Suing over 9/11

[whichphilosophy]

So, if something is epic in its stupidity why would voting against it give an an opponent ammunition in the next election?

Because the truth doesn't matter nearly as much as how emotional you can get the voters.

Benghazi! Emails! Tax Returns! Birth certificate!

Unfortunately talking about issues is generally taboo with this current election.

 

[dismal]

So, if everyone agrees this is epic in its stupidity why did it pass the senate 97-1?

Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.
Mark Twain

The sense here seems to be they are not so much "idiots" as "panderers to idiots". Though arguably the end result is indistinguishable. Given 97-1 vote, we might have better luck with actual idiots.

 

[whichphilosophy]

That's not the reason though you have mentioned a likely impact. It begins with O and ends in L.

Which is why it would be so stupid to quash domestic oil production just to appease Indians and left-wing ecomentalists.

It's a matter of the US getting into bed with the Saudi regime to stay close to the oil which it is still dependant on which presides over human rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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).
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.

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.

Yup. Note that the two votes against it were both from people who aren't running for reelection.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Because the truth doesn't matter nearly as much as how emotional you can get the voters.

Benghazi! Emails! Tax Returns! Birth certificate!

Unfortunately talking about issues is generally taboo with this current election.

My guess is that if Hillary didn't have to spend all of her time defending herself against conspiracy theories and sexist viewpoints that she'd be quite likely to want to discuss issues. That doesn't mean you have to agree with her on the issues, but it'd certainly be nice if we weren't being distracted from the issues.

Of course, issues aren't the only things important to a Presidential election. In fact, many of the 'issues' are actually Legislative ones, not Executive ones, so we really should be discussing those topics that are relevant to the Executive role. And I believe that temperament is a relevant topic for a President, so it's fair to attack Trump's temperament, which, despite what he himself is saying about his temperament, is not well-suited to the Presidency.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

I hear what you are saying but don't agree with it as their possible thinking. These are the same people who refused for years to do right by the 911 first responders. They didn't give a shit about the optics of that, and neither did their constituents

This is about going after Muslims with the added icing of thwarting President Obama just because... Obama.

 

[credoconsolans]

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?

I don't understand it either, unless it's just a sop thrown to those still trying to cash in on 9/11. Ain't nothing gonna happen. Sure, they can sue another nation. It'd be like the Brazilians waiting for Ryan Lochte to come back and face the charges against him.

A vain effort.

 

[Axulus]

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?

I don't understand it either, unless it's just a sop thrown to those still trying to cash in on 9/11. Ain't nothing gonna happen. Sure, they can sue another nation. It'd be like the Brazilians waiting for Ryan Lochte to come back and face the charges against him.

A vain effort.

Not necessarily - they would sue in US courts and, if they won a monetary award, they may be able to have the US government sieze assets of SA, such as money held in US banks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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).
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.

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.

So will the family of Charles Horman get to sue the Chilean government now?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't understand it either, unless it's just a sop thrown to those still trying to cash in on 9/11. Ain't nothing gonna happen. Sure, they can sue another nation. It'd be like the Brazilians waiting for Ryan Lochte to come back and face the charges against him.

A vain effort.

Not necessarily - they would sue in US courts and, if they won a monetary award, they may be able to have the US government sieze assets of SA, such as money held in US banks.

... Just recently a couple of days ago

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...errides_obama_s_veto_of_9_11_victim_bill.html

9/11 Families Can Now Sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. Courts

The House and Senate voted Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of legislation allowing families of those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The controversial bill—which Obama and legal experts warned could have serious unintended repercussions for the United States—will now become law.
The congressional override was the first of Obama’s time in office. The House voted 348–77 in favor, with only 18 Republicans and 59 Democrats siding with the president. The Senate vote was 97–1, with Harry Reid all by his lonesome in the upper chamber. Here’s the New York Times with more on the legislation's somewhat strange bipartisan history:

Now the implication is that some foeign governments might now also sue US and British for war crimes in their own courts.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't understand it either, unless it's just a sop thrown to those still trying to cash in on 9/11. Ain't nothing gonna happen. Sure, they can sue another nation. It'd be like the Brazilians waiting for Ryan Lochte to come back and face the charges against him.

A vain effort.

Not necessarily - they would sue in US courts and, if they won a monetary award, they may be able to have the US government sieze assets of SA, such as money held in US banks.

The US may be able but will it. North Korea or Iran yes, but Saudi Arabia, not so likely.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

I hear what you are saying but don't agree with it as their possible thinking. These are the same people who refused for years to do right by the 911 first responders. They didn't give a shit about the optics of that, and neither did their constituents

This is about going after Muslims with the added icing of thwarting President Obama just because... Obama.

It's better to operate such trials in an international court but at least an investigation of the trial from 9/11 which in part reached Saudi Arabia should be investigated.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's better to operate such trials in an international court but at least an investigation of the trial from 9/11 which in part reached Saudi Arabia should be investigated.

Ya, as I understand the heart of Saudi Arabia's opposition to this, it's that they should be able to claim sovereign immunity and not even have their actions investigated. That's a really crappy idea. As had been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are a whole lot of problems in actually getting an investigation done when the people you're investigating run the country you're trying to investigate and therefore control all the rules and regulations in how to investigate them, but that's not a reason to shut down the ability to try and investigate them in the first place.

 

[dismal]

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.

I hear what you are saying but don't agree with it as their possible thinking. These are the same people who refused for years to do right by the 911 first responders. They didn't give a shit about the optics of that, and neither did their constituents

This is about going after Muslims with the added icing of thwarting President Obama just because... Obama.

Yes, the amazing thing is they got a 97-1 vote (going after muslims...because..Obama) without any Democrats.

 

[iolo]

If it stops support for this ghastly government in Saudi Arabia, and causes a rift, it can't be all bad. Couldn't some similar sort of case be made by all those whose loved ones have been murdered by 'Israel'?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Because the truth doesn't matter nearly as much as how emotional you can get the voters.

Benghazi! Emails! Tax Returns! Birth certificate!

These are the same people who refused for years to do right by the 911 first responders. They didn't give a shit about the optics of that, and neither did their constituents

This is about going after Muslims with the added icing of thwarting President Obama just because... Obama.

Yep. And it's more emotionally stirring to hate on someone than it is to want to help others in a world where hate trumps love.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's better to operate such trials in an international court but at least an investigation of the trial from 9/11 which in part reached Saudi Arabia should be investigated.

Ya, as I understand the heart of Saudi Arabia's opposition to this, it's that they should be able to claim sovereign immunity and not even have their actions investigated. That's a really crappy idea. As had been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are a whole lot of problems in actually getting an investigation done when the people you're investigating run the country you're trying to investigate and therefore control all the rules and regulations in how to investigate them, but that's not a reason to shut down the ability to try and investigate them in the first place.

Why I suggest international courts is they are more likely to be neutral, hence less likely to be protective (O for oil) or biased.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Congress’s Retreat on 9/11 Saudi Bill Shows Fear of Backlash

Not 24 hours later, Republicans were backpedaling. Some fretted that the law invited retaliation against U.S. soldiers, the exact point the White House had been making for months.

“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships, and I think it was just a ball dropped,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters Thursday, saying it was worth discussing possible fixes after the elections.

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

OMFG!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So will the family of Charles Horman get to sue the Chilean government now?

I don't care enough to spend three seconds on google to find out who that is, but I don't see why he shouldn't be able to.

 

[Deepak]

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

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

Check out the map in your first (non)link