Congress overrides Obama 9/11 veto

[Minivanistan]

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.

I am not entitely sure Kingdom image from our pov is really a concern for them considering their rabid sideline support for China & Company's efforts to undermine the USD as the petrodollar.
Saudi Arabia has been chafing at that particular gem since Desert Storm take two, and if irked enough they just might become dangerously proactive in undermining our petrodollar treaty.
Coupled with the already disturbing slide away from the dollar as a reserve currency by international banks, that makes for an irreconciliable no win situation for us.

[Ifreann]

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.

How do you serve Saudia Arabia? Go to the embassy? Won't let you in. Go to Saudi Arabia? Might not let you out. Try to shove papers into the hands of Saudi royalty? Might get killed.

[Gauthier]

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.

How do you serve Saudia Arabia? Go to the embassy? Won't let you in. Go to Saudi Arabia? Might not let you out. Try to shove papers into the hands of Saudi royalty? Might get killed.

Something Something Seize Saudi Assets.

[Goldenson]

Something Something Seize Saudi Assets.

[Novus America]

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.

I am not entitely sure Kingdom image from our pov is really a concern for them considering their rabid sideline support for China & Company's efforts to undermine the USD as the petrodollar.
Saudi Arabia has been chafing at that particular gem since Desert Storm take two, and if irked enough they just might become dangerously proactive in undermining our petrodollar treaty.
Coupled with the already disturbing slide away from the dollar as a reserve currency by international banks, that makes for an irreconciliable no win situation for us.

Not really. The strong dollar is bad for our economy in many ways. And Saudi Arabia is in dire straits already, last thing they need is causing their vital but failing relationship with US to get even worse. They need us much more than we need them.

[Novus America]

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.

How do you serve Saudia Arabia? Go to the embassy? Won't let you in. Go to Saudi Arabia? Might not let you out. Try to shove papers into the hands of Saudi royalty? Might get killed.

Service via mail is permitted.

[Ifreann]

How do you serve Saudia Arabia? Go to the embassy? Won't let you in. Go to Saudi Arabia? Might not let you out. Try to shove papers into the hands of Saudi royalty? Might get killed.

Service via mail is permitted.

Who do you mail? Salman bin Abdulaziz?

[Minivanistan]

Not really. The strong dollar is bad for our economy in many ways. And Saudi Arabia is in dire straits already, last thing they need is causing their vital but failing relationship with US to get even worse. They need us much more than we need them.

What strong dollar?
And needful how?
US petroleum purchase policy has traditionally been to buy up as much available product as possible to strategically hobble other players.
So, what we dont buy, can be sold elsewhere, and is.
So what leverage do we have over them exactly?

[The Corparation]

Service via mail is permitted.

Who do you mail? Salman bin Abdulaziz?

Just write "Saudi Arabia" on the letter. I'm sure that will be enough.

[Cedoria]

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.

Again, this can already be done, HAS in fact already been done. Numerous US officials have been attempted to be held accountable by their victims and families, and if it continues, it could force official legal action.

I'm in favour of it when states refuse to take action on their own criminals. It's a good thing.


As for unpleasantry and judicial disrespect, well, I'm in favour of a little more judicial disrespect to state criminals who think they are above the norms of law and human justice. I don't particularly care about that sort of respect.

[Ifreann]

Who do you mail? Salman bin Abdulaziz?

Just write "Saudi Arabia" on the letter. I'm sure that will be enough.

Might end up in Saudi Arabia, North Carolina.

[Novus America]

Not really. The strong dollar is bad for our economy in many ways. And Saudi Arabia is in dire straits already, last thing they need is causing their vital but failing relationship with US to get even worse. They need us much more than we need them.

What strong dollar?
And needful how?
US petroleum purchase policy has traditionally been to buy up as much available product as possible to strategically hobble other players.
So, what we dont buy, can be sold elsewhere, and is.
So what leverage do we have over them exactly?

http://theweek.com/articles/627306/doll ... -thats-bad
Also if the Saudis and Chinese devalue the dollar their exports lose competiveness, a their US treasury holdings lose value. That is not good for them of course.

The US does not have a "petroleum purchase strategy" as it is controlled by the market in the US. We do not have a state oil company or any United policies. Private companies do what they want.

Our strategy, as much as we have one is based on making North America an energy powerhouse and increasing energy independence (REDUCING imports).
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comme ... ntegration
North America already controls 28% of the world's oil supply. We get very little oil from the Middle East and Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis do not need us to buy their oil, but to back them with weapons and security gauranteed. Oil is NOT at all the basis of our current relationship.

[Novus America]

Service via mail is permitted.

Who do you mail? Salman bin Abdulaziz?

All that really matters is the court feels the opposing party has due notice. It is a valid method of service. Parties trying to escape service overseas is a common thing you know, that courts already deal with. And it is not like the Saudi government can go into hiding or something.

Edit. Here it is.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1608

[Kernen]

Again, this can already be done, HAS in fact already been done. Numerous US officials have been attempted to be held accountable by their victims and families, and if it continues, it could force official legal action.

I'm in favour of it when states refuse to take action on their own criminals. It's a good thing.


As for unpleasantry and judicial disrespect, well, I'm in favour of a little more judicial disrespect to state criminals who think they are above the norms of law and human justice. I don't particularly care about that sort of respect.

Suing state officials in their official capacity =/= suing the sovereign entity for it's actions abroad.

The principal of holding individuals to your personal moral standard is admirable, but is contrary to the interest of judicial economy, which would let the court deal with real problems. The courts should not waste their time with every single lawsuit brought against the state by every foreign activist group that can muster the Bar.

[Kernen]

Who do you mail? Salman bin Abdulaziz?

Ask a lawyer who specializes in these types of things. All that really matters is the court feels the opposing party has due notice. It is a valid method of service. Parties trying to escape service overseas is a common thing you know, that courts already deal with. And it is not like the Saudi government can go into hiding or something.

Serve process through the ambassador maybe? If the suing parties can prove they made the attempt to serve process to the Saudi government, they can probably seek declaratory relief.

I can't remember what you do for noninjunctive relief. Seek judgment on the pleadings under Federal Procedure Rule 12(c)? Its not like the Saudi's would give a shit.

[Novus America]

Ask a lawyer who specializes in these types of things. All that really matters is the court feels the opposing party has due notice. It is a valid method of service. Parties trying to escape service overseas is a common thing you know, that courts already deal with. And it is not like the Saudi government can go into hiding or something.

Serve process through the ambassador maybe? If the suing parties can prove they made the attempt to serve process to the Saudi government, they can probably seek declaratory relief.

I can't remember what you do for noninjunctive relief. Seek judgment on the pleadings under Federal Procedure Rule 12(c)? Its not like the Saudi's would give a shit.

Nicaragua sued the US. I am not sure how the service was done though. FRCP 12(a)(3) says you can sue the US government directly, but does not say how to sue foreign governments.

Edit, found it. FRCP 4(j)(1) and 28 USC 1608(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1608

You can make a motive for a judgement on the pleadings if they do not respond. But again the Saudis would have to care as they have assets in the US the court can have seized if the Saudis lose and refuse to pay.

[Victoriala II]

Come back to me when you do the world peace mayn

Sorry for being you know, hopeful for humanity

Don't hope too much, life is shit

[Zapato]

Serve process through the ambassador maybe? If the suing parties can prove they made the attempt to serve process to the Saudi government, they can probably seek declaratory relief.

I can't remember what you do for noninjunctive relief. Seek judgment on the pleadings under Federal Procedure Rule 12(c)? Its not like the Saudi's would give a shit.

Nicaragua sued the US. I am not sure how the service was done though. FRCP 12(a)(3) says you can sue the US government directly, but does not say how to sue foreign governments.

Edit, found it. FRCP 4(j)(1) and 28 USC 1608(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1608

You can make a motive for a judgement on the pleadings if they do not respond. But again the Saudis would have to care as they have assets in the US the court can have seized if the Saudis lose and refuse to pay.

Can you explain this statement by Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas?

But Professor Vladeck says in its creation the bill has created more blocks which will "probably" lead to "more litigation".

And even if the outcome is successful for the families, it will be little more than symbolic, he believes.

"The problem with JASTA is, it does not allow an American court to seize Saudi assets, or any foreign sovereign's assets, for this kind of claim," he says.

"So the best the plaintiffs can hope for is a piece of paper that says, yes the Saudi government was indirectly responsible because of funding, no you don't get any damages."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37504158

---

BTW, I love this statement:

Meanwhile, leaders of the Republican party in Congress have said they want to reconsider the law. The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell admitted that lawmakers had not understood the possible consequences of the legislation.

"Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody really had focused on the downside in terms of our international relationships,'" Mr McConnell said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37515049

I should be able to use that when I perform poorly at my job.

[Alien Space Bats]

BTW, I love this statement:

Meanwhile, leaders of the Republican party in Congress have said they want to reconsider the law. The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell admitted that lawmakers had not understood the possible consequences of the legislation.

"Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody really had focused on the downside in terms of our international relationships,'" Mr McConnell said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37515049

I should be able to use that when I perform poorly at my job.

Better is the part where McConnell blamed Obama for not doing more to explain why the bill was a bad idea.

“I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And the freaking veto, like, wasn't a CLUE?!?!?!

Translation: "We suck at our jobs, and that's Obama's fault. Thanks, Obama!"

[Imperializt Russia]

BTW, I love this statement:

Meanwhile, leaders of the Republican party in Congress have said they want to reconsider the law. The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell admitted that lawmakers had not understood the possible consequences of the legislation.

"Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody really had focused on the downside in terms of our international relationships,'" Mr McConnell said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37515049

I should be able to use that when I perform poorly at my job.

Better is the part where McConnell blamed Obama for not doing more to explain why the bill was a bad idea.

“I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And the freaking veto, like, wasn't a CLUE?!?!?!

Translation: "We suck at our jobs, and that's Obama's fault. Thanks, Obama!"

There's only two months left, got to get the quota up.

[Imperializt Russia]

BTW, I love this statement:

Meanwhile, leaders of the Republican party in Congress have said they want to reconsider the law. The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell admitted that lawmakers had not understood the possible consequences of the legislation.

"Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody really had focused on the downside in terms of our international relationships,'" Mr McConnell said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37515049

I should be able to use that when I perform poorly at my job.

It's almost as though, 15 years on, "9/11" is still the flag-waving trigger phrase it used to be.

[Aboim]

Will the victims of latino-american dictatorships win the right to prosecute the supporters countries and to litigate for monetary compensation due to the violation of them and their relatives? It will be fun to watch.

[Kernen]

Serve process through the ambassador maybe? If the suing parties can prove they made the attempt to serve process to the Saudi government, they can probably seek declaratory relief.

I can't remember what you do for noninjunctive relief. Seek judgment on the pleadings under Federal Procedure Rule 12(c)? Its not like the Saudi's would give a shit.

Nicaragua sued the US. I am not sure how the service was done though. FRCP 12(a)(3) says you can sue the US government directly, but does not say how to sue foreign governments.

Edit, found it. FRCP 4(j)(1) and 28 USC 1608(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1608

You can make a motive for a judgement on the pleadings if they do not respond. But again the Saudis would have to care as they have assets in the US the court can have seized if the Saudis lose and refuse to pay.

Rule 12(a)(3) definitely implies you can sue outside US jurisdiction, yes. I am not yet familiar with 28 USC 1608, though it looks like that clears up suing a foreign state just fine. I do wonder just how far they can be held accountable.

Nicaragua sued the US. I am not sure how the service was done though. FRCP 12(a)(3) says you can sue the US government directly, but does not say how to sue foreign governments.

Edit, found it. FRCP 4(j)(1) and 28 USC 1608(a)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1608

You can make a motive for a judgement on the pleadings if they do not respond. But again the Saudis would have to care as they have assets in the US the court can have seized if the Saudis lose and refuse to pay.

Can you explain this statement by Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at the University of Texas?

But Professor Vladeck says in its creation the bill has created more blocks which will "probably" lead to "more litigation".

And even if the outcome is successful for the families, it will be little more than symbolic, he believes.

"The problem with JASTA is, it does not allow an American court to seize Saudi assets, or any foreign sovereign's assets, for this kind of claim," he says.

"So the best the plaintiffs can hope for is a piece of paper that says, yes the Saudi government was indirectly responsible because of funding, no you don't get any damages."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37504158

It looks like, because of extant law, the best that can be hoped for by the suing party is a nominal recognition that the Saudis dun goof'd. Declaratory remedy, and not a single iota of compensatory or punitive damages could be paid if the Saudi's ignore the action and are found against in a judgment on the pleadings.

To break it down, if the plaintiffs sue Saudi Arabia, who then ignores the service of process and basically defaults on the pleadings, the plaintiffs can move for a judgment based on their pleadings in the absence of the defendant. If a judge grants it, and I believe they basically have to if the pleadings are, as a matter of law, valid, there can be no relief beyond the recognition by the court that Saudi Arabia did a bad thing. Ordinarily if the Saudi's didn't play ball, a court could seize their assets in the US to pay compensation out of, but a law clearly prevents that from happening in this case.

Thats how I see it. I admit that I am but a lowly 1L, and lack the full breadth of understanding that a practicing lawyer or a more advanced student might have.

[Khadgar]

BTW, I love this statement:

Meanwhile, leaders of the Republican party in Congress have said they want to reconsider the law. The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell admitted that lawmakers had not understood the possible consequences of the legislation.

"Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody really had focused on the downside in terms of our international relationships,'" Mr McConnell said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37515049

I should be able to use that when I perform poorly at my job.

Better is the part where McConnell blamed Obama for not doing more to explain why the bill was a bad idea.

“I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And the freaking veto, like, wasn't a CLUE?!?!?!

Translation: "We suck at our jobs, and that's Obama's fault. Thanks, Obama!"

Obama opposed it, vocally, ergo they loved it until they actually realized what they did. Morons. The Democrats who voted for this I'm just mystified about. What possible reason could they have?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Better is the part where McConnell blamed Obama for not doing more to explain why the bill was a bad idea.

“I hate to blame everything on him and I don’t, [but] it would have been helpful if we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week.”

And the freaking veto, like, wasn't a CLUE?!?!?!

Translation: "We suck at our jobs, and that's Obama's fault. Thanks, Obama!"

Obama opposed it, vocally, ergo they loved it until they actually realized what they did. Morons. The Democrats who voted for this I'm just mystified about. What possible reason could they have?

Stupid voters exist in both parties, being the party against the 9/11 survivors in an election year would seriously harm them.