An American corporation tried to use SHARIA LAW to defend its own misconduct in federal court

[^_^ 5,021]

Joseph Schmitz, the former inspector general of the Department of Defense ... has advocated for the United States to recognize Sharia law. After he left the DoD in late 2005, Schmitz went straight to employment with Blackwater.

...

He coordinated Blackwater’s legal defense stemming from a series of lawsuits filed by Iraqi civilians, former employees and families of Blackwater employees killed in war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of these lawsuits was brought in 2005 by the widows of US servicemen killed in November 2004 in Afghanistan in the crash of Blackwater Flight 61. There was ample evidence the pilots were reckless, the flight had inadequate equipment and that they should not have flown. Bolstering the families’ case was the fact that the US Army Collateral Investigations Board found Blackwater at fault for the crash, determining after a lengthy investigation that the crew suffered from “degraded situational awareness” and “inattention and complacency,” as well as “poor judgment and willingness to take unacceptable risks.” The investigation also determined it was possible that the pilots were suffering from visual illusions and hypoxia, whose symptoms can include hallucinations, inattentiveness and decreased motor skills. Further, the Army said there was demonstrated evidence of “inadequate cross-checking and crew coordination.” The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that Blackwater’s pilots “were behaving unprofessionally and were deliberately flying the nonstandard route low through the valley for ‘fun.’ ”

In 2008, in attempting to have the case thrown out of federal court in Florida, Schmitz argued that because the crash occurred in Afghanistan, Sharia law should be applied. Conveniently, Sharia law does not hold a company responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their work. Schmitz and Blackwater’s other lawyers argued that the crash lawsuit “is governed by the law of Afghanistan,” declaring that “Afghan law is largely religion-based and evidences a strong concern for ensuring moral responsibility, and deterring violations of obligations within its borders.” To his credit, the judge in that case did not buy Schmitz’s Sharia law argument.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159105/real-sharia-law-promoter-peter-king-investigate

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Hmmm.....

[Pooky 3,825]

To his credit, the judge in that case did not buy Schmitz’s Sharia law argument.

Good.

The legal action was brought in the USA, against an American company for its actions affecting American citizens, so guess which legal system should apply? The American legal system.

Blackwater were bad enough on their own, but it seems they found legal advice down at their level, too.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Interesting, considering that Sharia law says nothing about employee vs corporate liability, so this is another BS scary Islam hack piece.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Good.

The legal action was brought in the USA, against an American company for its actions affecting American citizens, so guess which legal system should apply? The American legal system.

Blackwater were bad enough on their own, but it seems they found legal advice down at their level, too.

That's not how it works when an action occurs overseas. That's why there is a such thing as international law.

[^_^ 5,021]

Interesting, considering that Sharia law says nothing about employee vs corporate liability ...

I bet that's not what Blackwater's lawyers would claim. This article is just reporting on what their lawyers tried to pull in court.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I bet that's not what Blackwater's lawyers would claim. This article is just reporting on what their lawyers tried to pull in court.

They can claim all they want, but facts is facts. It's a losing argument. The article is trying to capitalize on the post Cold War boogeyman Islam paranoia, and I'll bet that the lawyers weren't citing Sharia at all. They were probably citing fiqh, but the author wouldn't know the difference. Besides, Scary Sharia sells.

[Pooky 3,825]

That's not how it works when an action occurs overseas. That's why there is a such thing as international law.

The action is in Federal court, regarding the deaths of US Servicemen, caused by employees of a US company in a recognised war zone. I believe US Federal Law takes precedence here.

Whichever way Blackwater gets their feet held to the fire works for me. Apparently Sharia law, as their weasel of a legal counsel asserts, doesn't do that and would let the company worm its way out of responsibility for their deaths. In this case, to me, that is unacceptable.

[Zero Sum 305]

Interesting, considering that Sharia law says nothing about employee vs corporate liability, so this is another BS scary Islam hack piece.

Or maybe its a bait thread?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Or maybe its a bait thread?

What else is new?

[^_^ 5,021]

They can claim all they want, but facts is facts. It's a losing argument. The article is trying to capitalize on the post Cold War boogeyman Islam paranoia, and I'll bet that the lawyers weren't citing Sharia at all. They were probably citing fiqh, but the author wouldn't know the difference. Besides, Scary Sharia sells.

Would you feel better about fiqh being used in an American court? I wouldn't.

[Darnell 8,479]

You have established a pattern of posting 'stuff' initially without your comments. Why is that?

Going forward -

this , 'this' is bullsh|t, as you were unable to posit exactly which tenet of Sharia Law was broken, and who/which entity claimed said tenet was broken.

Massive fail. How do you feel?

[^_^ 5,021]

... you were unable to posit exactly which tenet of Sharia Law was broken

The news story is that Blackwater lawyers tried to use Sharia law in federal court. If you'd like those details, I am sure you can find them in the court records. Those details are not entirely germane to this story. The point of this story is to point out the hypocrisy of the right. The right loves Blackwater and at the same time is busy trying to outlaw the use of 'foreign law' in our courts by stoking fears over Sharia.

... and who/which entity claimed said tenet was broken.

Only if you can't read.

Edited March 12, 2011 by \

[Darnell 8,479]

nope, sorry, no tenet was listed.

Again, massive fail.

How do you feel?

[^_^ 5,021]