Friday, March 27, 2009
Justice for Nachshon Wachsman
I don't see a quote from the Islamic Republic of Iran saying that it intends to aggressively pursue an appeal of the $25 million award. Nor is it likely that J.G. Wentworth -- the firm that constantly advertises that it will advance you money in exchange for your structured settlement -- will be knocking on the door of the Wachsman family.
It is notable that a U.S. District Court judge could find that the IRGC trained the Hamas personnel responsible for Wachsman's kidnapping and execution, and apply some concept of privity to the case, yielding a sizable monetary award.
To the extent that the Mullahs do not fully understand that in the U.S. system, the judiciary is separate from the executive, this may muddle the intended message of the video from the White House last week.
4 Comments:
By 
Rohan, at
Fri Mar 27, 05:17:00 PM:
Not to downplay the wrongness of what happened, but how does a US Court have any jurisdiction here?
How is this different from some random European court wanting to prosecute Bush administration officials?
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 27, 06:04:00 PM:
Rohan - I believe the your jurisdictional question is answered by the fact that Wachsman was a U.S citizen who chose to serve in the IDF (which is actually not that uncommon), and that his family members who filed the suit are also U.S. citizens. I think that the rights of U.S. citizens are recognized by a federal court, even if the incident in question happens outside of the country.
I am guessing that the European court you cite in your hypothetical would have to establish that some harm came to one of its citizens because of the actions of President Bush or his administration.
But you are correct in the sense that both cases are largely symbolic. President Bush would not serve time in a European jail or make payment to an aggrieved party, and Iran will not pay the Wachsman family $25 million pursuant to the default judgment. Actual international conflicts tend not to be resolved in a court room, despite the fact that many people wish it were so.
By 
, at
Fri Mar 27, 06:52:00 PM:
I am with Rohan here. There is no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction requires "place" of crime. This is all total nonsense, waste of taxpayers money, and so typical foolishness.
First, the guy is a soldier. He knew the consequences. That is what a soldier faces.
Israel kidnapps people all the time so does the American CIA. Nobody takes them to court. American Indians kidnapped people all the time. Kidnapping by suppressed indigenous people facing technological superior people is a common form warfare. Comanches are proud of their tactics of kidnapping.
This is NOT the rule of law but the acts of Kangaroo courts. Well, it fits, Kangaroo courts for a Banana Republic that Amerika has become. You take your lumps. That every misdeamoner out there must be covered by monetary damages is not European rule of Law. It is somebody else's idea of justice---but it ain't European!
By Escort81, at
Fri Mar 27, 07:09:00 PM:
re: "place" of crime - I am pretty sure that this was a civil suit and a wrongful death case, and not a criminal case. Think OJ 2, which the Goldmans won and then did not ultimately collect a big percentage of the judgment, and not OJ 1, when the jury deliberated for 4 hours and found him not guilty of the murders.
