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This discussion has been archived.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 bradley13 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:58AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:58AM (#401242) Homepage Journal

    It makes little sense to allow American to sue a foreign government in US courts. There is this wee little problem of jurisdiction.

    That said, the US government should have taken action against Saudia Arabia 15 years ago. There was pretty strong evidence that either the Saudi government, or at least individuals within the government, were involved. The US government not only failed to pursue this, it actually helped numerous prominent Saudis quietly leave the country in the aftermath of 9/11 [wanttoknow.info]. The Bush administration then proceeded to attack a sovereign country that was not directly involved (Afghanistan) [wtc7.net], not to mention later Iraq and Libya, and even provide money and weapons to other branches of the very organization (Al Queda) [counterpunch.org] that claimed responsibility for 9/11.

    Those may not be the best links for the material - I just quickly googled, which means I may have landed some conspiracy sites. However, there is plenty of evidence on all of these issues. The behavior of the US government in the months and years after 9/11 was utterly irrational and bizarre. The US had the sympathy of the entire western world, and most of the rest. It had the moral authority to do a lot of good; instead, we got rendition, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo. Sad...

    If US were to open the door to individuals suing governments, it might just be the US government that would be sued, by the millions of people whose lives it destroyed in misdirected vengeance.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:18AM

    by zocalo (302) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:18AM (#401248)

    If US were to open the door to individuals suing governments, it might just be the US government that would be sued, by the millions of people whose lives it destroyed in misdirected vengeance.

    They do specifically state it's for state sponsored terrorism, so all those perfectly legal wars the US has waged directly are presumably exempt. Of course, since one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, that wouldn't necessarily get them off the hook for all the various bits of aid and support they've provided to para-militaries across the Middle-East, Africa, Central/Eastern Europe, Central/South America, the Far East... it just depends on how far back you are prepared (and allowed) to go. Pretty sure there will be plenty of human rights lawyers just lining up to give it a try if the opportunity arises though.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Bobs on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:49PM

      by Bobs (1462) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:49PM (#401265)

      They do specifically state it's for state sponsored terrorism, so all those perfectly legal wars the US has waged directly are presumably exempt.

      Likely you were being sarcastic, but the US would be opening itself up to a huuge collection of legal problems as the US Congress hasn't declared [wikipedia.org] many wars:

      Then imagine when multiple entities pull a a Peter Thiel, and bankrolls [theguardian.com] hundreds / thousands of lawsuits by various parties against the US.

      Some who might spend millions+ to subsidize and cataylze lawsuits against the US: China, Iran, Russia, Saudi's. And wealthy individuals with an axe to grind. And lawyers sniffing a big settlement.

        All these lawsuits will be a huge boon for USA's enemies:

      • Weaken legal standing as various entities rule against US. If US ignores then weakens international legal systems that we use to reign in bad actors.
      • US wastes a lot of time / energy defending agaisnt / justifying a lot of force.
      • US forced to air a lot of dirty laundry as it is rehashed in court / social media.
      • Even if US wins cases in court, get damaged in public/international opinion. This is a tool that we prefer to use to reign in others.

      And this will be an infinite investigations and suits: Think of the never-ending series of investigations and press for Hillary Clinton over 1 small engagement in Bengahzi, and 1 email server. Imagine the literally endless suits, investigations, reviews, judgements, etc as the USA, CIA, NSA, DOD, BlackWater, etc's actions are reviewed by millions of lawyers, driven by greed, hunger for justice, and the funds of American's enemies.

      What is the upside again? Hasn't the US government compensated people harmed by the 9/11 attacks? I generally despise the Saudi government and think they should have been held accountable for their contributions. But this will hurt the US and weaken international law more than it will help anyone.
       

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:51AM (#401574)

        "rein in" not "reign in"

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @12:08PM (#401255)

    Well the US has a very long interest with Guantanamo Bay; its not like this base just opened up.

    Guantanamo has always been an American colony, dating back to English colonial rule. George Washingtons older half brother was one of the first commanders of the colony for fucks sake. There has been a continued presence of whites in that area since the 1700's and even today some 10,000 people not in the military or in the prisons live there. Only direct flights to Kingston and Barbados and only if you are a citizen of Guantanamo. Our Passports are American but we are given a Gtmo visa when we leave. There are a few towns around he bay; most are of the English speaking kind.

    There is a lot of misinformation about what Guantanamo is, how big it is, and how many people live there. Even the Wikipedia article is biased against our history. We only agreed to the base after the Spanish-American war; we had already lived here for 150 years but our towns needed protection from retaliation. The prisons were originally a quarantine zone for illegals going to the US and the size and scope are really blown out of proportion; the entire area is smaller than WalMart parking lots. We are more like Palestine under Isreali rule with a small Hezbollah prescence. Not really American, certainly not Cuban, and with strong negative connotations unfairly attributed to our name.

    Source: was born and raised in Gitmo. Have family there; now I work in Miami and only visit 2-3 times a year. The weather is nice, internet sucks. We have a hospital, three schools, and American resturaunts.

    • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:56PM

      by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:56PM (#401294) Homepage Journal

      I'd mod you up "informative" if I had points left.

      I was referring, of course, specifically to the practice of using Guantanamo to imprison people for indefinite periods of time, without legal recourse. It doesn't matter how big or how small Guantanamo is. Detaining people indefinitely, without legal recourse is a clear violation of international law; moreso because the US never actually declared war [senate.gov] on anyone.

      That's not a reflection on the poeple who live there, of course. However, the name has inevitably been contaminated by the events.

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:16PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:16PM (#401276) Journal

    Jurisdiction has long since been nullified by "universal jurisdiction" and the general World Police powers of America.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @01:54PM (#401292)

      Kim Dotcom agrees

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:26PM (#401310)

    Similar theory does not stop them from trying to drag DotCom to the US so they can rape his assets