Suing over 9/11

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

“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!

Hate to blame everything on him? He fucking veto'd your motherfucking bill. That is a pretty notable signal of disapproval. In sex terms, McConnell is wondering, I wish she'd give me a signal if she was interested in him, while his dick was in her mouth.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

Assuming the families would win. They won't. They don't have a case.

 

[Shadowy Man]

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

“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!

Classic Mitch brilliance. He gets to stick it to Obama by overturning the veto, then stick it to him again for blaming Obama for the negative consequences of the bill he vetoed. I bet Mitch wishes Obama could have a third term so he could continue to work at making Obama a one term President.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The first (reported) case which would require evidence to support charges that the Saudi Government or senior members within the government funded Al Qaeda

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/9-11-widow-sues-saudi-arabia-1.1904894

A woman widowed when her husband was killed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 sued Saudi Arabia just two days after the US Congress enacted legislation allowing Americans to sue foreign governments for allegedly being involved in terrorist attacks on US soil.
Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleged the kingdom provided material support to Al Qaida and its leader, Osama Bin Laden, in a complaint filed Friday at a US court in Washington. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter. DeSimone was pregnant when Navy Commander Patrick Dunn was killed.
A US commission that investigated the 2001 attacks said in a 2004 report that it “found no evidence that the Saudi government, as an institution, or senior officials within the Saudi government funded Al Qaida”.

The Saudi embassy didn’t immediately reply to an e-mailed message seeking comment on the suit.
The case is DeSimone v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 16-cv-1944, US District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).


It's outside the international court and could prompt others within their own countries to sue the US.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

Clinton signed it in 2000 but it was never ratified by his government. He is therefore an unauthorised signatory without his government approval under the US system. If however the Senate had ratified this before his signature, then on what it ratified his signature would be valid. . Technically under the US democratic system Clinton was just the postman but represented the contents of a letter hasn't been written yet. This of course is debatable, where some may say it should be valid. Nonetheless the US has failed to ratify this.

Here are some references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court

There are a lot of articles but here is one regarding recent events and similar to other articles but what is below is outside the ICC.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-06-the-international-criminal-court-why-is-the-united-s

 

[Deepak]

Check out the map in your first (non)link

Clinton signed it in 2000 but it was never ratified by his government. He is therefore an unauthorised signatory without his government approval under the US system. If however the Senate had ratified this before his signature, then on what it ratified his signature would be valid. . Technically under the US democratic system Clinton was just the postman but represented the contents of a letter hasn't been written yet. This of course is debatable, where some may say it should be valid. Nonetheless the US has failed to ratify this.

Here are some references:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court

There are a lot of articles but here is one regarding recent events and similar to other articles but what is below is outside the ICC.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-06-the-international-criminal-court-why-is-the-united-s

Not only is your argument a straw man, as I stated the US was a signatory and did not state the US was a participant in the ICC. Clinton was also fully authorized to sign even if there are further contingencies to ratification.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Clinton signed it in 2000 but it was never ratified by his government. He is therefore an unauthorised signatory without his government approval under the US system. If however the Senate had ratified this before his signature, then on what it ratified his signature would be valid. . Technically under the US democratic system Clinton was just the postman but represented the contents of a letter hasn't been written yet. This of course is debatable, where some may say it should be valid. Nonetheless the US has failed to ratify this.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court
The Clinton Administration signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but did not submit it for Senate ratification. The Bush Administration, the US administration at the time of the ICC's founding, stated that it would not join the ICC. The Obama Administration has subsequently re-established a working relationship with the Court

There are a lot of articles but here is one regarding recent events and similar to other articles but what is below is outside the ICC.

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-06-the-international-criminal-court-why-is-the-united-s

Not only is your argument a straw man, as I stated the US was a signatory and did not state the US was a participant in the ICC. Clinton was also fully authorized to sign even if there are further contingencies to ratification.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification
Not without approval from his government. Without it his signature is not valid because it carries no authorisation until ratified.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification

Ratification defines the international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if the parties intended to show their consent by such an act.

http://ask.un.org/faq/14594

The United Nations Treaty Collection website provides a Glossary of terms relating to Treaty actions.

This text is taken from that Glossary:

Signature ad Referendum

A representative may sign a treaty "ad referendum", i.e., under the condition that the signature is confirmed by his state. In this case, the signature becomes definitive once it is confirmed by the responsible organ.

[Art.12 (2) (b), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

Signature Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or Approval

Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.

[Arts.10 and 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]

 

[Deepak]

Not without approval from his government. Without it his signature is not valid because it carries no authorisation until ratified.

The signature is valid, but not legally binding - that doesn't make it invalid.

From citation 9 of the Wikipedia link

‘Signature’ of a treaty is an act by which a State provides a preliminary endorsement of the instrument. Signing does not create a binding legal obligation but does demonstrate the State’s intent to examine the treaty domestically and consider ratifying it. While signing does not commit a State to ratification, it does oblige the State to refrain from acts that would defeat or undermine the treaty’s objective and purpose.

This is standard practice, and nothing about the signature is invalid because there are additional steps to ratification. The bold specifically, again standard practice for modern treaties, places guardrails on US behaviour internationally even through they aren't under purview of the treaty internally. If the signature is invalid then you're claiming the US can flout the bolded obligation with impunity and other signatories wouldn't have standing to complain?

 

[whichphilosophy]

The signature is valid, but not legally binding - that doesn't make it invalid.

From citation 9 of the Wikipedia link

‘Signature’ of a treaty is an act by which a State provides a preliminary endorsement of the instrument. Signing does not create a binding legal obligation but does demonstrate the State’s intent to examine the treaty domestically and consider ratifying it. While signing does not commit a State to ratification, it does oblige the State to refrain from acts that would defeat or undermine the treaty’s objective and purpose.

This is standard practice, and nothing about the signature is invalid because there are additional steps to ratification. The bold specifically, again standard practice for modern treaties, places guardrails on US behaviour internationally even through they aren't under purview of the treaty internally. If the signature is invalid then you're claiming the US can flout the bolded obligation with impunity and other signatories wouldn't have standing to complain?

It shows intent but beyond that it is not valid unless ratified where the signatory has received the endorsement of his/her state.

 

[Deepak]

It shows intent but beyond that it is not valid unless ratified where the signatory has received the endorsement of his/her state.

So you agree then that the signature is valid to show intent and every source you've linked has referred to the US as a signatory. What exactly are we arguing here - that the signature doesn't do something I never claimed it did (and in fact explicitly stated it didn't do)? I understand how the ratification process works, you're not explaining anything to me here.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It shows intent but beyond that it is not valid unless ratified where the signatory has received the endorsement of his/her state.

So you agree then that the signature is valid to show intent and every source you've linked has referred to the US as a signatory. What exactly are we arguing here - that the signature doesn't do something I never claimed it did (and in fact explicitly stated it didn't do)? I understand how the ratification process works, you're not explaining anything to me here.

Intent subject to ratification, which in the US is subject to endorsement of the US government. In itself the intent is not binding

Signature Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or Approval

Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.

[Arts.10 and 18, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969]