Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 13 2016, @09:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the otherwise-we-could-be-both-goose-AND-gander dept.

President Obama plans to veto a bipartisan bill that would create an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine, allowing victims of state-sponsored terrorism to sue foreign governments:

President Barack Obama will veto a bill that would allow terror victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001, to sue Saudi Arabia, the White House said Monday. "That's still the plan," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked if the President planned to veto the bill. The White House had previously suggested Obama would not sign the bill when it first passed the Senate in May saying it would complicate diplomatic relations. [...] Lawmakers are expected to attempt to override the veto, and if successful, would mark the first time in Obama's presidency.

The bill passed in the House and Senate unanimously.

Also at The New York Times , Reuters.

S.2040 - Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

Previously: Saudi Arabia Threatens to Sell $750 Billion in US Assets If 9/11 Bill Passes


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:39AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:39AM (#401231)

    Just imagine the cost only if the hundreds of thousands of Iraqui victims of the US sponsored invasions were given such a clear precedent to sue the US government... and then all the other millions of victims around the world.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Insightful=5, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:45AM (#401252)

    There would be no venue and standing to sue would be incredibly hard to prove due to the complete lack of functioning government in that region. The lesson is that if you attack a country, make sure you thoroughly destroy it so there is no legal system in place and world governments and international courts agree a regime change occurred. Saudi Arabia did not follow through on their invasion of the US; the same recognized government is in place in the US and rhe infrastructure remains in place to establish continued jurisprudence.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:10PM (#401272)

      IIRC, You have to get permission from the U.S. govt to sue the U.S. govt. Not sure if the same applies to Saudi Terarabia.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:29PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:29PM (#401281) Journal

        I believe the idea here is that the court would seize assets in the United States to pay the victims. No permission needed from the Saudis.

        https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/04/16/2337246 [soylentnews.org]

        Link will be added to the summary.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:51PM (#401291)

          Yeah, and then what stops that every other country feel legitimated to seize any US owned assets to pay their victims?

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:04PM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:04PM (#401297) Journal

            What are they waiting for, this bill to pass?

            If they haven't done it already, they're not pissed off enough to ignore the consequences of angering one of the world's superpowers and likely an important trade partner.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:13PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:13PM (#401302)

              So drones and nukes?

              • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:27PM

                by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:27PM (#401312) Journal

                There are many possible reactions short of war, such as:

                Harassment of the country's citizens, tariffs and trade restrictions, unilateral economic sanctions or embargoes, withdrawal of financial aid, cancellation of intelligence sharing, supporting opposition groups within the country, military assistance given to adjacent nations, tit for tat seizure of assets (like Saudi Arabia is threatening to do), recalling diplomats/closing embassies, hostility at the UN and other global institutions where the U.S. wields disproportionate power, and termination of bilateral treaties (such as extradition).

                --
                [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]