For the 40th or 50th time, december, the possibility that something may be a fact is not sufficient basis to report something as fact.
I mean, really, what the hell were you thinking? You find an article that alleges there is direct and physical evidence that Arafat is directly involved in suicide bombings. It is on an obscure web site that no one has ever heard of. The story is not reported by any mainstream news organization.
When do your critical reasoning faculties kick in? Why don’t you analyze what you read? I mean, c’mon, suicide bombs being discovered in Arafat’s compound would be the biggest news story of the day. Hell, it’s damn close to being a “We interrupt regular programming for a Special Report” kind of story. It would change everything in Israel/Palestine. But no one, expect for this one web site, is reporting it.
But, you say, “it may well be correct.” Given the facts, anyone with an IQ higher than a doorknob would know that “it almost certainly isn’t correct.”
And you want to know why I’m calm? Because I’ve spent my whole life hearing people like you screaming “the sky is falling, the sky is falling.” And the sky is still up there, last I checked.
You want your opinions and beliefs about Arafat to be taken seriously? I suggest that you aim for credibility. Think about whether what you read is accurate before you mindlessly pass it on to this Board as fact. If you engage your brain and filter out what is obviously incorrect, then perhaps, just perhaps, we will take seriously the (greatly reduced amount of) information you do post here.
Yes, here’s a question. It is my understanding that US courts have awarded large judgements (never collected) against governments of Libya and Iran for their involvement in sponsoring various acts of terrorism. How just this jibe with your claim that nations have “sovereign immunity”?
(Should you dispute or question my facts, I will look it up for you - I believe the cases are well known).
What famous nuance where such is usually so blatantly lacking; december quotes the European press. I commend this, I truly do, it’s a step in some direction at least.
Well, well I’m glad that you’ve finally discovered that there is a pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian enclave over here as well. However, I sadly note that your source is yet another political debate article.
It doesn’t document anything december. It argues something. Will you for the sake of the powers that there might be in some heaven desist and at some point understand the difference between ‘opinion’ and ‘accepted fact’.
I will not argue whether Arafat is a terrorist or not based on opinions by the political commentators in the German press any more than I will based on the opinions of political commentators in any other fucking press on this goddamned globe. Nor will I argue this OP on that base.
And for that matter, what the hell does this have to do with your previous ‘cite’ that alleges bombs to have been found in the Ramallah HQ? Or were you trying to get back to the topic of the thread by showing that two of the German press’ more controversial and speculative journalists agree with you?
No need to provide cites; those cases are indeed well known. The answer is simple - sovereign immunity is not automatic; like every defense, it must be asserted. And in the Iran/Libya cases, those countries did not deign to defend against the lawsuits, asserting (quite possibly correctly) that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction over them. So the plaintiffs “won” default judgments.
Where sovereign immunity comes into play is in the fact that the judgments haven’t been collected. Libya and Iran have assets in the U.S. that would cover at least some of the judgments, and a lot of those assets have been “frozen” by the US government for one reason or another. The plaintiffs have demanded that the U.S. seize those assets to pay the judgments. And the U.S. has refused, saying that doing so would violate sovereign immunity (particularly, it would set a really, really bad precedent - countries could then see fit to seize U.S. government assets abroad with impunity).
The really bizarre result is that the U.S. taxpayer, through the government is paying those judgments. In theory, the US will be compensated once relations with those nations normalize. And I have a bridge I’d like to sell to you.
OK, but this would mean that the Israeli trial of the EU could be about as legitimate as the US trials of these countries. (Not that I think the EU is as complicit in terrorism as Iran and Lybia, obviously - I’m speaking purely in a legal context). I had received the impression from posters to this thread that this lawsuit was uniquely frivolous.
The Libya/Iran cases and this case really aren’t comparable.
United States’ tort law allows for extraterritorial reach. Under various and sundry conditions, the U.S. asserts it has jurisdiction over injurious acts that occurred wholly overseas. Thus, Libya could be sued for an event that occurred in Lockerbie, Scotland, etc.
The rest of the world thinks this is nuts - that jurisdiction reaches only as far as the territory of the country. That was the reason Libya and Iran didn’t even bother to go to court and assert sovereign immunity - their position was that they shouldn’t even be before the US court in the first place.
In the Israeli case, it would appear that jurisdiction (at least over the cause of action itself, if not the parties) isn’t really at issue.
But anyway, the case is frivolous, though (unfortunately) not uniquely so.
Besides the sovereign immunity issue, there is the issue of causation, which raises lots of problems. First, money is fungible - how does one demonstrate that the money provided by the EU was the same money spent buying the explosives, or what have you? Second, how can you demonstrate “but for” causation - that but for the EU money, the attacks wouldn’t have occurred? Third, there is an issue of duty - we don’t impose on parties that provide monies to others an affirmative obligation to uncover what the money is being used for. If Tim McVeigh took out a second mortgage to get the money together to buy the fertilizer and diesel, we don’t go after the bank.
You can’t provide money when it is obvious that the money will be used illegally, but that doesn’t apply here - it took an armed assault by the IDF to uncover what is purported to be evidence that EU money went to terrorism (“purported” is not judgmental here - I simply don’t know enough about what was uncovered to form an opinion)
So, combine the fact that it is highly likely the EU won’t let the case proceed with the fact that causation is pretty much impossible to prove here, and you have a damned frivolous case.
You may be right about tort law. But I know a Spanish judge was considered to have jurisdiction over Pinochet. And Ariel Sharon is in a bit of hot water with the Belgian courts. So again, it may be that there is a distinction between torts and criminal issues, but it seems like something of a fine line to me.
You may be right. But this is merely your own assessment - not having seen the evidence - of what is likely to be the outcome. I would think these are issues that would have to be decided at the trial. The lawyers for the plaintiff may face an uphill battle - I don’t know what their evidence will be. But the legal standing of the case, before sovereign immunity is invoked, is valid.
IzzyR, every case filed is “valid” - you can file suit against anyone for anything. (aside - my personal favorite - a man in Buffalo filed suit against Satan for basically causing all the bad things that had happened to the man in his life. The judge dismissed the case, on the grounds that, because Hell was not located in the Western District of New York, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Satan. The judge may have been wrong. :p)
But it’s not merely my own assessment - except to the extent that I am applying US legal principals to an Israeli court.
On a motion to dismiss in federal court, the grounds for dismissal are, assuming that all the factual allegations made by the plaintiff are true (no evidence need be provided by the plaintiff at this stage), there is no legal theory under which relief may be granted. And that’s the case here. Under any view of the facts of the case, there is an intervening cause - Arafat diverted (if such diversion occurred) the funds from the purposes for which they were intended by the EU, and the EU was not on affirmative notice before the money was transferred that such diversion would occur.
In a U.S. court, at least, the case gets dismissed right there.
Clarify please. I had assumed - and your previous posts seemed to acknowledge - that if the EU knew, or should have known (IOW deliberately looked the other way) that their money was being used to sponsor terrorism, that they could be found liable. Is this not the case? If it is, then it is a question of what evidence can be mustered on this score, as is every other trial. You now seem to be suggesting that this trial seeks to break new legal ground by holding the EU responsible for circumstances that they had no control over (or knowledge of). I am unsure if you are indeed asserting this, and, if you are, what basis you have for this assertion.
It is, quite literally, impossible to prove two things, both of which are independently sufficient to knock the case out. First, that is was the EU’s money that (for example) paid for the explosives, paid for the bus fare into Israel, or paid for whatever element of the act that injured the plaintiffs. Money is fungible - if you have $400,000 in an account that came from five different sources, you cannot demonstrate that any particular part of that account came from one source or another. Even if there is evidence that Arafat transferred $100,000 to the Al-Aqsa* Martyr’s Brigades, was it that $100,000 that paid for the attack? Because Al-Aqsa has other sources of income. Second, even if it were somehow possible to prove that it was the EU’s money that paid for the bomb, etc., it is literally impossible to prove that, had the EU cut off funding, Al-Aqsa would not have been able to pull off the attacks. Suicide bombings cost very little, and as long as Al-Aqsa had sufficient funds to cover those minimal costs from other sources (which I will assume they had), then the EU did not cause the injury to the plaintiffs - the injury would have occurred even if no EU money was ever given to Arafat or anyone else.
Sua
I love transliteration - no one can say I’m misspelling things.
So you’re saying that even if the EU gave money to build up the PA, which in turn committed terrorist acts, that the EU would not be responsible if you could not prove the negative, i.e. that the bombings could not have happened without EU funding. By extension, it would seem that if someone decided to arm and otherwise build up the local street gang they could not be held responsible for the gang’s actions unless it could be proved that the gang would not have committed the actions without the help. You’re the lawyer, but it would seem to me that the tort system does not work this way. (Consider, for example, the suits against the gun companies).
I would also question whether the abovementioned suits against Iran & Lybia would survive your standards.
Actually, it does work that way. Consider that the one successful case against gun manufacturers was not based upon contributory negligence or the like. Instead, that case was based upon a “design defect” products liability claim - which imposes strict liability. The gun manufacturer in question was not deemed responsible for the act of the perpetrator who pulled the trigger. Instead, they were held liable because a gun, as designed, is a dangerous instrumentality.
As for the local street gang comparison, it isn’t analogous. First, building up a street gang would impose criminal liability - conspiracy, RICO and the like. Second, unlike a criminal gang, the PA has (putatively) legal and internationally recognized functions. If you give to the Crips, you are on notice. If you give to the International Committee of the Red Cross, you aren’t on notice, even if the ICRC applies the funds you donate to illegal activities.
I had thought they were sued for marketing their guns in such a manner that encouraged gun-running. And that this aspect of the suit was upheld. But I might be mistaken.
Yes, because the ICRC is not known to be a supporter of terrorist activities. If the ICRC has a terrorist wing in addition to their humanitarian activities, they would be in an analogous situation. I would observe, in this regard, that Hamas has an extensive network of social services. And I would imagine that if Al-Qaeda goes into the social services business their status will not change much either.
And neither was the PA - definitely not at the time the EU (and the UN, and the US) started funding them, and arguably not even now. Israel believes it has conclusive evidence that the PA is involved in terrorism, but it appears that no one else believes the evidence to be dispositive.
I would also observe that the EU didn’t give money to Hamas. Had the money gone to Hamas, then the plaintiffs would have a much stronger case - though they would still have trouble meeting their evidentiary burden of proof.
I’m not sure if it “appears that no one else believes the evidence to be dispositive.” There are political ramifications to what one chose to “believe” about this issue, so it’s hard to judge how strong the evidence was/is based what various interested parties are claiming to “believe”. But the courts can decide on this.
My point about Hamas was not that the EU was giving them money - I was citing them as an example of an organization that has non-terrorist functions but remains a terrorist organization.
IzzyR:So you’re saying that even if the EU gave money to build up the PA, which in turn committed terrorist acts, that the EU would not be responsible if you could not prove the negative, i.e. that the bombings could not have happened without EU funding.
Let us devoutly hope not, at any rate: because otherwise, where would that leave us in the US if oppressed citizens of, say, Indonesia or Colombia or El Salvador or Pakistan decided to sue our government for donating money to repressive regimes that used it to terrorize them? If it’s actionable to provide money for legitimate purposes that gets secretly diverted to terrorism by corrupt or dishonest recipients, then we’re all gonna be in deep trouble, not just the EU.
No, I think it is out of line. The analogy with the cases against the Libyan and other governments would be a case against the Palestinian Authority - a suit against a government alleged to be engaged in, or sponsoring, terrorism. This is a suit against a donor to a government alleged to be engaged in, or sponsoring, terrorism.
In terms of how strong the evidence is that the Palestinian Authority was so engaged, the crucial issue is of course the evidence which was available when the EU made the donations complained of. The EU cannot be condemned for being unaware of something of which there was no evidence at the time. Hence any evidence uncovered in the recent action in Ramallah is not going to be relevant.
Incidentally, has any evidence been published? I ask this not to make a point, but as a genuine enquiry. The only thing I’ve seen is an allegation by the Israeli government that the Palestinian Authority was sponsoring terrorism, and obviously rather more would be required if the case were to have any chance of getting very far.
