Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday April 17 2016, @12:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the idle-threat dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by bradley13 on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:47AM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Sunday April 17 2016, @07:47AM (#333169) Homepage Journal

    One country passes a law, that allows its citizens to sue the government of another country? Um...how does that work? Domestic courts within one country have no jurisdiction over the second country. The second country can tell the citizens and courts to stuff it.

    Not that I'm defending the Saudis here, but I genuinely don't see how this works legally.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:19AM

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Sunday April 17 2016, @08:19AM (#333173) Journal

    US courts don't have jurisdiction over SA the country. US courts do have jurisdiction over objects, contracts, and events on USA soil. If SA has $750billion of assets (buildings, corporations, etc.) in the USA, US courts could decide to hand over that $750billion of assets to others in civil cases, if those courts would deem that appropriate under US law.

    If you own something in country X, your continued ownership is subject to the laws of country X.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @09:04AM (#333183)

    You mean, you read an entire 1000+ word article from one of the better US news agencies about a proposed law and there was no mention of what the law was about? There were quotes from 911 victims' parents and their feelings but no description of the law? Stories about political dirty tricks? Wars in 3rd party countries? Pages of this shit, but nothing about the actuall law. Welcome, you must be new to America. How did it *feel* when you realized there was no content in the news? Poll reports show you feel slightly concerned. In the next hour segment, we'll talk about that poll and how you feel about all these polls.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 17 2016, @03:23PM (#333283)

      Did you read the entire article? It specifically addressed the OP's question.

      ... These efforts have largely been stymied, in part because of a 1976 law that gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in American courts.

      The Senate bill is intended to make clear that the immunity given to foreign nations under the law should not apply in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil. If the bill were to pass both houses of Congress and be signed by the president, it could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 lawsuits.

      Obama administration officials counter that weakening the sovereign immunity provisions would put the American government, along with its citizens and corporations, in legal risk abroad because other nations might retaliate with their own legislation. Secretary of State John Kerry told a Senate panel in February that the bill, in its current form, would “expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.”

      The bill’s sponsors have said that the legislation is purposely drawn very narrowly — involving only attacks on American soil — to reduce the prospect that other nations might try to fight back.