評(píng)論
打印
Arab Bank
阿拉伯銀行
The long arm of the plaintiff
原告的長臂
American victims of terrorism sue a bank, claiming it abetted attacks
美國恐怖主義的受害者們控告一家銀行，聲稱其支持恐怖襲擊
HAMAS, the Islamic militant group that runs Gaza and conducts terrorist attacks in Israel, does not tend to answer court summons. But Arab Bank, one of the oldest financial institutions in the Middle East, does. This week, after a decade of legal toing and froing, it found itself on trial in Brooklyn, accused of complicity in various acts of terrorism by Hamas in which Americans were killed or injured. The victims and their families claim that Arab Bank “knowingly and purposefully” abetted the attacks by providing financial services to people and organisations linked to Hamas; Arab Bank denies the claim.
哈馬斯，作為一個(gè)經(jīng)營加沙地帶穆斯林組織和在以色列引導(dǎo)恐怖襲擊的恐怖組織，并沒有表現(xiàn)出對(duì)法院傳票有所回應(yīng)的意思。但是阿拉伯銀行，作為一家中東最為古老的的金融機(jī)構(gòu)卻對(duì)此做出了回應(yīng)。本周，在經(jīng)過了十年法律上的游走之后，他們由于被指控參與了導(dǎo)致了美國人受傷和被殺害的哈馬斯所組織各式各樣的恐怖行動(dòng)與之共謀而正在布魯克林受審。受害者及其家人聲稱阿拉伯銀行“故意的以及有目的性”的通過為與哈馬斯相關(guān)的人或者組織提供金融服務(wù)來支持恐怖行動(dòng)。而阿拉伯銀行否認(rèn)了這項(xiàng)指控。
The bank is being sued under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990, whereby Americans can claim damages in federal court for injuries caused by terrorism anywhere in the world. The law was passed in response to the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a wheelchair-bound American who was shot and then tossed off an Italian cruise ship by Palestinian hijackers. In theory it provides broad scope for redress, but in practice it has had little effect, as foreign terrorists are hard to bring to justice. Hence the plaintiffs' search for less elusive accomplices.
銀行是在1990年反恐法案的的背景下被起訴的，美國人可以在聯(lián)邦法院因世界任何地方的恐怖主義要求損害賠償。這項(xiàng)法律的通過是為了響應(yīng)林霍夫謀殺案—一個(gè)被槍擊的坐輪椅的美國人被巴基斯坦的劫機(jī)者棄尸在了一艘意大利的游輪上。隨著犯罪嫌疑人的繩之以法，理論上說這本因受到大量的賠償，但在實(shí)際中卻是大大相反。因此原告開始尋找神出鬼沒的同謀者。
The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2004, originally involved only six families affected by Hamas attacks, including the parents of a two-year-old child killed in a bus bombing. But more victims have signed up: there are now 297 plaintiffs; and hundreds of other claims are pending.
自2004年之后那些陸續(xù)錄入檔案的訴訟案件，最初僅僅包括被哈馬斯恐怖襲擊的影響的六個(gè)家庭，包括一對(duì)因汽車爆炸而喪生的兩歲兒童的父母。但是現(xiàn)如今更多的受害者已經(jīng)簽署：現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)有279名原告；以及其他數(shù)百名懸而未決的事件的受害者。
The plaintiffs accuse Arab Bank of having helped Hamas in three different ways. First, it transferred funds from the Saudi Committee, ostensibly a charity, to relatives of 55 suicide-bombers. One payment went to the family of a man who bombed a restaurant in Jerusalem in 2001, killing 15 people including seven children. Second, the bank maintained accounts for another dozen charities that the plaintiffs contend were merely fronts for Hamas. The final connection was by providing personal accounts for 30 senior members of Hamas, including Ahmad Yassin, the group's spiritual leader, who was designated a terrorist by the American government in 1995, and Salah Shehadeh, the founder of its military arm. Arab Bank did so, according to the court's summary of the plaintiffs' argument, despite knowing that the people and organisations concerned were involved in terrorism.
那些指控阿拉伯銀行幫助哈馬斯的原告主要是從三個(gè)方面的原因來談的。首先，它以慈善的名義從沙特委員會(huì)劃撥資金給55名自殺式炸彈襲擊者的家屬。其中一些款項(xiàng)就是流向一個(gè)在2001年炸了一家耶律撒冷餐館導(dǎo)致包括七名孩子在內(nèi)的十五人喪生的恐怖分子家屬。其次，原告者認(rèn)為銀行所維系的另外十二個(gè)慈善機(jī)構(gòu)的賬戶也僅僅是針對(duì)哈馬斯方面的。他們終端的聯(lián)系方式便是通過銀行為三十名包括Ahmad Yassin在內(nèi)的哈馬斯的高級(jí)成員開設(shè)私人賬戶。而Ahmad Yassin作為哈馬斯的精神領(lǐng)袖，于1995年被美國政府作為高危恐怖分子列入在冊(cè)。這其中還包括Salah Shehadeh，哈馬斯軍事部門的創(chuàng)始人。根據(jù)法院對(duì)于原告的論點(diǎn)總結(jié)，阿拉伯銀行盡管知道這些人或者組織與恐怖主義息息相關(guān)，卻依舊如此作為。
The bank has denied each of the claims, contending that no services were provided to any entity or person on America's list of known terrorists at the time, with the exception of a single transaction on behalf of Mr Yassin, due to a clerical error. It also points out that the transfers it made on behalf of the Saudi Committee were among the thousands the group made to the families of people hurt or killed in fighting in the West Bank and Gaza, and so appeared as humanitarian in nature. The courts have barred Arab Bank from defending itself on the ground that it complied with all local laws in the countries where the transactions took place, or on the ground that the attacks are part of a long history of violence in the region for which it could not be held responsible.
銀行否認(rèn)了以上每條索賠要求，聲稱并沒有為任何美國已知的恐怖分子名單上的實(shí)體或者個(gè)人提供服務(wù)，除了單個(gè)為了如Yassin先生所辦理的交易，但這是由于筆誤。它同樣還指出其代表代表沙特委員會(huì)所作出的交易為了在約旦河西岸以及加沙地帶戰(zhàn)斗中受傷或者死者的家人所做的數(shù)以千計(jì)的交易之一，所以具有人道主義的性質(zhì)。法院已經(jīng)禁止了阿拉伯銀行分別以其遵守了仲裁執(zhí)行地國家的法律和襲擊是發(fā)生在廢棄責(zé)任區(qū)的歷史暴力問題的一部分為由，進(jìn)行自我辯護(hù)。
The main drama in the trial thus far has been the selection of the jury. Finding enough New Yorkers who are unopinionated and uninformed enough to form an unbiased panel has not been easy. No fewer than 500 candidates were required to complete a 25-page questionnaire to probe their suitability. It asked where they got their news, whether they spoke Arabic or Hebrew, what ties they and their friends and family had to the Middle East, and whether they knew any victims of terrorism, including the various attacks on New York. There were also questions not only about their own impressions of Muslims, Jews and Arabs, but also about those of their family and friends. Amazingly, this interrogation yielded ten apparently neutral jurors who will now sit through a trial that could last weeks or months.
這審判的主要的戲劇性是在于迄今為止這一直都是陪審團(tuán)的選擇。尋找足夠的不是那么武斷的足夠無知紐約人來形成一個(gè)公正的團(tuán)體也不是那么容易。不低于500名的候選者被要求完成一份25頁的問卷調(diào)查他們的適應(yīng)性。這份問卷調(diào)查他們獲得新聞的來路，他們是否會(huì)說阿拉伯語或者是希伯來語，他們和他們的朋友家人是否和中東有所關(guān)系，以及他們是否認(rèn)識(shí)任何恐怖主義的受害者，包括紐約的各種恐怖襲擊。并且還有些問題不僅是關(guān)于他們自己對(duì)于穆斯林、猶太、以及阿拉伯的印象，并且還有他們的家人以及孩子對(duì)此的印象。令人驚奇的是，這種詢問選出了十名看似中立陪審員，這些人現(xiàn)在將坐在那度過可能持續(xù)幾周或幾個(gè)月的審判。
