Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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

Related Stories

Saudi Arabia Threatens to Sell $750 Billion in US Assets If 9/11 Bill Passes 83 comments

The New York Times reports (and Yahoo! News repeats without any paywall) that the government of Saudi Arabia is threatening to sell $750 billion in treasury securities and other unidentified assets if Congress passes the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The bill would allow foreign governments to be sued by 9/11 victims and their families. The threat was issued by Saudi Arabian foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir to unnamed US lawmakers while he was visiting Washington sometime last month, on the grounds that these assets could be in danger of being frozen by US courts.


Original Submission

U.S. President to Visit Saudi Arabia; Arms Sales Expected 51 comments

Ahead of the US president's visit to Saudi Arabia, a series of multi-billion-dollar arms deals have been outlined. The previous US administration suspended some supplies because of human rights concerns.

Deutsche Welle

When President Trump arrives in Riyadh this week, he will lay out his vision for a new regional security architecture White House officials call an “Arab NATO,” to guide the fight against terrorism and push back against Iran. As a cornerstone of the plan, Trump will also announce one of the largest arms-sales deals in history.

Behind the scenes, the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia have been conducting extensive negotiations, led by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The discussions began shortly after the presidential election, when Mohammed, known in Washington as “MBS,” sent a delegation to meet with Kushner and other Trump officials at Trump Tower.

After years of disillusionment with the Obama administration, the Saudi leadership was eager to do business. “They were willing to make a bet on Trump and on America,” a senior White House official said.

[...] The most concrete part of the idea is a mammoth U.S. arms package for Saudi Arabia that Trump will also announce in Riyadh. Final details are still being worked out, but officials said the package will include between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales. Over 10 years, total sales could reach $350 billion.

The sales include huge upgrades for the Saudi army and navy to include Littoral Combat Ships, THAAD missile defense systems, armored personnel carriers, missiles, bombs and munitions, officials said. Some of the production and assembly could be located in Saudi Arabia, boosting MBS’s project to build a Saudi domestic defense industrial capability. But most of the items would be built by American defense contractors.

The Washington Post

Additional coverage:

U.S. Senate and House Override President Obama's 9/11 Bill Veto 114 comments

For the first time since President Obama took office in 2009, Congress has overridden his veto.

The U.S. Senate voted 97-1 to override President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which would allow victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The lone dissenting vote was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who has "always had the president's back":

In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked "damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries" and "could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts." Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto. CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill's "grave implications for the national security of the United States" in a statement Wednesday.

The House of Representatives voted 348-to-77:

Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

See also: The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 by the New York Times Editorial Board and this article in the Saudi Gazette.

Previously: President Obama to Veto Bill Allowing September 11 Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia


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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:30AM (#401226)

    $$$$

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:36PM (#401344)

      What's the worst that could happen? 1- Saudi orders the rest of the mid-east oil producers to stop the spice (oil) flowing to North America. 2- Fuel prices skyrocket. 3- The fuel finally runs out. 4- America grinds to a halt. 5- America looks like the TV series Dark Angel.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @06:41PM (#401435)

        North America has enough oil to meet its needs.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @12:47AM (#401542)

          It'll be routed to military & govt, civilians won't get squat.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:00PM (#401439)

      Actually it is the removal of -$$$$.

      This is an incredibly stupid precedent to set for a country with an extremely violent and warlike past and many international interests.

      Just imagine if everyone terrorized by US-sponsored terror up and sued the US government and seized US assets abroad?

      The US would be bankrupt. (and not just morally as it is now...)

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:34AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:34AM (#401228)

    Sue that dang Obama for winning the elections! Make his ass pay reparations to everyone who didn't vote for him.

    • (Score: 2) by fishybell on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:28PM

      by fishybell (3156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:28PM (#401374)

      No, no, you've got it backwards. The real answer is to sue Mitt Romney, the real Saudi Arabia of this situation.

      1. He, and only he, could have prevented Obama from becoming president in 2012, and conceivably in 2008.
      2. He had the foreknowledge that Obama existed, and still didn't prevent him from winning.
      3. While Mitt had the support of much of the people, many were fine with the actions Obama promised, even when these actions were clearly against the long term best interests of Mitt Romney and his friends.
      4. Mitt Romney has more money.

    • (Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:03AM

      by driverless (4770) on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:03AM (#401633)

      Sue that dang Obama for winning the elections! Make his ass pay reparations to everyone who didn't vote for him.

      Sue that dang ol' Obama man, no way man, gettin' all sick of that dang ol' elections, I tell ya what, lookit them dang ol' votes, oh man.

  • (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.

    • (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) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> 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) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> 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) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> 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]
  • (Score: 2, Troll) by art guerrilla on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:40AM

    by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:40AM (#401233)

    so, in case you don't know, the whole deal was a cynical ploy by kongresskritters to throw a hot potato back in obomber's lap and make it HIS problem, not theirs...
    (in fact, that pretty much sums up the whole 'game' played in washingtoon)
    the kongresskritters look like they really care and are doing something reasonable to help nine one one victim's familys, but KNOW it is going to be vetoed (in fact, counting on that)...
    whether they override the veto will be interesting, i would guess there is a private jet on its way from riyad loaded with pallets of hundred dollar bills being shipped *back* to amerika to provide aid and comfort to the enemy: kongresskritters...
    such concernage, much braveness...

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:42AM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:42AM (#401236)

      families
      geez, i just couldn't let it go...
      *sigh*

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:46AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:46AM (#401238)

        KBO dood! Keep Buggering On

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:23PM (#401339)

      Lame duck president in an election year. They know he will veto it because the political repercussions for him are minimal, which is why everyone in the Senate passed it. They know it is a bad bill, but Obama gives them political cover just before the election. And I bet the override vote doesn't happen (if it happens at all) until after the election.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:27PM (#401340)

      If they have the votes to override the veto, then they're not *just* doing it to look like they care... and it is also election year posturing.
      If they don't have the votes to override the veto, then they're doing it just to look like they care... and it is also election year posturing.
      And puhleeze... crates of dollar bills from Riyadh are not necessary. Certain favors which make certain "big oil" legislators look good to their bases, and those big oil legislators wheeling-dealing to control the legislation on this such that Obama is forced to downvote it and everyone knows it. Not one dollar bill needs to be transferred to the legislators to make this go down properly.

      • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:39PM

        by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:39PM (#401382)

        um, i didnt think anyone would take the pallets thing literally, but the outcome is the same: kongresskritters who play along will be rewarded one way or another...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @04:38AM (#401644)

      Something wrong with the shift key on your keyboard? Just so you know: if you can't be bothered to use punctuation, I shan't be bothered to read your comment. Nevertheless, have a good day!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Chromium_One on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:52AM

    by Chromium_One (4574) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:52AM (#401240)

    Because despite 15 of the 19 attackers being Saudi nationals[1], the Saudi Arabian government having close ties to Al Qaeda[2], providing funding and other assistance to Al Qaeda[3], and working to protect Al Qaeda[4], the Saudis are still our allies[5]. There will be no censure or any other action taken to jeopardize this relationship[6].

    So, sure, we went in and did the nasty on Iraq, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead[7] and millions displaced[8] while going after the wrong target.

    This is the perfect way forward. No accountability for anyone involved is desirable, let alone required.

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks [wikipedia.org]
    [2] http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/28-pages-saudi-prince-bandar-9-11/index.html [cnn.com]
    [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/world/middleeast/pre-9-11-ties-haunt-saudis-as-new-accusations-surface.html [nytimes.com]
    [3] http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/9-11-commission-lehman-saudis-al-qaeda/index.html [cnn.com]
    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia [wikipedia.org]
    [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/16/us/28-pages-saudi-arabia-september-11.html [nytimes.com]
    [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Post-9.2F11_relationship [wikipedia.org]
    [6] http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/saudi-arabia-government-9-11-congress-bill/index.html [cnn.com]
    [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War [wikipedia.org]
    [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_refugees_crisis [wikipedia.org]

    --
    When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Chromium_One on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:06AM

      by Chromium_One (4574) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @11:06AM (#401245)
      --
      When you live in a sick society, everything you do is wrong.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:45PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @03:45PM (#401349) Journal

        Nooooo! No editing of posted comments, ever! Just do what you did here and post a corrected comment. Preview is your friend. If SN needs any changes at all, it would be "inline" posting to keep the entire thread in view.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:00PM (#401357)

          >mod parent disagree

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:01PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:01PM (#401358)

            oops, I meant off-topic

        • (Score: 2) by hamsterdan on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:29PM

          by hamsterdan (2829) on Tuesday September 13 2016, @04:29PM (#401375)

          Agree 100% on that. Now I'll have to go back to read remaining comments.

          • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday September 14 2016, @10:14PM

            by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 14 2016, @10:14PM (#402031) Homepage Journal

            Best suggestion I know of is to open the "reply" in a new tab/window and close it after replying and then refreshing the original window.

            Works for me :)

            --
            Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:20PM

      by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 13 2016, @07:20PM (#401445)

      I would be surprised if saudis were treated as enemy. 9/11 gave the USA a free pass in the gulf, trillions spent in defense money, internal fascism, spiking oil prices. It's more a case of I scratch your back you scratch mine.

      Terror acts are either: done by those already in charge to keep subjects in check, or, done by outsiders, with whatever irrelevant justification, to the effect of making people scared and pleading those already in charge to react. History books are there for your perusal.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Wednesday September 14 2016, @08:35AM

      by linkdude64 (5482) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 14 2016, @08:35AM (#401697)

      Know what's sadder than that? Clinton and Saudi Arabia absolutely love each other, and she is the one who has been "chosen" to be the next president.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday September 13 2016, @10:58AM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge 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.
    • (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) Subscriber Badge 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

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @02:15PM (#401305)

    how absurdly self righteous of congress. Who do they think they are fooling with their charades? oh yeah, old partisans who still think the government's on their side. Why don't you old con artists focus on the stuff you're supposed to be doing like abolishing (in some cases a major retooling might do) the FED, ATF, FBI, DEA, IRS, the Dept of Education, FDA, and so on until we have a free country.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13 2016, @08:16PM (#401462)

    Cant let those pesky Americans sue his buddies.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @01:44AM (#401571)

    Talk about double standard.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2016, @06:30AM (#401671)

    Here is America's opportunity - now the Saudi's will maybe dump their ownership of $750 Billion is US 'assets' that they CONTROL. Hello, please offer them 0.1c on the Dollar, maybe even less. Screw them back for all the oil price hikes, etc.