Powered by WebAds

Friday, June 10, 2011

Israeli lawsuit against al-Jazeera dismissed

A lawsuit against al-Jazeera by Israeli victims of Hezbullah rocket attacks during the Second Lebanon War has been dismissed by a Manhattan Federal judge. Al-Jazeera has been accused by many in Israel of pinpointing the locations where rockets were hitting during the war in order to enable Hezbullah terrorists to improve their aim.
In her opinion dismissing the suit, Manhattan federal court Judge Kimba Wood said the victims had failed to show Al Jazeera had the specific intention of aiding Hezbollah.

"Plaintiffs have offered no facts suggesting that defendant even knew that it was providing anything to Hezbollah," Wood said, adding the victims "have offered no facts suggesting that Hezbollah viewed defendant's broadcasts."

The plaintiffs in the case -- American, Israeli and Canadian citizens who were injured or saw family members killed in the attacks -- argued in court papers that Al Jazeera intentionally helped Hezbollah by broadcasting in real-time the precise locations and results of their rocket campaign.

One of the plaintiffs said in the original complaint that she had a miscarriage as a result of a rocket explosion near her home. Another said he "saw his wife torn to pieces."

Their lawyer, Robert Joseph Tolchin, could not be immediately reached for comment. A lawyer for Al Jazeera declined to comment.

The plaintiffs also sought in court papers to establish that Al Jazeera was liable for "aiding and abetting terrorism" under the Alien Torts Claims Act. The judge, however, citing an appeals court decision, found "corporations cannot be held liable for violations of customary international law."

The plaintiffs had sought $1.2 billion from Al Jazeera as well as punitive damages to be determined in court.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At 2:12 AM, Blogger Juniper in the Desert said...

I hope they keep going and win. Maybe a Wikileak will come along...

 
At 9:16 AM, Blogger ais cotten19 said...

By that logic drunk driving should be legal, if you're reasonably certain there will be no one on the road. After all, you'd have to prove that the driver had the intention of killing someone, not simply the will to do something dangerous and irresponsible.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google