Another Lesson Learned - To Our Detriment

by pessimist

Several years ago, the US began the theory that our domestic courts can have jurisdiction over acts committed against Americans anywhere in the world. One of the more well-known situations that are considered covered by this position is this one:

U.S. Court Orders Iran to Pay Americans Held in Lebanon

Ex-Hostages Awarded $65 Million - U.S. Court Orders Iran to Pay Americans Held in Lebanon

A federal judge yesterday ordered the government of Iran to pay $65 million in civil damages for its role in kidnapping three Americans who were held hostage in Lebanon by Islamic extremists during the late 1980s. The ruling by Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson was the latest action in a series of civil cases filed in Washington against Iran on behalf of Americans who say they were victims of terrorism. It remains to be seen, however, if Iran will pay the awards. The Iranian government did not take part in the court proceedings.

I'm sure most of you consider this a valid court case. There is ample justification for this suit.

So what about this one?

Iranian court orders US to pay $963 million compensation

IRNA said the money in the case, brought by Iranian war veterans and disabled, should be paid to survivors of attacks on the town of Sardasht which borders Iraq.

"The court has ordered the American government to pay the money for furnishing Saddam with chemical weapons to attack Iran," IRNA reported.

Iraqi gas attacks killed thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands died on both sides and Iran has thousands disabled by chemical arms.

Remember tha famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam with an extended hand? That was about the same time the gas attacks occurred.

Manson proscecutor Vincent Bugliosi has repeatedly said that he could always find a way to get a conspiracy conviction using circumstantial evidence. I would state that the photo qualifies. Once there is a proven conspiracy, damages can be assessed.

Let's extend this one step further: Suppose that the countries who signed the World Court agreement decide that the World Court has jurisdiction over any acts committed anywhere in the world by any person or nation regardless of whether the agreement was signed?

See ya, George. Wouldn't want to be ya!