Blackwater sister company wants US court to decide case using Shari'a law

[RightIsWrong]

I guess any US company that is doing business with the government overseas is now exempt from US law by his reasoning?

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 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 Wednesday 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 federal aviation safety regulations.

 

[frostedflakes]

Wow, lol. Anything they can do to weasel out of this I guess.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Acting as an agent for the US government does NOT relieve them of liability of deliberate negligence.

They are using the Afghanistan because the agent is not going to fly.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in Blackwater when in this case they are ""acting as an agent of the government"" and then refuse to be bound by the Military Code of Justice in Iraq?

 

[lupi]

Where the guys flying the plane actually negligent? There are a lot of military deaths for reason other than combat action.

 

[CycloWizard]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but how does a US court have any jurisdiction here?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but how does a US court have any jurisdiction here?

I would think that it has jurisdiction based on the fact that it was US citizens that were harmed. Even foreign governments have been sued in civil courts in the US under US law because of the impact on US citizens.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but how does a US court have any jurisdiction here?

US citizens and a US based company

 

[sandorski]

Looks like there's precedent and that the request is not bizarre.

 

[1prophet]

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 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."

Shari'a? Wait I thought we brought them Democracy like in Germany and separated religion from the state like General MacArthur did in Japan while bringing them democracy there.

 

[Genx87]

Hey does this mean public stonings or rapes if found guilty?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

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 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."

Shari'a? Wait I thought we brought them Democracy like in Germany and separated religion from the state like General MacArthur did in Japan while bringing them democracy there.

Afghan law is highly influenced by Islamic Law, but it's not verbatim Shari'a Law. It's essentially a somewhat more reasonable and humane version than the original -- a "modern adaptation," if you will. And, like our own system, it's still far from perfect.

You didn't think that they'd become a mirror-image of the West, did you? That would be ignorant...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Wow, lol. Anything they can do to weasel out of this I guess.

Anything to keep their company running, and the reason the families are suing is because the soilders were not killed in combat, thus they do not get the $200K or whatever it is now that is given to families of service members killed in combat.

They want their paycheck. They can't sue Uncle Sam over it so they'll sue the company that was doing what Uncle Sam told them to do. They are going to sue for multiple millions and will settle for a few $100K.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Like heyheybooboo pointed out....if they want to make the argument that they were/are acting as agents for the US military and therefore afforded the same protection from civil suits that the military are, then they and their employees are subject to the USMCoJ and should be brigged for any shooting or other actions outside of the rules.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Wow, lol. Anything they can do to weasel out of this I guess.

Anything to keep their company running, and the reason the families are suing is because the soilders were not killed in combat, thus they do not get the $200K or whatever it is now that is given to families of service members killed in combat.

They want their paycheck. They can't sue Uncle Sam over it so they'll sue the company that was doing what Uncle Sam told them to do. They are going to sue for multiple millions and will settle for a few $100K.

wrong, SGLI payouts are not only for combat deaths if you die including suicide while serving your benefactors get the money.

also the benefit was raised in 2005 to 400,000 in coverage.