| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Bank lawyers: terrorism against Israel does not violate international norms |
| 2006-08-01 |
| by Joseph Goldstein, New York Sun The Jordan-based Arab Bank yesterday asked a federal judge in Brooklyn to dismiss a lawsuit brought by thousands of Israelis who claim the bank fueled terrorism by providing payments to the relatives of suicide bombers. Lawyers for the bank said that the 4,000 foreign citizens who are plaintiffs should not be allowed to have their case heard in the American court system. They argued that terrorism against Israel does not violate any "international norm." . . . "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter — that holding is binding on this court," said an attorney for the bank, Kevin Walsh of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae. The plaintiffs who are suing Arab Bank in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn are the victims of terrorist attacks during the second intifada and the relatives of victims. While the overwhelming majority are citizens of Israel, some plaintiffs are from Afghanistan, Moldova, and several other countries. They claim that Arab Bank — which has an office in New York — used offices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to distribute payments to people who could prove they were relatives of recent suicide bombers. The plaintiffs are suing under a 217 year-old-law, the Alien Tort Statute, which has been used by foreign citizens to bring lawsuits in America's federal courts stemming from human rights violations that occurred anywhere in the world. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last year that suggests that only the foreign victims of the most egregious human rights violations — such as genocide and slavery — can file suit under the law. One standard the Supreme Court employed was whether the lawsuits stem from violations of norms that have been accepted by "civilized nations." . . . Judge Gershon asked few questions during Arab Bank's argument, but she quickly seemed to have heard enough of it. She asked Arab Bank's lawyers to "move on" on at least four occasions. She did not issue a decision from the bench yesterday. Last year, Judge Gershon rejected Arab Bank's motion to dismiss similar lawsuits brought by about 500 American victims of terror attacks in Israel. Those lawsuits were brought under a different law, because they involved American citizens. Comment: in any law practice, you sometimes have to represent people you'd never voluntarily associate with outside of your practice. While your ability to disengage from an established client relationship is somewhat constrained by ethical rules, you are free to turn down any client--and, in situations where "the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be affected by the lawyer's . . . personal interests"--a polite way of saying, among other things, "if the client's too icky for you"--you may even have an ethical duty not to take on the representation. You also have an ethical duty not to make frivolous arguments to a court, and it is permissible in the exercise of professional judgment to advise clients not to make an argument they might be wanting you to make because it is frivilous, unlikely to succeed, or otherwise counterproductive. What, then, do we make of Mr. Walsh, who argues that it is an accepted norm in the international community to murder Israeli civillians, and that a United States court should be bound by that "accepted norm" to relieve the murderers of liability? My take: 1. Sad to say, he's probably right about "world opinion." 2. Screw "world opinion." "[B]e not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Romans 12:2) 3. Mr. Walsh either has no qualms about this line of argument, or has suspended his own personal moral judgment to continue the representation. 4. While "frivilous" is usually pretty generously construed in favor of a lawyer's freedom of action, this is close to the line. 5. Fortunately, the judge appears not to be buying it. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #5 Ahhh, LEGALISM + DIALECTICISM - the same wafflins' that says America = Amerika, and that Fascists are hated despicable Male Brute Hitlerists-Nazis when it comes to the ME Muslim nations, but simul well-intentioned but misguided, immature = anti-Perfectionist, Limited Communists, Stalinists, Marxists, Limited Governmentists and Limited Totalitarians. SSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, If one believes that a War against Islamo-Fascism = war against Fascism aka [Ultra]Rightist Socialism, then logically conversely is a WAR FOR ISLAMO-COMMUNISM = WAR FOR COMMUNISM, i.e. ULTRA-LEFTIST SOCIALISM, since the normal antithesis of Rightist SOCIALISM is LEFTIST-SOCIALISM, which includes COMMUNISM; ditto RIGHIST CONSERVATIVISM is LEFTIST CONSERVATISM. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-08-02 00:04 |
| #4 Thats the problem - some of these leftist judges don't have common sense. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-08-01 19:19 |
| #3 I read an article a couple of weeks ago indicating that Muzzies in America have decided to attack us in our own court system. Many are now attending law school with the intent to tie us in knots in the courts. This could happen due to the high number of leftist judges. It just takes a bit of common sense to dismiss these irrelevent cases however. |
| Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-08-01 19:17 |
| #2 Judge Gershon in Brooklyn I have a feeling this isn't the best venue for this argument to be heard. |
| Posted by: PlanetDan 2006-08-01 18:47 |
| #1 This seems a logical as foreigners being able to bring war crimes charges against American in Belgian courts. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-01 16:52 |