Is blog\’s open to free speech?…

Great fun and oh so satisfying.

Romeo13 on September 7, 2007 at 2:17 PM

You must have been with the 7th Marines, Romeo13. I was with 2/4 and was TAD to El Salvador under the FID program at the time. My best bud came back from the Root with severe facial burns, I couldn’t recognize him. I’ve had a special place in my heart for islamo-kooks ever since.

Oohrah, brother.

While I feel bad for the victims’ families that their loved ones were murdered by Qaddafi, it’s hard to feel bad about their not getting the money. They sold their souls for $10 million each to the devil. And just because you sell out to the devil, doesn’t mean the devil will keep his end of the bargain. Weipz writes, “So much for Libya’s rehabilitation.” But paying $10 million–when you murdered over 200 American airline passengers and several U.S. Marines in a German disco in 1986 in cold blood–isn’t rehabilitation. It’s just blood money. Time for her and the families (but for the couple or so who refused the pay-off) to realize that.

Is it time for Debbie to apologize yet?

Between this and the money they have to spend every day to refine their oil, Iran will be bankrupt.

If they don’t like it, we can do to them what they want to do to all Americans, bomb them.

When all the debts and judgments are paid, then we can negotiate with Iran IF we’ll return them and on what terms.

amerpundit on September 7, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Problem is that countries like Russia could use THEIR court rulings to dismiss any court ruling we may give.

It would all depend on who recognized which rulings… and with the silliness going on at the UN… I would hazard a guess that the US would loose that fight. I mean, take a look at which countries are running the commities in the UN…

Hening on September 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Amen. As nice as this court verdict may be, I’d prefer a noon-time MOAB over the former US Embassy.

How many more EFPs have to maim our troops? How many more of their “diplomats” do we have to catch red-handed in Iraq?

At what point do we start cashing in these receipts?

Or… Israels little incursion into Lebanon last year… by this courts precedent WE could be sued, because we supported Israel financialy before and during a cross border incursion.

Romeo13 on September 7, 2007 at 3:33 PM

The Lebanese crossed into Israel first, taking two soldiers yet to be returned.

So, now the Courts in Tehran will follow suit, declare Universal Jurisdiction, under Sharia law, and try us for the “Terrorist Invasion” of Iraq….

That’s not really my major concern as they’re blowing up our troops, touting a plan to wipe Israel off the map, and building nuclear weapons. It seems they’ve already declared “universal jurisdiction” under Sharia law.

amerpundit on September 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM

The problem is one of legitimacy.

We bombed Bosnia without UN approval or a declaration of war. Folks there could go to a GERMAN court (who also, following our lead, declared Universal Jurisdiction), and sue us for COLLATERAL damage.

Or… Israels little incursion into Lebanon last year… by this courts precedent WE could be sued, because we supported Israel financialy before and during a cross border incursion.

Its a further case of the courts taking power in cases where they declare that they have jurisdiction in cases where they clearly DO NOT. This happened in Lebanon… for a suit to go forward it should have happened THERE.

So, now the Courts in Tehran will follow suit, declare Universal Jurisdiction, under Sharia law, and try us for the “Terrorist Invasion” of Iraq….

Allahpundit adds… You can read the court ruling here (PDF). Here’s an excerpt……

How many acts of war and more dead US military and civilians are we waiting for?

Maxx on September 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM

I’m not arguing on jurisdiction. All I’m saying is that we can’t not do these things because we’re in fear of other countries doing the same.

You lost me… I’m not seeing the connection to the original debate.

My point simply is… the courts cannot grant relief for acts of war/terrorism. They simply have no jurisdiction to grant relief. Thus it is wrong of the courts to pursue such issues.

I’m talking about the harm that results when normal democratic countries decide to allow their citizens to sue other governments for past offences.

Maxx on September 7, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I can’t think of many “normal democratic countries” that wouldn’t suffer from political repercussions resulting from taking away our companies.

First of all, Japan is our ally. Beyond that, let’s remember the horrible offenses the Japanese and other countries in that region committed during those same wars. Need we bring up times they cut open their prisoners, while they were alive?

The others don’t really have anything to sue for. Russia? Russia funds Iran and is helping it with its nuclear program. It doesn’t need additional pressure. China? China’s trying to get on our good side. Trade embargoes would kill their economy. Britain? No. France? No. We’ve saved their @sses countless times.

Except that would lead to political repercussions for that country.

We’re already have companies seized in other countries, regardless of these lawsuits. How about parts of our oil companies being taken over by Chavez? It’s already being done.

amerpundit on September 7, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Yes, but Chavez does it because that’s what socialist do.

I’m talking about the harm that results when normal democratic countries decide to allow their citizens to sue other governments for past offences. Private interest will crumble and internation trade will fail because no company wants to be held responsible for what some court thinks the US goverment is responsible for. It’s just madness, we should not engage in it.

If this type of thing continues perhaps a division of Lockeed will be confiscated by the Japanese government for the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s just dumb, it leads to more problems than solutions.

Maxx on September 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Except that would lead to political repercussions for that country.

We’re already have companies seized in other countries, regardless of these lawsuits. How about parts of our oil companies being taken over by Chavez? It’s already being done.

Considering these were the families of 234 Marines who died overseas protecting our freedom, I’d say the cost isn’t terribly important right now.

We spend tons of money on crap lawsuits all of the time. This one, which apparently makes the families feel that justice has been served, I personally don’t mind sending my tax dollars to.

amerpundit on September 7, 2007 at 2:32 PM

It’s still a misuse of the courts amerpundit and those families would have more money in there pockets right now if the court would have done the right thing and rejected the case for lack of jurisdiction. The courts should not allow themselves to be used as a mere feel good venue then it could be deciding cases where real relief could be granted. I know it sounds hard-nosed but you are really undermining the purpose of the court when this type of case is accepted.

And a greater harm will result if other countries follow suite and rule against US private interest in their jurisdiction for acts or perceived acts committed by our government. If this type of thing continues perhaps a division of Lockeed will be confiscated by the Japanese government for the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s just dumb, it leads to more problems than solutions.

Stupid chicks:

Family members said they hoped Friday’s ruling would pressure foreign governments not to sponsor terrorism. Lynn Smith Derbyshire, whose brother, Vincent Smith, was killed in the attack, said countries won’t stop until “it begins to actually cost them money to kill Americans.”

Yeah, that’s the secret. Lawsuits. The American way.

Why didn’t Roosevelt think of that?