Posted on 06/18/2008 10:03:27 PM PDT by kms61
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.
The crash of Blackwater Flight 61 occurred in the rugged mountains of central Afghanistan in 2004, killing three soldiers and the three-man crew.
The widows of the soldiers sued Presidential Airways, Blackwater’s sister company, which was under contract with the U.S. military to fly cargo and personnel around Afghanistan.
Presidential Airways argued that the lawsuit must be dismissed; legal doctrine holds that soldiers cannot sue the government, and the company was acting as an agent of the government.
Last year, a series of federal judges dismissed that argument.
In April, Presidential asked a federal judge in Florida to dismiss the lawsuit because the case is controlled by Afghanistan’s Islamic law. If the judge agrees that Afghan law applies, the lawsuit would be dismissed. The company also plans to ask a judge to dismiss the lawsuit on the constitutional grounds that a court should not interfere in military decision-making.
The National Transportation Safety Board has blamed the crash on Presidential for its “failure to require its flight crews to file and fly a defined route,” and for not providing oversight to make sure its crews followed company policies and Pentagon and FAA safety regulations.
joseph.neff@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-4516
File you route plans and always stick to them, then the enemy will have a better chance of targeting your flights.
I’m not making any judgement on the facts of the case, but it struck me as odd in the extreme that the defendant is claiming Sharia jurisdiction. I imagine it would rub a lot of people the wrong way.
They’ll regret this when they lose their immunity in Iraq (as has been signalled) and wind up getting tried forcases which have a death penalty....and Shari’a is used.
“A woman came to Abdul Aziz one day demanding the death sentence on the killer of her husband.
‘How did your husband die?’ asked Abdul Aziz, who used to sit every day in his palace or tents to hear the cases that his people brought to him.
‘This man was picking dates in a palm tree when he fell down on my husband below,’ said the woman, ‘and now I come before you a widow.’
‘Did this man fall down with malice?’ asked Abdul Aziz. ‘Did he know your husband? Was it his intention, you believe, to break your husband’s neck?’
‘I know not who he is nor why he fell,’ replied the widow, ‘But I do know that thanks to him I am now alone in the world and my children are fatherless. I demand my blood price.’
This was, by law, the widow’s right, and Abdul Aziz could not deny it her. So he asked her in what form she would like to take her compensation.
‘His head,’ she said at once, ‘A life for a life. I will accept no less.’
Abdul Aziz remonstrated with the woman. What good was that man’s death to her — or to her children? She needed money, and she would receive it, for even though the man clearly fell from the palm tree by accident, he was still bound to pay her husband’s blood price.
But the woman would not be dissuaded from vengeance, and so Abdul Aziz spoke again.
‘It is your right to take compensation, and it is your right to ask for this man’s life.
‘But it is my right, by God, to decide in what fashion he must die. And so now hear me well. You may take this man outside with you instantly and he shall be tied to the foot of a palm tree. Then you yourself shall climb to the top of that palm tree and drop down upon him from on high. Thus you may take his life as he took your husband’s, and then you will have received what is rightfully yours.
‘Or perhaps,’ added the emir in the long pause that followed, ‘you would prefer to take the blood money, after all...’
And so the widow took the blood money hurriedly, and all marvelled at the justice of Abdul Aziz.
Embarrassingly primitive and defective culture though
No case in the U.S. and no case decided by a U.S Judge should be based on anything other than U.S. laws. If the defendants want a Sharia Court, they should ask the judge to dismiss the case here so that it can be re-filed somewhere else.
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is governed by the law of Afghanistan, which does not recognize causes of action based on respondeat superior and indirect liability.
An elegant post, sir!
Wow.
That is if Afghani law applies to US contractors in country.
If it doesn’t, it’s a nice escape hatch.
But could backfire if the precedent is set.
An oft-repeated episode from the life of Adul Aziz ibn Saud (1876-1953), the founder of The Magic Kingdom and progenitor of the perfidious princes.
More tribal than Islamic justice, it does have certain positive aspects—if cases of murder/manslaughter/negligent homocide/accidental death or injury could be resolved by the option of DIRECT restitution to the victim(s) family strikes me as a bit more constructive than twenty years of imprisonment at taxpayer’s expense. Not a sermon, just a thought.
For next week—a little racier—from the adventures of Haroun al-Rashid: “The Porter and the Three Ladies of Baghdad”...
“And so the widow took the blood money hurriedly, and all marvelled at the justice of Abdul Aziz.”
Today the man who fell would sue the husband’s estate for medcial expenses, damages, pain and suffering caused by the husband’s head when he landed on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.