Presenting A Bill For Terrorism
A US court entered a judgment against Iran for the terrorist attack in Lebanon that killed 241 Marines, awarding victims and their families over $2 billion in damages. The judge found the mullahcracy "legally responsible" for actions of Hezbollah, based on the Iranian financing for the terrorist organization:
A federal judge yesterday ordered Iran to pay more than $2.6 billion to nearly 1,000 family members and a handful of survivors of a 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed 241 soldiers. The ruling brought cheers and tears from survivors but faces long odds of being fulfilled."This court is sadly aware that there is little it can do to heal the physical wounds and emotional scars," wrote U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in his order. But he expressed hope that "this extremely sizeable judgment will serve to aid in the healing process and simultaneously sound the alarm to the defendants that their unlawful attacks on our citizens will not be tolerated."
The militant group Hezbollah carried out the suicide bombing on Oct. 23, 1983, but in a ruling in 2003, Lamberth found that Iran was "legally responsible" for supporting Hezbollah with financial and logistical support to carry out the attack. Iran did not contest the charges.
This sounds great, but in reality it means almost nothing. The US has no ability to force Iran to pay the bill, and we conduct no trade through which we can confiscate assets. The damages could have been $2 or $2 trillion, and it would have exactly the same meaning. The plaintiffs will never see a dime of this money, unless the US government pays it for the Iranians and assumes the debt -- which means we will pay the bill for Iranian terrorism.
If trying to address terrorism through law enforcement proved ineffective in the 1990s, addressing it through tort claims will be even less satisfactory. After all, what happened in this courtroom? Iran got "proven" to be "legally responsible" for the attack. Who didn't already know that? Iran has openly supported Hezbollah at least since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. So does Syria, for that matter, but curiously Syria didn't get named as a defendant in this case.
These aren't matters for lawsuits. The bombing of our barracks in Lebanon was an act of war, not a Ford Pinto-style malfeasance. When terrorists attack our military, the proper response is to respond militarily against not just the terrorists but also the nations that fund and support them.
We should have made Iran and Syria pay a stiff enough price back then to send the message that America will not tolerate terrorism, nor the countries that sponsor it. The failure to do that was one of Reagan's biggest blunders in a presidency that fortunately had few of them. The Bush Doctrine should have been adopted in 1979, again in 1983, in every instance in the 1980s when Hezbollah was kidnapping and in some cases killing Americans in Beirut throughout the 1980s, and with every al-Qaeda attack in the 1990s.
Had we done that in 1979 when the Iranians sacked our embassy, perhaps we would not have had to present the only answer to the 1983 bombing as a bill for terrorism that arrived 24 years late -- and one we'll wind up paying ourselves anyway.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on September 8, 2007 9:47 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (21)
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 8, 2007 10:15 AM
I think there's a very high chance of these people collecting. The Iranians are already at war with us, and I expect that we will be owning Iran shortly. If you examine the pattern in Iraq, there is a period where American administration is needed; during that short period, Iran becomes, in essence, an American territory. The assets of the territory become attachable, since there is no sovereign government other than that of the United States of America.
Furthermore, there's no statute of limitations on this collection; for the Iranians to avoid it will require lots of money middlemen, and it's going to cost them dearly.
Posted by Anthony (Los Angeles) | September 8, 2007 10:50 AM
IIRC, we have control of some Iranian assets that were frozen at the time of the hostage crisis in 1979. Couldn't those be sold off to pay the judgment?
Posted by John Steele | September 8, 2007 11:53 AM
Another classic example of the overlawyered wars of the future. somehow we got ourselves into the mindset that terrorism is just a special case of knocking over a Seven-11 and war can be conducted only if the lawyers approve.
It is often said that we are a nation of law. The correct expression is we are a nation about law, a nation of lawyers; a nation whose people are paralyzed by the law not helped by it. And we really, really need to stop it or we are finished as a free people.
Posted by dave | September 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Can someone please explain to me under which definition of terrorism does the act of attacking soldiers fall under?
“The militant group Hezbollah carried out the suicide bombing…”
This is crap. Hezbollah has repeatedly denied any connection to this act, although they often praise those who did it. Nasrallah said "There was an organization other then Hizbullah called al-Jihad al-Islami. It was made up of honest mujahiddun individuals. They executed the operations against the U.S. Marines..."
And even the Israelis know that Nasrallah does not lie:
jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557456474&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Mughniyeh, the supposed mastermind, is routinely connected to Hizbullah, but this is also crap. This is Hala Jaber quoting an Iranian analyst:
"One must regard Mughniyeh as someone who is on the margins. In other words, he believes in Hezbollah's ideology and Iranian-styled goals, but he is not their agent. In fact, Mughniyeh does not report to Hezbollah, but to the Iranians."
"Hezbollah: Born with a Vengeance", p.117
It is certainly correct to tie Iran to the Marine bombing, but dragging Hezbollah into it is just part of the demonization campaign against them. Of course, the claim will be that I am simply a blind defender of Hezbollah. That is not the case. If Hezbollah had committed the act, it would have no effect on my opinion of them, because the act was not terrorism, and cannot be considered such by a sane person. The evidence simply does not point to any involvement by Hezbollah.
Posted by exDemo | September 8, 2007 1:21 PM
I don't know with this judgment abducting a Persian oil tanker and taking is to American jurisdiction and then arguing that you want the proceeds from the sale of the Oil as partial payment of the judgment of the $2 billion worth of proceeds or as much as you can get removes it from the category of stealing/ piracy...
Love it!
If they actually did it; got some little sovereignty somewhere to issue Letters of Marque to the seizers, offered a substantiall "recovery fee" to the mercenaries who did it, would help as well.
Iranian shipping insurance rates would rise dramatically, bleeding the mullahs even more. Iif the shipping rates rose enough it would price the oil off the easy markets and force the Mullahs to offer a discount for their OIl bleeding them somemore.
Love it ! Do it!
Posted by dave | September 8, 2007 2:53 PM
Maybe the Iranian government should stage a show trial of its own and enter a judgement of $2 billion against the US for supporting the MEK, a group the US admits is a terrorist group. Then they can call it even.
Posted by AmericanRevolution | September 8, 2007 3:13 PM
Let's not forget that the Iranians OWN banks here in our country.....both in New York and Los Angeles. Seizing their assets isn't the true problem. That lies in Congress, with the blockage of the ability to seize those assets. Currently, there is legislation to resolve this issue. So for those of you who are under the assumption that this changes nothing......how naive.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 8, 2007 5:14 PM
This case has a precedent of sorts-in Smith v. Iraq. et al (2003) 262 F.Supp.2d 217, a federal court in New Tork found sufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq provided material support to Al Qaida in connection with the attacks of 9/11. The Federal Judge ruling in the case was a Clinton appointee, who concluded that a jury would have found some complicity on Iraq's part.
The lawsuit was initiated by family members of 9/11 victims, none of whom I'm sure have collected any money from the "losers" in the case. After all, none of the defendants showed up at the trial to contest the case, and the guy who ran Iraq on 9/11 is no longer around.
Posted by dave | September 8, 2007 5:38 PM
americanrevolution:
"Iranians OWN banks here in our country"
Could you tell me which ones? This seems hard for me to believe. Is the legislation your talking about in relation to the US naming the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization? If so, his will also have little effect:
"...it's unlikely the Revolutionary Guard has bank accounts or other assets in the U.S."
Jack Northam
NPR Radio
August 15, 2007 8:00 p.m.
All Things Considered
Posted by NahnCee | September 8, 2007 7:43 PM
I wonder who I'd have to sue in Iraq to get a bill on the books for all the Iraqi's have cost us in their terrorism, laziness, greed, and obdurant refusal to help us help them. I know I want Maliki, personally, to be named as a co-defendant and conspirator.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | September 8, 2007 8:46 PM
It's going to take at least 10 years to translate all of the Iraqi documents we captured in the 2003 invasion. Many of the documents translated so far (mainly by the great blogger jveritas) show Iraq support for terrorism going back many years.
Of course, the mainstream media is more interested with electing a Democrat as President than they are with national security, so they have no interest in such stuff. My guess is that they're scared Gore-less that some smoking 9/11 gun will show up....
Posted by George Ajjan | September 8, 2007 8:54 PM
Reagan and especially HW Bush negotiated extensively with Syria. Had he won re-election in 1992, he could have finished Madrid and we'd have a different Middle East and a better world today.
As for Iran, there is a huge divide between US and European approaches. The US has practically no relationship, and cases like the one described in this post; while European commerical carriers fly daily to Tehran, including BMED. In fact, the captured British soldiers flew directly to Heathrow airport on a regularly scheduled flight on that airline.
Posted by unclesmrgol | September 8, 2007 9:35 PM
dave said:
I feel insane today. In fact, I think I've been insane for quite a while.
Posted by pat west | September 8, 2007 11:32 PM
Well, now that the judgement is registered againt Iran, the next legal step is to ask the Federal judge involved for an order to U.S. authorities to seize Iranian assets. The U.S. Navy could easily do this, but might legally (but stupidly) fight the issue. However, as the Coast Guard is under the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts at this time, they could be directed to seize Iran oil entering into the western hemisphere where they operate. Alternatively, the Court could direct U.S. Marshals, in a boat chartered by the plaintiffs, to seize Iranian oil while under the potection of a Coast Guard Cutter or a Navy combat ship. The Navy could hardly object to backing up U.S. Marshals, otherwise, they could never show there face in Dodge again!
Posted by dave | September 9, 2007 7:35 AM
Del Dolmonte:
FYI: Although the US had 1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi funds at the time of the verdict, Bush decided not to pay the Plaintiffs of the suit you mention with that money:
“The families hoped that they would be able to get their claim paid from $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets frozen in the United States...But those hopes were dashed last week when President Bush transferred the frozen assets to a special fund to help re-build Iraq.
Treasury Department spokesman Taylor Griffin says the administration's No. 1 goal 'is to make sure there is no more terror. We understand the victims' concerns, but the best way to make sure there are no more victims is to stabilize Iraq...'"
United Press International
May 29, 2003 Thursday
9/11 families upset by Bush cash freeze
BYLINE: By SHAUN WATERMAN
The Plaintiffs received no money because Bush decided it was better to stabilize Iraq with it. (I wonder if Haliburton got the money?). At least the Plaintiffs can look at today’s calm and stable Iraq, (and the fact that there is no more terror), and know that the money was put to good use.
Also, an Appeals court decided later that the Plaintiffs must “look elsewhere” other than Iraq for their money:
“The Conference Report excerpt cited by Plaintiffs indicates Congress’s commitment to making terrorism judgments enforceable against terrorists’ blocked assets, but it cannot reasonably be stretched, as Plaintiffs would have us do, to divest the President of authority to confiscate blocked assets. There is more than a semantic difference between blocking assets and confiscating them. As Senator Harkin, in the remarks quoted by Plaintiffs, noted, the term “blocked assets” reaches broadly to include any property seized or frozen by the United States. But it does not reach so broadly as to encompass confiscated property. To seize or freeze assets transfers possessory interest in the property.”
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/036195p.pdf
The only precedence in the case you bring up shows that Iran can never be made to pay this judgement.
Posted by dave | September 9, 2007 9:20 AM
Del Dolmonte:
The person described below who is "unfamiliar with the nature of default judgements" and "simply read a headline reporting the outcome of the case" and therefore "[misinterpreted] the ruling as a judicial endorsement of Iraq's complicity in the 2001 terrorist attacks" would be you:
“Because many foreign states do not defend these suits, there is no adversarial testing of evidence, and the plaintiffs need only convince a judge that the evidence is ‘satisfactory’ to obtain a default judgment. This raises the potential for erroneous rulings that distort the public's perception of events and create legal and diplomatic hurdles should U.S. policy toward the country shift. In one case, for example [Smith vs Afghanistan – the case you cite], the plaintiffs managed to ‘prove,’ in just two days of uncontested testimony, what the Bush administration still has not been able to demonstrate: a conclusive link between Iraq and the events of September 11, 2001. The timing of the ruling, during a period of intense public debate over a recently launched war, was especially troublesome. Anyone unfamiliar with the nature of default judgments, or who simply read a headline reporting the outcome of the case, could easily misinterpret the ruling as a judicial endorsement of Iraq's complicity in the 2001 terrorist attacks. Such misperceptions risk allowing the executive to cloak its policy arguments in the ‘neutral colors of judicial action.’”
Duke Law Journal
March, 2005
54 Duke L.J. 1321
LENGTH: 16723 words
NOTE: BLACKLISTING AS FOREIGN POLICY: THE POLITICS AND LAW OF LISTING TERROR STATES
NAME: Matthew J. Peed
Posted by eaglewings | September 9, 2007 11:41 AM
Once the judgment is entered, the plaintiffs should be able to enter the judgment in various states in Europe where Iran has had and continues to have assets. That is where the judgment will either be collected or the Iranians will have to decide to fight the judgment there. Either way it would seem a win win situation for the plaintiffs.
Posted by dave | September 9, 2007 1:53 PM
If the United States can decide that the entire world is within the jurisdiction of its courts, it of course follows that “…any nation's domestic courts can appropriately exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state - including the United States - that it considers a state sponsor of terrorism. Since there are many states that would consider the United States a state sponsor of terrorism, the United States should expect to be haled into diverse foreign domestic courts by victims of ‘terrorists’ funded and supplied by the United States, and should, collaterally, expect to see its foreign assets attached to satisfy judgments. In fact, Iran has passed legislation allowing Iranian victims of United States ‘interference’ to sue the United States in Iranian courts.”
Texas International Law Journal
Winter, 2003
38 Tex. Int'l L.J. 119
LENGTH: 16220 words
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: "State Sponsors of Terrorism" Is a Question, Not an Answer: The Terrorism Amendment to the FSIA Makes Less Sense Now Than It Did Before 9/11
NAME: Keith Sealing
Iran has already taken the identical step, and passed a law saying that the US can be sued in their courts:
“Iran's pro-reform parliament gave final approval Wednesday to new legislation that will allow Iranian 'victims of US interference' to sue the United States for damages.”
Agence France Presse -- English
November 1, 2000, Wednesday
Iran MPs cry "Down with America," approve lawsuits against United States
From the article:
“The text of the bill outlines other events that could be brought before the courts, such as the 1988 downing of an Iranian passenger plane over the Gulf by a US warship which killed 290 people.”
I wonder if the US will decide to pay up when judgments are made against them?
Since the US is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, this could get really interesting if everyone decides to get in on the act:
“Do we really want Chinese courts deciding whether the United States' unintended bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 was a violation of international law? Do we want Saudi courts opining on whether Israel engages in state-sponsored racism and terrorism?”
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E5DA133FF930A15751C1A9679C8B63
The answer to the obvious mess this will cause is to have an international court that has jurisdiction over international law matters. Maybe something called the International Court of Justice. This court is still biased towards first world countries, but is still a better system than I described above. The US will not cooperate with the ICJ, because the US thinks that only they should be allowed to judge who is and is not a terrorist and who will pay as a result. The US says this is the way it is, because we have the most weapons. But if it all goes back to might makes right, why go through the charade of having trials? Why doesn’t the US just take assets from other countries by force whenever it wants? Oh, I forgot. This is what happens already.
The ICJ found the US guilty of aggression against Nicaragua in the 1980’s and ordered the US to pay 12 billion in reparations. The US never paid.
Posted by dave | September 9, 2007 2:05 PM
If the United States can decide that the entire world is within the jurisdiction of its courts, it of course follows that “…any nation's domestic courts can appropriately exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state - including the United States - that it considers a state sponsor of terrorism. Since there are many states that would consider the United States a state sponsor of terrorism, the United States should expect to be haled into diverse foreign domestic courts by victims of ‘terrorists’ funded and supplied by the United States, and should, collaterally, expect to see its foreign assets attached to satisfy judgments. In fact, Iran has passed legislation allowing Iranian victims of United States ‘interference’ to sue the United States in Iranian courts.”
Texas International Law Journal
Winter, 2003
38 Tex. Int'l L.J. 119
LENGTH: 16220 words
SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: "State Sponsors of Terrorism" Is a Question, Not an Answer: The Terrorism Amendment to the FSIA Makes Less Sense Now Than It Did Before 9/11
NAME: Keith Sealing
Iran has already taken the identical step, and passed a law saying that the US can be sued in their courts:
“Iran's pro-reform parliament gave final approval Wednesday to new legislation that will allow Iranian 'victims of US interference' to sue the United States for damages.”
Agence France Presse -- English
November 1, 2000, Wednesday
Iran MPs cry "Down with America," approve lawsuits against United States
From the article:
“The text of the bill outlines other events that could be brought before the courts, such as the 1988 downing of an Iranian passenger plane over the Gulf by a US warship which killed 290 people.”
I wonder if the US will decide to pay up when judgments are made against them?
Since the US is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, this could get really interesting if everyone decides to get in on the act:
“Do we really want Chinese courts deciding whether the United States' unintended bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 was a violation of international law? Do we want Saudi courts opining on whether Israel engages in state-sponsored racism and terrorism?”
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E5DA133FF930A15751C1A9679C8B63
The answer to the obvious mess this will cause is to have an international court that has jurisdiction over international law matters. Maybe something called the International Court of Justice. This court is still biased towards first world countries, but is still a better system than I described above. The US will not cooperate with the ICJ, because the US thinks that only they should be allowed to judge who is and is not a terrorist and who will pay as a result. The US says this is the way it is, because we have the most weapons. But if it all goes back to might makes right, why go through the charade of having trials? Why doesn’t the US just take assets from other countries by force whenever it wants? Oh, I forgot. This is what happens already.
The ICJ found the US guilty of aggression against Nicaragua in the 1980’s and ordered the US to pay 12 billion in reparations. The US never paid.
Posted by Greg | September 9, 2007 3:30 PM
Captain, while only a retired Chief, please permit me to offer the following information to your always interesting site.
241 - U.S. (220)Marines, (18) Sailors, and (3)Soldiers. 58 French paratroopers were also killed on Oct 23rd 1983.
http://www.beirutveterans.org/
Greg
Beirut Veterans of America, Life Member
VFW National Deputy Chief of Staff
Posted by dave | September 9, 2007 5:11 PM
First of all, Iran only has 251 million in frozen assets:
treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/reports/tar2001short.pdf
Even as of 2002, the number of existing judgements against Iran had already exceeded this value. These existing judgments are possible due to exceptions to the FSIA which were passed in the 1990’s that allows suits to be brought against state sponsors of terrorism.
This exception has questionable legality under international law (I know, international law does not exist).
See: “Making State Sponsors of Terrorism Pay: A Separation of Powers Discourse Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”. By: Jeewon Kim. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2004, Vol. 22 Issue 3, p513-540.
From the article:
”Suits against state sponsors of terrorism permit domestic courts to interfere with US treaty obligations…the most notable example of this issue is the group of suits against Iran. Congress and the courts have ignored specific international agreements that protect many Iranian assets…all claims between the United States and Iran are now subject to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in the Hague. Despite this binding bilateral agreement, US plaintiffs have sued and won judgments against Iran through the FSIA terrorist exception.”
So the US signed an agreement with Iran, and then ignored it. I am shocked. So what is the Iran-US Claims Tribunal? The following is from Congressional Testimony from Stuart Eizenstat on the subject of “Terrorism: Victims' Access to Terrorist Assets”, given on Oct 27,1999:
“The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal is an arbitration court located at The Hague in the Netherlands... Pursuant to this agreement and awards of the Tribunal, Iran has paid $7.5 billion in compensation to or for the benefit of U.S. nationals. The Tribunal also has jurisdiction over certain claims between the two governments.”
So for nearly twenty years Iran had honored the terms of the Tribunal, and paid 7.5 billion as a result. Then the US decides to ignore the treaty (which is unconstitutional) and start suing them instead. Smart.
The overwhelming opinion in the law journals I have seen say that this entire idea of freezing assets, suing other countries in domestic courts, etc, is a complete fiasco and in the long run will hurt the US in innumerable ways. Doesn’t matter. If anyone complains, we’ll bomb them.