Soldier wounded in Afghanistan sues attacker, and wins

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
A soldier wounded in Afghanistan and the widow of his slain comrade were awarded a $102.6 million judgment from the estate of a suspected al Qaeda financier.

U.S. District Judge Paul Cassell said the lawsuit may be the first filed by an American soldier against terrorists under the Patriot Act.

But Sgt. Layne Morris, of West Jordan, and the family of medic Christopher Speer, could have a difficult time collecting their award, because the assets of the suspected financier are unknown.

Other soldiers have difficulty identifying their attackers, making it difficult to hold individuals responsible.

Morris cited news reports -- including interviews with his attacker's immediate family -- indicating that Omar Khadr, then 15, had wounded him and killed Speer. The ruling, released Friday, cited similar evidence that the boy's father, suspected financier Ahmad Sa'id Khadr, was linked to al Qaeda and trained his son to attack American targets.

Morris and Speer, who served with the 19th Special Forces, were attacked with grenades and automatic weapons in a remote Afghanistan village. Shrapnel severed the optic nerve in Morris' right eye, blinding him.

Soldiers arrested the boy, who is being held at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay. The Canadian government has protested the boy's imprisonment, because he is a minor.

In November, the U.S. government charged the boy with murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy.

The ruling said the younger Khadr was 4 years old when his family moved from Canada to Pakistan, where his father co-founded a humanitarian relief organization that supported al Qaeda terrorist training camps. The boy returned to Canada in 1994, where he attended school for a year while his father was imprisoned in Pakistan on charges of financing the bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Pakistan, the court said.

The next year the family allegedly traveled throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, meeting al Qaeda leaders including Osama bin Laden. It is believed the father was killed in a firefight in Pakistan.

Attorney Dennis Flynn said the U.S. and Canadian governments have frozen the assets of the elder Khadr.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/19/suing.al.qaeda.ap/

Personally I think this is ridiculous. Isn't that what is supposed to happen? They are supposed to shoot and get shot at. Since it seems like the boy is a canadian citizen I could see canada doing this with a canadian soldier, but it doesn't make sense that we did it.
 
Oh no! They shouldn't sue terrorists that's umm... that's not fair that's against the rules!

Wait, what rules do terrorists follow anyway?
 
Kak that's the only thing that I could think of that makes sense, especially the whole "illegal combatant" thing.

[quote name='KrAzY3']Oh no! They shouldn't sue terrorists that's umm... that's not fair that's against the rules!

Wait, what rules do terrorists follow anyway?[/QUOTE]

Explain to me why a soldier should be able to sue for being injured by the enemy?

Also, why does shooting at soldiers make you a terrorist?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, why does shooting at soldiers make you a terrorist?[/QUOTE]

Did you not read the article? He and his family were involved in supporting al Qaeda, obviously a terrorist orgranization, through a phony "humanitarian assistance" front.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Did you not read the article? He and his family were involved in supporting al Qaeda, obviously a terrorist orgranization, through a phony "humanitarian assistance" front.[/QUOTE]

The article says his father was involved in supporting al qaeda. I wouldn't actually consider that being means he himself is a terrorist , more supporting terrorism. Though the article seemed to suggest his group supported al qaeda, in addition to humanitarian work.

Either way it's not about his father, they didn't sue him, they sued the kid. The kid fought americans. I assume krazy's comment relates to people who shoot american soldiers since he seemed to respond to my comment which dealt with soldiers being shot.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I assume krazy's comment relates to people who shoot american soldiers since he seemed to respond to my comment which dealt with soldiers being shot.[/QUOTE]

There you go assuming again.
 
Krazy, I made this comment:

Personally I think this is ridiculous. Isn't that what is supposed to happen? They are supposed to shoot and get shot at. Since it seems like the boy is a canadian citizen I could see canada doing this with a canadian soldier, but it doesn't make sense that we did it.

Which deals entirely with being sued for shooting a soldier. In response you stated this:

Oh no! They shouldn't sue terrorists that's umm... that's not fair that's against the rules!

Wait, what rules do terrorists follow anyway?

What else does that mean? They're suing the boy who shot the soldier.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I wonder, alonzo, if you don't support the right of people to sue soldiers who shoot them? I would be shocked if you didn't.[/QUOTE]
Are soldiers acting as arms of the government? If you sue a soldier for deeds done during official business, wouldn't you usually end up suing the government?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I wonder, alonzo, if you don't support the right of people to sue soldiers who shoot them? I would be shocked if you didn't.[/QUOTE]

If a civilian is shot by a soldier then yes, but a soldier isn't a civilian. If a u.s. soldier bombed a taliban camp we would find it ridiculous if a surviving taliban sued the soldiers.

Look, this isn't law enforcement it's combat. We shoot them, they shoot us. That's war. They're not alleging torture or anything, he was simply involved in an attack on the soldiers. Prisoner of war? Sure. But a lawsuit? It seems ridiculous.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If a civilian is shot by a soldier then yes, but a soldier isn't a civilian. If a u.s. soldier bombed a taliban camp we would find it ridiculous if a surviving taliban sued the soldiers.

Look, this isn't law enforcement it's combat. We shoot them, they shoot us. That's war. They're not alleging torture or anything, he was simply involved in an attack on the soldiers. Prisoner of war? Sure. But a lawsuit? It seems ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

So in your mind the boy who was shooting at soldiers has every right to sue if they shot back and wounded him (or his family if they killed him), but the soldiers have no recourse? Remember, he's not a soldier, he's a civilian shooting at military forces. But I suppose this position is no surprise from someone who already has admitted he values civilian lives more than soldiers'.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']So in your mind the boy who was shooting at soldiers has every right to sue if they shot back and wounded him (or his family if they killed him), but the soldiers have no recourse? Remember, he's not a soldier, he's a civilian shooting at military forces. But I suppose this position is no surprise from someone who already has admitted he values civilian lives more than soldiers'.[/QUOTE]

Since when did I say the boy was a civilian? In fact I said making him a prisoner of war was fine (not something you do to civilians), and I compared this situation to the taliban suing us for bombing them.

I think the boy should be treated a little bit more leniently due to his age, just like all the child soldiers in various armies around the world (particularly in africa). But I'd still classify him in the same category as the soldier shooting him. And the only distinction I'd make on treatment is age related.
 
bread's done
Back
Top