US Court Rules Against Syria in Terror Lawsuit

5

Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center chalked up a victory when US District Judge Royce Lamberth said in the Monday (22 Iyar 5772) ruling, “When a state chooses to uses terror as a policy tool – as Iran and Syria continue to do – that state forfeits its sovereign immunity and deserves unadorned condemnation. Barbaric acts like the April 17, 2006 suicide bombing have no place in civilized society and present a moral depravity that knows no bounds.” The court handed down a $323 million settlement against Syria.

The court was ruling in the case brought on behalf of Florida resident 16-year-old Daniel Wultz, who was among 11 killed when an Islamic Jihad suicide bomber set off his explosives at a Tel Aviv restaurant six years ago. Daniel’s father was severely injured in the attack.

Darshan-Leitner said that Iran supports the Islamic Jihad movement financially while Syria had granted the group a haven to train in its territory.

Attorney Darshan-Leitner said there is a good chance for the victim’s family to get compensation through frozen Syrian assets held by the US. “For the first time an American court is holding the government of Syria accountable for its decades-long support of terrorism,” she said.

(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)

 


5 COMMENTS

  1. I’m waiting for that arafa-wife kisser ms. Hallerious Clinton to stick up once again for her lovely Arabs and stop the payment the same way she did with other lawsuits against those bloody murderers

  2. That’s the way to go. Maybe if every time there is an attack you can sue the country that financed and supported it eventualy it will stop.

  3. If Ms Hilarious So-and-So doesn’t want to be a mere Holler, she should recognize justice being done –if for no other reason than that it’s an election year and she certainly has much at stake.

  4. Bad editing. The third paragraph starts with a mention of someone called “Darshan-Leitner”. Who is this person? I know, but if I didn’t know I would be puzzled by this reference. Before naming her, especially with just her surname, she should be introduced. The paragraph should have begun “Shurat Hadin director Nitzana Darshan-Leitner said…”, or “Civil rights lawyer Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, who heads Shurat Hadin, said…”, or something like that. The fourth paragraph, on the other hand, doesn’t need to mention that she’s an attorney, because we should already know that by then; so it should start “Darshan-Leitner said…”

  5. The administration will probably just ignore the judgement, the way they usually ignore Judge Lamberth. (This isn’t a knock on the current administration; the previous one ignored him too. I can’t explain it, but it’s a fact.)