ORDTLV2414 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 325 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2305 times:
Since some middle eastern banks transferred funds to the Al Qadea terrorists, dont they assume some responsiblity for the planes that UA/AA lost. I'm not a legal expert, I know nothing about International law and this might be dumb but i was just wondering and thats what makes A.net so great.
steex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1737 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1911 times:
I won't comment on the legitimacy of a possible lawsuit, but either way, I highly doubt the airlines would want to purposely reignite significant public discussion of themselves related to 9/11 in any context. The potential for negative PR that arises from misunderstanding members of the public likely outweighs any potential settlement.
ATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1635 times:
Again, more of what is wrong with our society that you would even pose the question.
Even pre-assinine regulation of the banking system, no legitimate bank would fund a known terrorist organization. While I am not completely versed in civil law, in the criminal courts, the airlines would have to prove something like mens rea meaning 'guilty mind' (or that the banks knowingly funded such terror groups, which they would not do).
That said, I would be amazed to see either airline dish up ANYTHING related to 9/11. If I am not mistaken even the insurance settlements on the A/C are kept non-disclosed and the airlines want it that way. To dredge up ANY news of their airline being involved in the attacks would go against everything their PR departments have done to mitigate the airline involvement.
IF (and that is a huge if) the banks knew of terrorist ties to those being funded and circumvented all of their own regulations in reporting (including their independent audit departments), then yes, I would say they 'could' be liable, but neither airline would even fathom such suit considering whatever meager punitive damages they could receive would be greatly outweighed by the legal fees to do so and only stir up bad PR.
By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13170 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1331 times:
There were lawsuits brought by victims of 9/11 and other terror acts against governments and banks in the middle east (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Territory, Gulf states), extensive discovery done but eventually the cases dismissed due to issues of standing and diplomatic pressure from the US Government. The airlines could have participated in those lawsuits, or on their own but may have been banned from doing so by the bailout the US Government gave then after 9/11.
There are still active cases by less than 100 victims of 9/11 against AA & UA who rejected the post-9/11 compensation offers and seeking vengeance, 'the truth' of disclosing the lack of proper security as to the airlines (lack of secure cockpit door systems and procedures in case of a hijacking).