On the one hand, it seems like a good idea if it forces the PA to more disassociate itself from terrorists.
On the other hand, what if other countries did this to the U.S.? Wouldn't it be funny if, say, the Bahamas froze all the offshore accounts held by U.S. citizens and corporations until we complied with some international court ruling?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wouldn't it be funny if, say, the Bahamas froze all the offshore accounts held by U.S. citizens and corporations until we complied with some international court ruling?
quote:Or, you know, with human rights conventions?
posted
For one, this isn't an international law ruling--a private party asked the court to freeze the PA's assets as part of thier pending lawsuit. The PA's got about 1.3 billion, which likely much larger than the family's reward.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: What do you guys think about this?
I think the BBC is disgusting.
quote:US citizen Yaron Ungar and his Israeli wife were returning from a wedding near the West Bank, when their car was sprayed with bullets.
Three Hamas militants were jailed for the killings.
It's not that they were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Not at all. No, it was their car that was attacked. Attacked? Oh, excuse me: "sprayed". I guess those bullets came from out of nowhere.
And the "spraying" wasn't carried out by anyone. But nasty old Israel put three Hamas terrorists in jail. Oh, wait, not terrorists. I meant "militants". And who knows if they really had anything to do with it.
Oh, and because we want to make it sound like the only reason Arabs are butchering people is the "occupied territories", let's mention that the wedding the Ungars attended was "near the West Bank". Of course, just about everywhere in Israel is "near the West Bank", but never mind that. This attack made the Arabs look bad, so we need to switch the focus to Israel's "crime" of holding onto the "West Bank".
Also, never mind that they lived in Beit Shemesh, a city located midway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and that they were killed near Beit Shemesh. The wedding they'd been at was "near the West Bank", so it's important that we mention that, so that people won't get the idea that Arabs are murdering Jews right in the middle of Israel proper.
And gawd... whatever you do, don't mention that their children were in the car with them and got to see their parents murdered. The last thing we want people to do is sympathize with the Jews.
quote:US citizen Yaron Ungar, 25, and his Israeli wife Efrat were returning from a wedding to their home in Beit Shemesh, midway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, when they were brutally shot to death by Palestinian terrorists belonging to the Hamas group.
Their two children, one year old Dvir and two year old Yishai, were in the back seat of the car, and survived the attack.
The terrorists were captured by Israeli forces and charged with the murder of the couple.
Wow... imagine a world in which the BBC reported something this way.
posted
starLisa, the BBC was not being anti-Semitic; it was telling the story in a mangled way, but it does not come against the Jewish people. Your phrasing of your post keeps using the words "Arabs" and "Jews", when I hate to tell you - but the words "Arab" and "Jew" were not used (with the exception of the mentioning that the couple was Jewish). I really don't get it, is it some sort of tendancy from Jews in the diaspora to make Israeli-based issues immediately Jewish? The matters are not connected in this case.
Look, regardless of how the BBC said what it did, what's the problem with freezing the assets? The PA refused to compensate the family, it did not comply with the law, now punishment. Isn't it what the whole judicial system is about?
quote: Wouldn't it be funny if, say, the Bahamas froze all the offshore accounts held by U.S. citizens and corporations until we complied with some international court ruling?
What individuals? In this case it was the Palestinian authority. If the US failed to comply with Bahamas law and if they refused to pay money they were required to for petty reasons, why NOT have the assets held on the Bahamas frozen? It's simple and it's logical.
quote: For one, this isn't an international law ruling--a private party asked the court to freeze the PA's assets as part of thier pending lawsuit.
Only after there was no compensation. The PA could've avoided the whole thing if they just paid the money. They didn't. What do you want?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The PA could've avoided the whole thing if they just paid the money. They didn't. What do you want?
I'm working off a basic understanding of personal jurisdiction. I haven't read any of the pleadings in this case, so I have no idea what the rational for bringing suit in U.S. federal district court was. As you may imagine, there are likely a whole slew of other places suit could have been brought.
District court is the initial trial level function of the federal judicial system. Do you know what court issued the freeze? I'm assuming it was district court, based on the information in the article. A district court freezing the state side assets of a foreign nation is pretty ballsy, given that they may or may not have a couple additional levels of appeals to get through. Again, I will say that these points are raised without knowledge of the precise posture of the case or without having read the operative aspects of the pleadings.
For the record, what I want is not be slammed for making a minor point about the more discrete aspects of federal civil procedure when asked for my opinion.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, hey, hey, I'm not against this, I think.
quote: What individuals? In this case it was the Palestinian authority. If the US failed to comply with Bahamas law and if they refused to pay money they were required to for petty reasons, why NOT have the assets held on the Bahamas frozen? It's simple and it's logical.
The issue that I find interesting, though, is that this is a government being forced to pay for the actions of its citizens. I mangled the analogy when I first presented it, so the fault is mine for the confusion on this point.
Reading through Lisa's link (thanks, Lisa), I don't exactly see why the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian governing body, is responsible for what these guys did. Just because these guys are Palestinians, the PA is responsible? Reading through the ruling, that's what I infer is the evidence against it. Seems a bit flimsy. Most of the ruling discussing Iran. Nothing about the PA.
So, the analogy might be that a citizen of the U.S. commits terrorism, and even though there's no evidence the U.S. government condoned her actions or supported them, the government's holdings/assets in another country are frozen.
As to Lisa's analysis, I do think she gave some salient points. I think the BBC's use of the word 'militants' was interesting, for instance, and her analysis of 'near the West Bank', etc., was enlightening as to the possible bias in the article. I don't know if it's any more fair to paint her with a broad brush than it would be to paint you that way as a __________ (whatever it is you are? Chicken rancher? Vietnamese Pig rider?). Let's just stick to the argument, maybe.
Finally, as to Ms. bunbun's point, I never said it was an international ruling. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
SS, no worries. The article was very sketchy as to the particulars. I just wanted to make it clear I was responding only in the context of the article. I suspect your question with regard to how the legal connection is made between a group of citizens and the liability of a sovereign nation would be answered in the complaint filed by the plaintiffs--if I have time this afternoon I'll go looking for it.
My big question is about why the federal district court has the power to make a decision that binds a sovereign power. I think the district court is being pretty cheeky here--especially in light of the politics of the parties involved. Also, it's my understanding that freezing a party's assets is an extreme case, even when the defendant isn't the Palestinian Authority. For starters, in bankruptcy cases where a debtor doesn't "pay up", creditors can garnish the wages of the debtor--but they only take the amount they are owed. In this case, the court has taken the extreme step of freezing all the PA's assets in the US---without reference to a specific amount.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One related point: The Palestinian Authority isn't the government of a sovereign country, so I'm not sure you can refer to it as a "sovereign power."
That's as close as I'm willing to come to discussing this issue on this forum, however.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, good grief, bunbun, please don't put yourself out for a thread on Hatrack. I'm sure you have better things you could be doing with your time--like watching Muppets with Dagonee.
I'm less concerned with the 'why' than with the practical applications and ramifications of this on foreign policy for other nations, in particular the U.S.. For instance, we train, have trained, a lot of paramilitary groups and individuals either here or abroad to fight or act against various countries. Should 'we' then legally be held responsible for what these people do once they are back in their countries? I honestly can't think of an ethical reason why we shouldn't. Quite often here in the U.S. employers are held responsible for what their employees do....
On the other hand, I recognize that this opens up a large door for abuse of a country's assets on flimsy pretexts.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't the judge in the ruling Lisa linked to give evidence to the contrary, adam?
For instance
quote: If a foreign state is not entitled to immunity on a claim, it will be held liable "in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances." 28 U.S.C. § 1606.
posted
Twinky, I'm sorry you feel like you can't discuss this issue on Hatrack, as you've shown in past dicussions you have a lot of knowledge about the Palestinians.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a lot to say, and I could rant about most of you bitterly. Let's just say I don't want to open my mouth and start yelling.
Yes, I'm restraining myself very hardly. I could go on for pages criticising Lisa bitterly, and muttering about the US court juristiction. Adam, I'm actually biting my tongue because of your post.
Let's just say that I strongly believe that it was done properly, I'm really annoyed at Lisa screaming "anti-Semitism!" in decontextualisation and none of you convinced me either way, just yet.
I'm holding my tongue. I still can't believe I am. It's just that with a bitter thread and a bitter post about the local political affairs which I know more than a tad about (note I don't mess around with US politics much, if at all) - I think I've had enough emotio-political strain for this year.
See ya. I have school tomorrow. Nighty night.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Yes, I'm restraining myself very hardly. I could go on for pages criticising Lisa bitterly,
Oh, I'm quite sure you could. I wonder how valid any of the criticisms would be, though. Certainly the one below isn't.
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: Let's just say that I strongly believe that it was done properly, I'm really annoyed at Lisa screaming "anti-Semitism!" in decontextualisation
I'm sure it'll come as no surprise when I tell you that you're wrong on several counts here. Starting with the "screaming", and going on to the "decontextualisation".
I was not screaming; I was pointing out the incredible bias in the article, which apparently had been noticed by no one here.
As far as your belief that anti-semitism isn't involved, you are dead wrong. As someone once pointed out, if you do a Venn diagram of anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentiments, you're going to get an 80-90% overlap.
The Arabs constantly refer to "the Jews" in all of their hatemongering and propaganda. Sure, pretend that there's no Jew-hatred involved. Blindness apparently suits you.
Also, you used your disagreement on this point as a means of disregarding the core of my post. Pretend that I'd used "Israeli" instead of "Jew", and address the criticisms I made of the article. They stand either way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
First, the Palestianians aren't a soverign state, and second I thin the court exxceeded it's authority a bit, as bunbun mentioned. Not that it can't do this, but that it shouldn't. If it were to be done it should ahve been done at a different level of the court system. IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not that they were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Not at all. No, it was their car that was attacked. Attacked? Oh, excuse me: "sprayed". I guess those bullets came from out of nowhere.
And the "spraying" wasn't carried out by anyone. But nasty old Israel put three Hamas terrorists in jail. Oh, wait, not terrorists. I meant "militants". And who knows if they really had anything to do with it.
Oh, and because we want to make it sound like the only reason Arabs are butchering people is the "occupied territories", let's mention that the wedding the Ungars attended was "near the West Bank". Of course, just about everywhere in Israel is "near the West Bank", but never mind that. This attack made the Arabs look bad, so we need to switch the focus to Israel's "crime" of holding onto the "West Bank".
Also, never mind that they lived in Beit Shemesh, a city located midway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and that they were killed near Beit Shemesh. The wedding they'd been at was "near the West Bank", so it's important that we mention that, so that people won't get the idea that Arabs are murdering Jews right in the middle of Israel proper.
And gawd... whatever you do, don't mention that their children were in the car with them and got to see their parents murdered. The last thing we want people to do is sympathize with the Jews.
The BBC's propaganda must really be working, 'cause I hate Jews.
For those of you who just soak up whatever you see in the news.
I find it disgusting that people will claim that after all our years of support for Israel that we are anti-semitites.
Thanks for confirming that a person's attitude towards Israel is often the same as his attitude towards Jews.
But who is the "we" that I'm supposedly calling anti-semites? I don't even know you. Why would I suspect you of being an anti-semite?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, the Palestianians aren't a soverign state
My understanding is that they stand in many arena as the voice of Palestine. Here's a better schpiel from Wikipedia:
quote:The Palestinian Authority enjoys some international recognition as the organization representing the Palestinian people (albeit a limited one). Under the name "Palestine", it has an observer status in the United Nations, and receives considerable financial assistance from the European Union, as well as some from the United States and few other donor countries.
The point I was making is that they are an outside entity--whether they qualify as a nation is not something I'm qualified to answer.
I will also say that I am not qualified to answer any questions as to whether the district court's ruling was good or bad. I'm really just curious as to how it happened because I am not aware of US laws that would make it possible for a district court that sits in Rhode Island to freeze the assets of a group foreign to the US.
Okay, I'm ready. I'm going to read the complaint.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean almost everyone in the Western world, actually, including the nations of France and Britan.
Or perhaps "just" the BBC...
quote: Thanks for confirming that a person's attitude towards Israel is often the same as his attitude towards Jews.
Often isn't always, though. As you said, you don't really know me. I don't know you either, but your attitude about this seems pretty clear, at least to me. Perhaps I am wrong, despite the links you provided.
It IS possible to disagree with someone who happens to be Jewish without hating them, or being biased against them, you know.
Keep in mind that while I think the DC overstepped it's boundries in thsi case, that has more to do with the technicalities of the jurisdiction than with the merits of the lawsuit.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They enjoy SOME similarities with a nation, but they are not one, at least not you.
Bunbun, I am very interested in you take on this because of your legal training. Common sense doesn't always apply (perhpas I should say never applies ) to the specifics of a law case, does it? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The case is the first to result in a financial judgment under a 1991 antiterrorism law that allows US citizens to sue foreign organizations in civil court for terrorism. It stems from the 1996 murders of Brooklyn-born Yaron Ungar, a US citizen, and his pregnant Israeli wife, Efrat, whose car was sprayed with bullets by Hamas militants. Those convicted of the crime were found to be carrying uniforms issued by the Palestinian Authority, according to Strachman, who was appointed by an Israeli court to represent the couple's relatives.
In 2000, he filed a civil suit in Rhode Island, his home state. He sued Hamas, as well as then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority, which Arafat headed, and the PLO on the grounds that they had encouraged Hamas. Arafat hired Ramsey Clark, the former attorney general, who argued that the Palestinian Authority is a sovereign state, and deserved immunity from prosecution granted to most countries.
Last year, the court ruled that Palestine is not a state, and that Hamas, the PLO, and the Palestinian Authority owed the Ungars $116 million. In March, a federal appeals court upheld the verdict.
In April, Strachman obtained a court order to freeze all the Palestinian government's assets in the United States, the first step to collecting by force. Since then, Strachman has been sending the court order to every US financial institution where the Palestinians might hold funds. Court proceedings are pending across the country to determine if the frozen assets truly belong to the Palestinian Authority or the PLO and should be handed over.
Since Arafat's death last year, a more politically savvy generation of Palestinian leaders has stepped up the legal battle for release of the assets, using more traditional arguments. Lawyers are arguing in a New York court that the Bank of New York should release $30 million in assets on the grounds that the Palestinian Monetary Authority is an independent entity. In another action, lawyers are using a UN agreement with the United States to fight the move to sell the PLO mission.
I can't find the particular authorizing statute or rule for the freeze, but, in general, it's far easier to obtain a freeze after a judgment is final (which this one is - the appeal has happened). As for jurisdiction, assets in the U.S. are under the U.S.'s jurisdiction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's interesting. Dagonee's article doesn't even mention Iran. From reading Lisa's link, it seems like whether or not the PA is really the head of sovereign nation or not isn't the question, as from reading the suit, it seems like the main defendant was "The Islamic Republic of Iran".
As to the bias in the media question, if it makes anyone feel better, I've read commentaries that provided evidence that the U.S. media is anti-Arab/ant-Muslim.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, as far as that goes, it seems like the media is biased against everyone but liberal WASPs. Amazing, isn't it?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've found the complaint and printed a copy but we may need more printer paper.
Dag, check 18 USC 2333 and 2334; I think the both jurisdiction and the freeze rationale are there (2333, subpart c). I'm not sure of the latter--let me know what you think.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a box of printer paper in the back of the Explorer. If you just grab a ream, I'll take the box in tonight.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The complaint includes several different types of torts against several defendants.
The defendants named in the suit include Hamas, Hamas cell members found guilty of the Ungars' murder, as well as the PA, the PLO, and officials of Palestinian intelligence, police and security groups that had duties in areas over which the PLO and the PA had responsiblity under the Olso Accords.
The rationale for the connection between the Hamas terrorist cell and the PA was fairly straightforward. In the Olso Accords, the PLO agreed to maintain order and prevent violence in the area where the Ungars were killed, but instead allowed Hamas to continue to work and exist in those areas, which amounted to negligence.
Basically, the PA's failure to uphold thier Olso responsibilities to maintain order and combat terrorists in thier territories made it foreseeable that the people they should have been protecting might be victims of terrorism. Additionally, the complaint says that the PA and PLO gave assistance to families of Hamas members, in breach of thier duties under Olso.
The lawsuit can apparently take place in US District Court because of a 1991 law permitting US citizens to initiate civil suits and recover treble damages for claims of international terrorism, among other things. (18 USC 2332 et seq.)
I think starLisa posted a memo from another case filed by the Ungar family against Iran, its ministry of Information and Security, and Iranian officials therein on a similar rationale as the one they used to go after the PLO and the PA. The suit against Iran appears to be in the District Court for DC.
I think the article Dagonee posted covers the issue of the freeze pretty cohesively. I'll be interested to see the outcome of this case--especially how the US comes into the picture or does not.
I really have to get some of my real actual homework done. For additional information, please see [URL=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/ ]here[/URL] or herefor information on the 1991 law cited above. The complaint is linked above at www.jlaw.com, which likely has other documents available for reading.
I've learned a lot from this thread--especially on the issues I didn't address. Thank you to everyone who posted.
Posts: 516 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) to the specifics of a law case, does it? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
