to decide if al-Qaeda for purposes of committing torts on American soil would or should be dealt with similar to say, a multinational corporation committing a tort on American soil or say, a sovereign government, or something else entirely. It is precisely the job of our judges to analyze wholly new things and then make decisions.
If this case had actually been contested maybe it would have eventually reached the SCOTUS and they could have given definitive guidance, but that didn’t happen.
You want me to believe that terrorism against the US is some kind of a new phenomenon and we don’t know how to handle it so we allow our judges to make up shit as we go along? Riiiiiight… :rolleyes:
Even the KKK got sued in a civil suit and lost a million dollar judgment (post 911 though). Of course, the exception is that they are “basically at home” in the US, and furthermore have the ACLU defending their first amendment rights.
Al Qaeda however… We have spent thousands of lives and +$1 trillion attempting to utterly wipe them off the face of the earth. It seems to me a huge insult to all the people who sacrificed their lives and to our nation to bring Al Qaeda legitimacy by allowing them the privilege of being sued in a court of law.
Anyway, I must insist on a simple q&a: can a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda be lawfully sued in a tort case? Yes or no. Cite the law.
Second. Can Iran be lawfully be sued in this instance, and why doesn’t the FSIA take precedent in this instance? Cite your case.
I really don’t understand what you’re getting at by asserting that Al Quaeda is being granted “legitimacy” by being sued. The United Klans of America were shut down by the SPLC via a lawsuit; I don’t think anyone much cared about whether the suits granted them legitimacy.
(1) Yes. There’s no directly applicable law to cite because nobody has tried suing a foreign terrorist group in a US court for actions which occurred in US soil (because there has only been one other successful attack). The victims of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing sued the New York Port Authority instead of the terrorists.
However, it’s pretty clear that this situation fits quite nicely into the established requirements for specific jurisdiction over a foreign entity.
(2) Anyone can “lawfully” be sued in any instance. Is Iran liable? Well, yes, because they didn’t bother to defend themselves. I don’t think there’s a great deal of doubt regarding whether Iran would enjoy sovereign immunity if they asserted it. However, if they don’t bother to show up and say so, it’s not the court’s fault.
Does some kind of physical notice or summons get delivered to the Iranian Embassy in D.C.?
I assume the guard at the gate isn’t high enough in the food chain. Or is he? Can the courier drop off the notice/summons to the gate guard, or anybody physically on the grounds of the consulate/embassy, and be considered duly delivered?
Don’t know, really. Because sovereign entities don’t get sued, there’s probably not much case law on the subject. There isn’t an Iranian embassy in DC, though. I’d guess they served the Iranian ambassador to the UN or one of his attaches.
And you consider that a victory.
For instance you ask for precedent… in a case that can serve as ample precedent for what you’re demanding. You claim that suing someone for doing harm in your country grants them “legitimacy”. You claim that terrorism against the US must be “some kind of new phenomena” and that we “don’t know how to handle it” or that the judge “just made shit up as he went along” rather than finally grokking what people have been pointing out to you over and over and over again, which is that if you do some damage in the United States, you can be taken to court over it even if you’re not based in the US.
You’re not looking for the facts or the logic here, just trying to argue against them. For what reason? That’s your own issue.
Ah well, eh?