• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Suing over 9/11

spikepipsqueak

spikepipsqueak

My Brane Hertz
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
4,953
Location
Victoria
Basic Beliefs
Nil
The US Congress is in the process of overcoming Obama's veto on a Bill allowing people affected by 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia.

Was there ever any suggestion that the gov't of SA was complicit in these events?

Will this be a one way street?
 
spikepipsqueak said:
Will this be a one way street?
Click to expand...

It can't be. If US lawmakers are willing to flout the principle of state immunity then there's no reason for foreign countries to respect it in the reverse. While allied countries will probably quash these sorts of time-wasting lawsuits there will still be people coming out of the woodwork to sue the US for whatever sleight they grind their axe with. Ultimately the problem will be enforcement, and no country will respect a ruling against their government by a foreign court, nor will any country be willing to go to war over such lawsuits.
 
Deepak said:
spikepipsqueak said:
Will this be a one way street?
Click to expand...

It can't be. If US lawmakers are willing to flout the principle of state immunity then there's no reason for foreign countries to respect it in the reverse. While allied countries will probably quash these sorts of time-wasting lawsuits there will still be people coming out of the woodwork to sue the US for whatever sleight they grind their axe with. Ultimately the problem will be enforcement, and no country will respect a ruling against their government by a foreign court, nor will any country be willing to go to war over such lawsuits.
Click to expand...

That's not the reason though you have mentioned a likely impact. It begins with O and ends in L.
 
Well once the veto is overridden feel free to sue Tonga and see how much further you get.
 
Deepak said:
Well once the veto is overridden feel free to sue Tonga and see how much further you get.
Click to expand...

Those who subscribed to the International Criminal Court can sue for reparations. The US is not a signatory to this.

- - - Updated - - -

Deepak said:
Well once the veto is overridden feel free to sue Tonga and see how much further you get.
Click to expand...

Those who subscribed to the International Criminal Court can sue for reparations. The US is not a signatory to this.
 
whichphilosophy said:
Those who subscribed to the International Criminal Court can sue for reparations. The US is not a signatory to this.

- - - Updated - - -

Deepak said:
Well once the veto is overridden feel free to sue Tonga and see how much further you get.
Click to expand...

Those who subscribed to the International Criminal Court can sue for reparations. The US is not a signatory to this.
Click to expand...

The US is a signatory to the Rome treaty, and this lawsuit would be in American courts not under purview of the ICC.
 
Deepak said:
whichphilosophy said:
Those who subscribed to the International Criminal Court can sue for reparations. The US is not a signatory to this.

- - - Updated - - -



Those who subscribed to the International Criminal Court can sue for reparations. The US is not a signatory to this.
Click to expand...

The US is a signatory to the Rome treaty, and this lawsuit would be in American courts not under purview of the ICC.
Click to expand...

It is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court and was one of 7 that voted against it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court

Finally the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing the treaty to serve as the Court's statute. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen

This is sometimes confused with the International Criminal Court of Justice, which the US withdrew from after the court ruled that its covert war against Nicaragua was a violation of international law. The US used its veto to prevent the enforcement of the UN security council where the US was to pay compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
 
spikepipsqueak said:
The US Congress is in the process of overcoming Obama's veto on a Bill allowing people affected by 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia.

Was there ever any suggestion that the gov't of SA was complicit in these events?

Will this be a one way street?
Click to expand...
The press hasn't seemed to think so. I read the 9/11 Commission Report, but not the recently published section on the Saudi Arabia angle. What I find extremely wrong about this legislation is that it unlocked the right to sue Saudi Arabia, not the airports, not the airlines. Apparently the millions paid out to each family that lost someone on 9/11 was to provide hush money to cover only Caucasian enterprises.
 
So, if everyone agrees this is epic in its stupidity why did it pass the senate 97-1?
 
This seems like a good idea to me. If governments engage in illegal actions then the victims of those actions should be entitled to compensation.
 
As Keith notes, this is poison to vote against. Ultimately nothing comes from the legislation being passed. However, it does look bad and technically opens America up to litigation (say hello to victims of drone attacks).
Tom Sawyer said:
This seems like a good idea to me. If governments engage in illegal actions then the victims of those actions should be entitled to compensation.
Click to expand...
They were compensated at least a few million a piece.

The question becomes how do you sue Saudi Arabia or individuals in Saudi Arabia? You'd need access to intel and in depth information via warrants (good luck getting anything from the CIA). You can't just cite the 9/11 Report and say Saudi Arabia owes us money. It gets harder to sue individuals. It'd cost a fortune to pull off an investigation, if it could even be had. Saudi Arabia will not view any lawsuit with anything but a face palm.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
As Keith notes, this is poison to vote against. Ultimately nothing comes from the legislation being passed. However, it does look bad and technically opens America up to litigation (say hello to victims of drone attacks).
Tom Sawyer said:
This seems like a good idea to me. If governments engage in illegal actions then the victims of those actions should be entitled to compensation.
Click to expand...
They were compensated at least a few million a piece.

The question becomes how do you sue Saudi Arabia or individuals in Saudi Arabia? You'd need access to intel and in depth information via warrants (good luck getting anything from the CIA). You can't just cite the 9/11 Report and say Saudi Arabia owes us money. It gets harder to sue individuals. It'd cost a fortune to pull off an investigation, if it could even be had. Saudi Arabia will not view any lawsuit with anything but a face palm.
Click to expand...

I think that's right. But for a sitting politician (what else do they do?) it would definitely be poison to vote against the bill, as doing so would create the appearance that they are pitted against the families of those who perished on 9/11. It's an open invitation to emulate Trump's "gold star family" gaffe.
 
dismal said:
Keith&Co. said:
Because voting against it is going to give ammunition to their opponents in their next election.
Click to expand...

So, if something is epic in its stupidity why would voting against it give an an opponent ammunition in the next election?
Click to expand...
Because the truth doesn't matter nearly as much as how emotional you can get the voters.

Benghazi! Emails! Tax Returns! Birth certificate!
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
As Keith notes, this is poison to vote against. Ultimately nothing comes from the legislation being passed. However, it does look bad and technically opens America up to litigation (say hello to victims of drone attacks).
Tom Sawyer said:
This seems like a good idea to me. If governments engage in illegal actions then the victims of those actions should be entitled to compensation.
Click to expand...
They were compensated at least a few million a piece.

The question becomes how do you sue Saudi Arabia or individuals in Saudi Arabia? You'd need access to intel and in depth information via warrants (good luck getting anything from the CIA). You can't just cite the 9/11 Report and say Saudi Arabia owes us money. It gets harder to sue individuals. It'd cost a fortune to pull off an investigation, if it could even be had. Saudi Arabia will not view any lawsuit with anything but a face palm.
Click to expand...

The process of how they'd go about doing it is a completely different question. I have no idea what that process would be.

They should, however, have the legal right to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom