The court would eventually be compelled to do something to ensure restitution if there was an adverse judgment against SA as a result of this bill. That doesn't mean they'd immediately freeze $750b in Saudi-held treasuries, but the assets are not untouchable.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"9/11 Families Can Sue Saudi Arabia" bill passes House; Obama likely to veto.
- Thread starter Sub_Level
- Start date
- Status
The court would eventually be compelled to do something to ensure restitution if there was an adverse judgment against SA as a result of this bill. That doesn't mean they'd immediately freeze $750b in Saudi-held treasuries, but the assets are not untouchable.
TheRealTalker
Banned
You'd have to realize on who or what you are suing.
- As if suing SA mean you are suing the exact people who were involved
- or that somehow miraculously the current SA in control of the government is the same SA 15+ years ago
- or if the whole goverment was in on it, or was it a particular few
- or if members of the US goverment were aware of certain actions but let it slide (maybe even due to bribery or funding by certain figures in SA)
this whole thing is just literally.... lol sue a whole country, "idk what I am doing", without any specifics.
...but then again something brash and obtuse like this is very noteworthy of US foreign politics.
For the 1rst bold, glass houses and rocks you know.
For the 2nd, quite easily since you could make a case US aid to Israel has a direct impact on causing unlawful arm to a citizen.
If that citizen has dual citizenship like say anywhere in the EU, he could then sue in a EU court.
Mexico could(should really at this point) sue the US for basically selling weapons for crimes comitted with said weapons on their soil.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Lol at people not reading the argument bad assuming it's The GOPs fault
Passed unanimously
Passed unanimously
As far as I understand the bill, it only allows the families to sue, it doesn't automatically make them win the lawsuit. There's nothing wrong with allowing them to sue, if there are certain details I'm missing (like one of the points you mentioned), you can protest those specific details. Blind patriotism helps no one but the elites in your government.
Are you against those specific victims seeking justice? Or is justice only for Muricans?
TheRealTalker
Banned
I am just saying it isn't even a specific bill
they don't even know the suspects and yet they are jumping the gun
shooting at smoke while leaving themselves open for consequences
and since it doesn't even have any concrete construct you are literally going to allow average joes into a lawsuit, have them lose and then have the rest of the planet sue you for actual concrete reasons with specific individual on which to sue
Because what the hell is "justice" in this context? When North Korea sues us in their own court over whatever the fuck laws they have, of course we're just going to ignore their judgement. How can we be held accountable to laws we aren't subject to in the first place? What kind of jury of peers are we going to assemble to try Saudi Arabia? Why would they care about twelve people in Billings deciding anything?
We already have an enormous worldwide apparatus of diplomacy and sanctions and the United Nations and treaties and etc etc to regulate and govern conflicts between nations.
BearFlexington
Member
9-11 destroyed my belief in this country, can I sue?
That's theft. What if the world decides to steal all US's assets for the shit the federal government has done over the years?
We would be nuked immediately and cut off from Netflix
That's the bigger issue, the US refuses to ratify the Hague court thing. And you can guess why.
Victims can already seek justice at the Hague if they want.
This is redundant and really more about vengeance than justice.
then again for a country that refuses to give justice to its citizen when they've been wronged en masse...
ManDudeChild
Member
Somewhere a lawyer got hard as hell.
Sirpopopop
Member
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040
I don't buy the administration's argument. It seems clearly limited to foreign states.
Are they concerned that other states will pass similar bills, allowing the U.S. to be sued there?
If so... I'm all for it. I'm on board with this law.
I don't buy the administration's argument. It seems clearly limited to foreign states.
Are they concerned that other states will pass similar bills, allowing the U.S. to be sued there?
If so... I'm all for it. I'm on board with this law.
Cabbagehead
Member
The nativity of this bill is staggering.
I get that the court would be obligated to do something, but at what point is it feasible that they actually go through with it?
Would the United States risk a major conflict, be it economic or otherwise, to ensure restitution? I simply don't think so.
The best case scenario at that point would be that the families get what Saudi Arabia is willing to give, which assuredly isn't going to be what they're mandated.
TheRealTalker
Banned
then you have the post SA sue, were everyone is suing everyone else for so many things
it later goes to the extreme and someone from France might sue the US for airport security, or you might get mail at your house that said your great grandfather killed so and so's relative from Japan unjustly in WW2
then you have government members having to attend random court hearings instead running their said governments causing delays and mismanagement, only to have big companies from around the globe getting their foreign investment funds either taken or frozen
and so on and so fourth
it later goes to the extreme and someone from France might sue the US for airport security, or you might get mail at your house that said your great grandfather killed so and so's relative from Japan unjustly in WW2
then you have government members having to attend random court hearings instead running their said governments causing delays and mismanagement, only to have big companies from around the globe getting their foreign investment funds either taken or frozen
and so on and so fourth
What's preventing them? The White House isn't in a position to order the courts to do anything. This bill isn't toothless; it's not like the courts are going to arbitrarily dismiss cases due to the geopolitical implications.
Poetic.Injustice
Member
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/21/p...udi-9-11-bill0835PMVODtopLink&linkId=29142698
Seems like the law will pass. :lol
Interesting months ahead.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
will be ridiculous if they override this veto. this is just going to open the floodgates to sue the US government
Chocolate & Vanilla
Fuck Strawberry
Playing a risky game as Saudi Arabia owns a hefty chunk of US treasury debt.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Senate and house don't handle the brunt of foreign policy and foreign relations
Executive branch does
And yet there is risk in letting them off the hook for making the 9/11 attacks happen. Risk internationally and risk domestically.
Anyway, Obama is gonna have some splainin to do when he vetoes, considering it was passed unanimously and I'm pretty sure the average Joe would rather see the perpetrating government brought to some sort of justice than to hear "let it go" because of money.
They hold a miniscule amount of treasury bonds,116 billion. The only thing they can do is ride the bond out or sell it, neither of which would have any effect on the US.
SaviourMK2
Member
Unanimous? wtf are Democrats doing?
People are so god damned stupid
People are so god damned stupid
His Majesty
Banned
All logic goes out the window when 9/11 is mentioned in USA?
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
That's exactly what is going to happen if this passes. HUGE can of worms.
Election year. You can't vote against this or you'll be murdered. No one gives a damn about the details.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they pushed this outlandish shit so they can keep their seats against a volatile base but fully expected a veto in return.
This is the only way I can make sense of this.
Actually, Saudi Arabia isn't taking this lightly. They threatened to sell $750,000,000,000 of us bonds earlier in the year if it passed in Congress.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Y'all be crazy.
Jmanunknown
Member
Iraq citizens are excellent examples.
The insurance for the airlines has already settled with 9/11 victims.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Can US citizens sue US based on the actions of a few?
Our leaders are dumber than our citizens.
The US stands to lose the most if we allow this.
I'm pretty sure this is the primary argument against it, we're going to have a reckoning for all of the war crimes we commit.
I'm pretty conflicted about this. I have no love lost for the Saudi monarchy for all the shit they have been involved in, but at the same time, allowing this is going to seriously open the floodgates of litigation against the US government that could potentially result in a massive net loss for everyone. I'd also be concerned about what this does to US-Saudi relations at a time when the monarchy is taking a more modernized stance against radicalized strains of Islam, so the timing on this really couldn't have been worse.
Clockwork5
Member
Maybe we shouldn't kill families in drone attacks.
freeofgreed
Member
How the fuck did it pass unanimously in both houses? What is the dem's arguement for backing it?
D
Deleted member 284
Unconfirmed Member
I haven't read details, but doesn't this kinda open up a path for the great grandsons and granddaughters of African Slaves to sue for things like reparation? What about the Native Americans and Japanese Americans? Interesting times.
It's gonna open up a huge can of geo-political worms that no one wants to have a piece of.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
Lol, having not done anything wrong. Tell that to all the democratically elected governments you toppled and human rights violations supported in South America.
Damn, would've been hilarious.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked