Steely Dan Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 December 4: General Interest 1991 : Hostage Terry Anderson freed in Lebanon On this day in 1991, Islamic militants in Lebanon release kidnapped American journalist Terry Anderson after 2,454 days in captivity. As chief Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press, Anderson covered the long-running civil war in Lebanon (1975-1990). On March 16, 1985, he was kidnapped on a west Beirut street while leaving a tennis court. His captors took him to the southern suburbs of the city, where he was held prisoner in an underground dungeon for the next six-and-a-half years. Anderson was one of 92 foreigners (including 17 Americans) abducted during Lebanon's bitter civil war. The kidnappings were linked to Hezbollah, or the Party of God, a militant Shiite Muslim organization formed in 1982 in reaction to Israel's military presence in Lebanon. They seized several Americans, including Anderson, soon after Kuwaiti courts jailed 17 Shiites found guilty of bombing the American and French embassies there in 1983. Hezbollah in Lebanon received financial and spiritual support from Iran, where prominent leaders praised the bombers and kidnappers for performing their duty to Islam. U.S. relations with Iran--and with Syria, the other major foreign influence in Lebanon--showed signs of improving by 1990, when the civil war drew to a close, aided by Syria's intervention on behalf of the Lebanese army. Eager to win favor from the U.S. in order to promote its own economic goals, Iran used its influence in Lebanon to engineer the release of nearly all the hostages over the course of 1991. Anderson returned to the U.S. and was reunited with his family, including his daughter Suleme, born three months after his capture. In 1999, he sued the Iranian government for $100 million, accusing it of sponsoring his kidnappers; he received a multi-million dollar settlement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 December 4: General Interest In 1999, he sued the Iranian government for $100 million, accusing it of sponsoring his kidnappers; he received a multi-million dollar settlement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :P The courts used to fight terrorism. How so un-macho. Yet it worked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The courts used to fight terrorism. How so un-macho. Yet it worked! Oh yeah? I suppose Iran has curtailed it's support of Hezbollah's activities then? Lawsuits like this are a joke. They fall in fact against the body of international law, which you normally seem to hold in high regard. Foreign countries cannot be sued in US courts - it was a 1996 ammendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which allowed suits to proceed only against states deemed sponsors of Terrorism by the Department of State. This is at odds with the way other countries operate, and threatons to undermine the tradition against frivolous judgement like, say, awarding $100 billion in a Cuban court to somebody suing the USG. What generally happens is that an award is granted in a local court, and the plaintiffs appeal to congress to pay for it out of frozen assets. That simply means that when relations are normallized, the USG is on the hook for making up for the depeleted assets of getting an agreement that the award be honored. In the Anderson case, the Iranian government did not respond to the lawsuit. It was awarded by a district court judge entirely without their presence, input, or defence. Yeah, the courts are a great way to engage them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 The courts used to fight terrorism. How so un-macho. Yet it worked! Good point! It worked really well to prosecute the criminals who purported the 1993 bombings of a certain NYC building. I think Ill go to Windows on the World for lunch today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Oh yeah? I suppose Iran has curtailed it's support of Hezbollah's activities then? Lawsuits like this are a joke. They fall in fact against the body of international law, which you normally seem to hold in high regard. Foreign countries cannot be sued in US courts - it was a 1996 ammendment of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act which allowed suits to proceed only against states deemed sponsors of Terrorism by the Department of State. This is at odds with the way other countries operate, and threatons to undermine the tradition against frivolous judgement like, say, awarding $100 billion in a Cuban court to somebody suing the USG. What generally happens is that an award is granted in a local court, and the plaintiffs appeal to congress to pay for it out of frozen assets. That simply means that when relations are normallized, the USG is on the hook for making up for the depeleted assets of getting an agreement that the award be honored. In the Anderson case, the Iranian government did not respond to the lawsuit. It was awarded by a district court judge entirely without their presence, input, or defence. Yeah, the courts are a great way to engage them. I knew someone would become unhindged if I wrote that, But I do believe the best way--not the only way--to deal with terrorism is by treating it as a crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Good point! It worked really well to prosecute the criminals who purported the 1993 bombings of a certain NYC building. I think Ill go to Windows on the World for lunch today. Ya, and invading Iraq really worked well in ending terrorism. Havn't had any terrorism lately have we? And since we still have crime, I guess the criminal justice system should be considered a failure, let's just get rid of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Ya, and invading Iraq really worked well in ending terrorism. Havn't had any terrorism lately have we? One of Bush's main reasons for invading iraq was to stop terrorism in the United States. Since 9/11 its been pretty quiet here. So you just validated the Iraq War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 One of Bush's main reasons for invading iraq was to stop terrorism in the United States. Since 9/11 its been pretty quiet here. So you just validated the Iraq War. Ya, they have been checking passengers for box cutters since then. Didn't need to invade Iraq to do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts