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

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Oh, he knows

He's here on VJ. Need I say more?

Birds of a feather, and all that . . .

[Pooky 3,829]

Birds of a feather, and all that . . .

I'm astounded. AJ got it and you didn't. That's got to be a first.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Darnell is right, circumstances such as described are not covered by Sharia law. Yet, I'm getting the impression that aj was more interested in their attempt to use the law as a point of hypocrisy. However, what those who have little or no exposure to legal processes (including legislators) don't seem to understand is that, outside of civpro and crimpro, it's not uncommon for legal arguments to draw from foreign laws, if applicable. There is nothing new or unique about the introduction of fiqh as an element of legal arguments. Whether Muslim women must remove their khimar for drivers license photos is one instance where an argument using fiqh would be unavoidable.

Hospitals that refuse to perform abortions on religious grounds invokes religious arguments, as do pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. Religious institutions that won't perform gay marriages or hire gay teachers have legal exemptions founded in case law. Native Americans have invoked tribal religions to gain government permission to use eagle feathers and other federally controlled substances in ceremonies.

Religious law as part of legal strategy has centuries of precedent and is here to stay.

[^_^ 5,021]

Aye, this was not intended to be an attack on Sharia or Islam. More of an example of how the right attacks Sharia with one hand while trying to use Sharia (or fiqh or whatever) in Federal Court when it suits its needs.

[Ban Hammer 13,530]

Aye, this was not intended to be an attack on Sharia or Islam. More of an example of how the right attacks Sharia with one hand while trying to use Sharia (or fiqh or whatever) in Federal Court when it suits its needs.

and it seems they were told to go fiqh themselves.

[^_^ 5,021]

and it seems they were told to go fiqh themselves.

everyone's a comedian

[Pooky 3,829]

and it seems they were told to go fiqh themselves.

everyone's a comedian

Some are even funny

[Fandango 1,440]

Nope - that was on my dime.

Use Yours, form your own opinion. TIA!

Isn't that what AJ was telling you to do in the first place? whoa

[Fandango 1,440]

Aye, this was not intended to be an attack on Sharia or Islam. More of an example of how the right attacks Sharia with one hand while trying to use Sharia (or fiqh or whatever) in Federal Court when it suits its needs.

I do see the point you are making, and I don't agree with what they've done. However, I do see a bit of a distinction. When citing xyz law because the action happened in a foreign land, while it may be a long shot (because int'l laws come into play, or the distinction because the company was American as were everyone involved therefore making it a domestic issue), I see a bit of legal merit. Like, if you were in Holland smoking pot, should you be brought up on charges in America because you're American and pot smoking is illegal?

Please everyone, let's not get into whether it's been declassified in your area, what the chances are for being brought up on charges for pot smoking, etc. It's merely an example.

Having xyz foreign law apply to domestic situations on domestic soil is entirely different.

However, I do see the hypocrisy.

[Pooky 3,829]

I do see the point you are making, and I don't agree with what they've done. However, I do see a bit of a distinction. When citing xyz law because the action happened in a foreign land, while it may be a long shot (because int'l laws come into play, or the distinction because the company was American as were everyone involved therefore making it a domestic issue), I see a bit of legal merit. Like, if you were in Holland smoking pot, should you be brought up on charges in America because you're American and pot smoking is illegal?

Please everyone, let's not get into whether it's been declassified in your area, what the chances are for being brought up on charges for pot smoking, etc. It's merely an example.

Having xyz foreign law apply to domestic situations on domestic soil is entirely different.

However, I do see the hypocrisy.

Comparing smoking pot in Holland to actions resulting in the deaths of 8 US servicemen (and women?) in a recognised war zone is hardly comparing apples to apples.

Regardless of the legal manoeuvre that was proposed, this is more a case of Blackwater attempting to dodge responsibility by any means possible than scaremongering over Sharia Law. Unfortunately, this was just the avenue they tried to use.

[Fandango 1,440]

Comparing smoking pot in Holland to actions resulting in the deaths of 8 US servicemen (and women?) in a recognised war zone is hardly comparing apples to apples.

Regardless of the legal manoeuvre that was proposed, this is more a case of Blackwater attempting to dodge responsibility by any means possible than scaremongering over Sharia Law. Unfortunately, this was just the avenue they tried to use.

You missed my point entirely

[Pooky 3,829]

You missed my point entirely

I disagree.

When concerning actions by a private company, US or not, employed by the US government, affecting US service personnel on active duty in a war zone, I believe US Federal Law will be the standard used in US Federal Court. In these instances, it is as if the action took place on domestic soil.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This doesn't really mean anything. Federal procedural law will be applied, yes. The application of contract law can be mixed, because its quite possible that laws of the land they're operating in could be pertinant to constructing a valid contract. Case law, precedent may draw from non-US sources, as well. International law cannot be ignored when actions taking place in one country are contracted in another.

This is certainly true of contractors operating in the US for foreign entities. They must take into consideration the limitations imposed by what is legal here, as opposed to what is legal back home. A vivid example, often cited, are non-Muslim foreign employees based in Saudi Arabia. A breach of contract based on limitations imposed by Saudi law would necessarily involve their determinations under Islamic law as Saudis have interpreted it.

I disagree.

When concerning actions by a private company, US or not, employed by the US government, affecting US service personnel on active duty in a war zone, I believe US Federal Law will be the standard used in US Federal Court. In these instances, it is as if the action took place on domestic soil.