So... which is scarier, Yassir Arafat and his intifada suicide murderers... or lawyers?

To the EU, the answer is clear!

I wonder if the EU has started taking "with us or with the terrorists" a bit more seriously...

If all it takes to change the EU's foreign policy is ambulance-chasing tort lawyers... "release the hounds!"

America isn't just a superpower in weapons, ya know.

Look at Iraq, completely distancing yourself from the problem will not work.

The EU, and the US for that matter, has to find something that they can build on in the region.
Something they can build on that does not provide funding for terrorist groups.

Hooray for Blumberg! I wish he hadn't suffered his loss, but I'm glad to hear he's standing up to the thugs and their backers.

His lawyers should start filing against the Saudis and Iraq...

J. Lichty, EricCR, your targets are painted. Engage your legal pads!

I'm stunned...

I can't believe the EU would actually go through with this.

Well, I'll be damned... those ambulance chasers are good for something after all.

Mr. Crawford is onto something, time to draft a few good trial lawyers to organize a class action against "Saudi" Arabia, and Iraq.

Nothing can bring back a loved one killed in a terrorist bombing, but if a large punitive damage suit diverts oil revenue from funding more bombings, that's a victory as well.

The EU has itself in a bind. The Palestinian
Authority is the old PLO and it's uniformed
police have none of the protections, in law,
that would be afforded to a state.

Have you been njuered in a terrorist attack? I'm attorney James Sockolov...

This is indeed wonderful news. As I have related to Ben and Joe Norland in the past, I have done some initial research on the potential liablity of the UN and other related NGO's under U.S. law.

The UN and EU are affornded the same diplomatic immunity enjoyed by sovereigns in this country under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. It appears that unlike the U.S., those organizations do not share the same protections.

Because we want these entities to have presence in our country we have provided them the incentive to not be sued here. Israel probably wants them far away, so these organizations do their evil at their own financial risk in Israel.

I hope more victims sue these "smiley face" fronts for anti-semitism, terrorism, and plain exploitation of freedom.

go lawyers!

Katzman's comment: "Release the hounds."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I haven't typed ROFL in a long time, but it is certainly appropriate here. I'm still grinning...

(Shameless plug.) Read my fiance's blog:
[Link: www.anitarowland.com...]

According to Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, Mr. Blumberg's lawyer, as quoted in the press release "European states donate the foreign aid to the PA in order to maintain political influence and goodwill in amongst Arab states."

That in a nut shell is the problem. Protection money. It is never enough. Government is a prime example of how protection rackets work.

The sharks have been put against the sharks. Let us hope in this case that there will be no professional courtesy.

What's stopping the families of the WTC and Pentagon victims from suing past and present non-governmental donors of funds and support to Al Quaeda? Have any of these islamist bank-rollers been identified with sufficient proof of their misdeeds?

Come to think of it, what's stopping the city and state of New York and the District of Columbia from doing the same?

Any knowledgable lawyers out there care to tackle this one? Pejman?

Hmm, the problem with lawsuits, is that you probably couldn't enforce decisions in the Near East, except perhaps in Israel.

If you sue the Saudi donors to Al Quaeda, I think the worst you could do is freeze any assets of theirs in the US.

Cal

Cal: If you sue the Saudi donors to Al Quaeda, I think the worst you could do is freeze any assets of theirs in the US...

...Which are astronomical -- some $700B in USD-denominated assets, IIRC.

M. Simon- protection money. Perhaps. The Danegeld is more accurate and not necesarially a slander at the men from Copenhagen

Will, there's a problem with suing soverign states, especially ones that have fan clubs at Foggy Bottom like Saudis.

James W. is right. So is Rudyard Kipling:

"And once you start paying the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

Interestingly enough:

A civil suit against Islamic charities that allegedly aided Arab terrorism against Israel will be heading to trial in federal court in Chicago.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 5 upheld a district judge's ruling on behalf of Joyce and Stanley Boim, represented by Nathan Lewin of D.C.'s Lewin & Lewin. The Boims, Americans who moved to Jerusalem, were the parents of David Boim, who was killed by Hamas militants in a drive-by shooting in 1996. They are seeking $600 million in damages from the groups.

The case poses the question of whether two U.S.-based charitable institutions, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and the Quranic Literacy Institute, can be sued under a 1990 anti-terrorism law for aiding and abetting the activities of Hamas.

The unanimous 7th Circuit panel found that the statute covers organizations that funnel money to terrorist groups, as well as the terrorist groups themselves.

"The statute would have little effect if liability were limited to the persons who pull the trigger or plant the bomb," wrote Judge Ilana Rovner for the three-judge panel. "Also . . . there would not be a trigger to pull or a bomb to blow up without the resources to acquire such tools of terrorism."

The Justice Department filed an amicus brief last November on behalf of the Boims.

"The decision should send a loud and clear message to potential American contributors to organizations that support terrorism, in whole or in part," says Lewin. "There is no shortage of clients and lawyers ready to sue not only organized charities but also individual contributors who are aiders and abettors of violence that takes American lives or maims Americans abroad," he adds. Lewin says he knows of no other suits of this type filed against U.S. charitable organizations.

At trial, Lewin & Lewin will have to prove that the Muslim charities knowingly bankrolled Hamas. No trial date has been set.

The Muslim groups argued that their First Amendment rights were being infringed, but the court replied that the Boims are trying to hold the groups liable for assisting in a murder, not for associating with Hamas.

Calls to Chicago lawyer John Beal, who represents the Quranic Literacy Institute, were not returned.

In a related case, Holy Land is challenging the freeze of its assets by the U.S. government last fall and its designation as a terrorist group. On May 31, the government filed its brief in that case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The lawyers at the E.U. are afraid of what civil discovery will make public in a trial.

It could be highly embarrassing to a number of EU-niks.

Amen to that. Disclosure is the thing the folks at EU commission are afraid of. Being afforded the usual protection sovereigns get EU isnt concerned about lawsuits filed outside the area. Voters starting to ask uncomfortable and/or embarassing questions is another thing altogether. That said, could be interesting to see if the opportunity arose to file the same sort of lawsuit over in the US. If nothing else, it'd make for a great election year circus on both sides of the Atlantic.