Congress overrides Obama 9/11 veto

[The Alma Mater]

Though it is a false sense of closeness, and is being sold as a grand strike against the evil Sauds.

This is, was, and will continue to be a waste of time.

This is a bill that Chuck Schumer worked on with 9/11 victims for about 5 years. Clearly it means a lot to them.

The Saudi royalfamily taking a good look at it and subsequently wiping their behinds with it while laughing will help him... how ?

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't want to overuse it though.
Maybe picking a target that there'd be a practical point in suing would have been a good start.

This is bollocks.

If it isn't clarivoyant than at least it is a start. As long as it provides a sense of security. I believe the target is meant to be the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is fair enough - they do actively protect non-state sponsors of terrorism and have arguably been a sponsor themselves.

Then go after the sponsors. You could probably name a handful from a trawl of a wikipedia article.
Why "the Saudi Arabian state"?

This strikes me as placating for the sake of placating. And you know how I feel about that.

[Novus America]

Wonderful!

The families deserve those reparations. And I can't wait to see the Saudis crumble.

This does not mean the families get reparations. Just means they can possibly get a day in court. They still have to prove their claim.

This is minor in by itself, the big thing is that it shows the Saudis the US government will no longer automatically obey Saudi Lobbyists. It shows how much their influence has fallen. Germany and Britain have increasingly crticized them as well.
And there was this.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sau ... 22716.html
Their influence is plummeting, they have the mess in Yemen, their economy is in bad shape and getting worse.

I would rather Saudi Arabia reform then outright fall though, if they fall what replaces them might not be better.

[Novus America]

This is a bill that Chuck Schumer worked on with 9/11 victims for about 5 years. Clearly it means a lot to them.

The Saudi royalfamily taking a good look at it and subsequently wiping their behinds with it while laughing will help him... how ?

Actually the Saudis are quite worried. Not about the bill per se, but their declining influence.

[Esternial]

"Fuck diplomacy I do what I want."

[Neutraligon]

The US Federal Court has no jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia.

Where else could the US government be permitting US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia?

No idea, hence my question on the point of this bill. The Saudi government has no reason to recognize a trial against them in US courts, and I do not know if US courts even have jurisdiction. The only one that might is SCOTUS and even there I am iffy on if it does. And until a trial actually happens the US has no right to freeze Suadi assets here in the US.

[Novus America]

Where else could the US government be permitting US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia?

No idea, hence my question on the point of this bill. The Saudi government has no reason to recognize a trial against them in US courts, and I do not know if US courts even have jurisdiction. The only one that might is SCOTUS and even there I am iffy on if it does. And until a trial actually happens the US has no right to freeze Suadi assets here in the US.

The jurisdiction of US courts is what Congress says it is. This law gives them jurisdiction. As the main event occured in NYC, I assume the Southern District of New York would be where it will be filed.

This law does not change much. Just states the Foreign Sovereign immunities act does not apply to terror attacks that occur in the US, (it already has other exceptions and loopholes).

[Neutraligon]

No idea, hence my question on the point of this bill. The Saudi government has no reason to recognize a trial against them in US courts, and I do not know if US courts even have jurisdiction. The only one that might is SCOTUS and even there I am iffy on if it does. And until a trial actually happens the US has no right to freeze Suadi assets here in the US.

The jurisdiction of US courts is what Congress says it is. This law gives them jurisdiction. As the main event occured in NYC, I assume the Southern District of New York would be where it will be filed.

This law does not change much. Just states the Foreign Sovereign immunities act does not apply to terror attacks that occur in the US, (it already has other exceptions and loopholes).

And again why should the Saudi government recognize that the US federal courts have jurisdiction here?

[Novus America]

The jurisdiction of US courts is what Congress says it is. This law gives them jurisdiction. As the main event occured in NYC, I assume the Southern District of New York would be where it will be filed.

This law does not change much. Just states the Foreign Sovereign immunities act does not apply to terror attacks that occur in the US, (it already has other exceptions and loopholes).

And again why should the Saudi government recognize that the US federal courts have jurisdiction here?

Again if they keep assets here or use the US banking systems (and they do) they have no choice because if they lose the US Federal Marshals can levy funds or assets they have in, or passing through the US financial system.

The Saudis have only two choices. Dump all their US assets (at a huge loss) and seperate their banking system from the US system. Or recongnize the courts do have jurisdiction.

Now with Spain for example, Spain is easy to avoid. I think Bush might not be able to put any assets in Spain go there. Or Russia has placed many US officials under sanctions and declared their assets would be seized. McCain for example thought it funny, because he has no assets onin Russia or desire to go there. And it is easy to avoid the Russian banking system.

But it is very hard to avoid the US banking system. And the Saudis have assets here.

[New Rogernomics]

It would be useful in the sense that US citizens, residents, refugees,etc can now sue foreign governments in instances of genocide and other severe human rights violations, and vice versa.

I don't see the 9/11 case getting anywhere. The lawyers will make a lot of money on both sides, and eventually the case would be settled out of court, and/or eventually just be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

[Minivanistan]

While I sympathize with and have no problem with the relatives of 9/11 victims sueing Saudi Arabia, I have gotten fuzzy on the details of their complicity in bin Laden & Company's affairs other than having been the birthplace of these goons.
Especially considering the Kingdoms, and other intersted parties resolve in trying to reign bin Laden in during the 90s which could have gone much better if Bill's administration had been less indifferent. What is the flipside I am missing?

[Cedoria]

They can sue US government figures yes, see my post regarding Kissinger over the murder he was responsible for in Chile.

No, I mean suing the actual country. The article here implies that a private citizen will now be able to sue the country of Saudi Arabia for its involvement in 9/11.
Does this however work both ways - so can a citizen from Iraq now sue the USA because his house was accidentally destroyed in a bombing ? Can a citizen of Peru now sue the USA because the pesticides dumped in his water supply during the war on drugs caused his children to be horribly deformed ? Can a citizen of Germany now sue the USA because the US government read his e-mails and then stored them on a private server ?

And if so, will the USA take such sueing more seriously than Saudi Arabia will ?

No. Laws are made by the powerful, and as such, the same laws usually are not applied to them.

Not a nice argument I know, but a truthful one. I seriously doubt this will come to anything, and if somebody tried to sue the US in retaliation, it would just ignore it, it has done so with plenty of legal rulings that went against it before.

But again, I wouldn't be opposed to it happening, just don't think it will.

[Diopolis]

It's inspiring to see that, despite everything, our elected officials can still work together on matters of no consequence whatsoever.

[Minivanistan]

It's inspiring to see that, despite everything, our elected officials can still work together on matters of no consequence whatsoever.

Those are the best kind. Save the healthy dialogue for the important stuff.

[The Emerald Dawn]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /91289856/

"Nobody really had focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said. "I think it was just a ball dropped."

[Ifreann]

It would be useful in the sense that US citizens, residents, refugees,etc can now sue foreign governments in instances of genocide and other severe human rights violations, and vice versa.

I don't see the 9/11 case getting anywhere. The lawyers will make a lot of money on both sides, and eventually the case would be settled out of court, and/or eventually just be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Why would Saudi Arabia send lawyers? Why would they acknowledge the authority of the United States to summon them to court in the first place?

[Novus America]

It would be useful in the sense that US citizens, residents, refugees,etc can now sue foreign governments in instances of genocide and other severe human rights violations, and vice versa.

I don't see the 9/11 case getting anywhere. The lawyers will make a lot of money on both sides, and eventually the case would be settled out of court, and/or eventually just be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Why would Saudi Arabia send lawyers? Why would they acknowledge the authority of the United States to summon them to court in the first place?

Because they want to protect their US based assets? Besides they might want to protect whatever little sliver of a reputation they have remaining.

[Gauthier]

Why would Saudi Arabia send lawyers? Why would they acknowledge the authority of the United States to summon them to court in the first place?

Because they want to protect their US based assets? Besides they might want to protect whatever little sliver of a reputation they have remaining.

And then out of revenge the Saudis cover the legal costs of people wanting to sue the U.S. over drone strikes.

[Kernen]

No. Laws are made by the powerful, and as such, the same laws usually are not applied to them.

Not a nice argument I know, but a truthful one. I seriously doubt this will come to anything, and if somebody tried to sue the US in retaliation, it would just ignore it, it has done so with plenty of legal rulings that went against it before.

But again, I wouldn't be opposed to it happening, just don't think it will.

Not actually the case. This will open the door to the US being held to various standards based on it's actions as a sovereign entity in a tit-for-tat manner. Now, the US could ignore such suits, just as Saudi Arabia would likely ignore this suit, but it opens a can of worms of unpleasantry and judicial disrespect that may have far-reaching diplomatic and legal impacts. I wish this had not succeeded.

[Novus America]

Because they want to protect their US based assets? Besides they might want to protect whatever little sliver of a reputation they have remaining.

And then out of revenge the Saudis cover the legal costs of people wanting to sue the U.S. over drone strikes.

The US government does not have any major assets in Saudi Arabia. Nor does it use the Ssudi banking system. Also I doubt Saudi Arabia would want to go down that road. Heard of Yemen?

[Gauthier]

And then out of revenge the Saudis cover the legal costs of people wanting to sue the U.S. over drone strikes.

The US government does not have any major assets in Saudi Arabia. Nor does it use the Ssudi banking system. Also I doubt Saudi Arabia would want to go down that road. Heard of Yemen?

I doubt the Saudis would care much about making money or seizing American assets as giving the U.S. a taste of its own medicine with interest. And what about Yemen? The U.S. did jack shit about that last time.

[Novus America]

No. Laws are made by the powerful, and as such, the same laws usually are not applied to them.

Not a nice argument I know, but a truthful one. I seriously doubt this will come to anything, and if somebody tried to sue the US in retaliation, it would just ignore it, it has done so with plenty of legal rulings that went against it before.

But again, I wouldn't be opposed to it happening, just don't think it will.

Not actually the case. This will open the door to the US being held to various standards based on it's actions as a sovereign entity in a tit-for-tat manner. Now, the US could ignore such suits, just as Saudi Arabia would likely ignore this suit, but it opens a can of worms of unpleasantry and judicial disrespect that may have far-reaching diplomatic and legal impacts. I wish this had not succeeded.

That can was opened a long time ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltasar_Garzón
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicarag ... ted_States

[Ifreann]

Why would Saudi Arabia send lawyers? Why would they acknowledge the authority of the United States to summon them to court in the first place?

Because they want to protect their US based assets? Besides they might want to protect whatever little sliver of a reputation they have remaining.

Sue them in absentia and seize their property. Justice™!

[Novus America]

The US government does not have any major assets in Saudi Arabia. Nor does it use the Ssudi banking system. Also I doubt Saudi Arabia would want to go down that road. Heard of Yemen?

I doubt the Saudis would care much about making money or seizing American assets as giving the U.S. a taste of its own medicine with interest. And what about Yemen? The U.S. did jack shit about that last time.

Well if they hold a trial in Saudi "court" then say "okay US bad" then nobody in the US gives a shit as there are no assets to cover the damages. And Saudi Arabia's already horrible reputation in the US sinks lower, something they cannot afford right now. How do they benefit?

Considering Saudi Arabia bombs the shit out of hospitals in Yemen, the whole "bombing bad" might not be something they want to get into.

[Novus America]

Because they want to protect their US based assets? Besides they might want to protect whatever little sliver of a reputation they have remaining.

Sue them in absentia and seize their property. Justice™!

You can. If someone commits a tort in the US, fails to show up to court, the case will continue without them. That is how it works you know. If you get sued, simply not showing up does not get you out of the case.