Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama: ‘If we let Americans sue Saudis for 9/11, foreigners will begin suing US...
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 1 of 29 (791985)
09-29-2016 10:59 AM


With congress overturning President Obama's veto for a Saudi 9/11 lawsuit, it seems the president believes it will set a dangerous precedent for our own country. Is this true? Will this action cause more harm than good or will it force countries to perhaps curtail "bad behavior" that could result in litigation? I believe this as with most public policy is a double edged sword that may come back to haunt the U.S.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Touched up truncated topic title. Deleted "Coffee house discussion" from end of message.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2016 9:48 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2016 5:20 AM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2016 5:24 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 29 (791994)
09-29-2016 7:21 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 3 of 29 (791995)
09-29-2016 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by 1.61803
09-29-2016 10:59 AM


Will this action cause more harm than good or will it force countries to perhaps curtail "bad behavior" that could result in litigation?
I can't imagine why the Saudis or any other country would pay any attention. What power does a U.S. court have over foreign governments?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 1.61803, posted 09-29-2016 10:59 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 09-29-2016 9:52 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 09-30-2016 10:13 AM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 09-30-2016 12:38 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 4 of 29 (791996)
09-29-2016 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tanypteryx
09-29-2016 9:48 PM


The courts do have power over funds held in US Institutions. The US Courts can freeze assets.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2016 9:48 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2016 9:55 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 5 of 29 (792006)
09-30-2016 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
09-29-2016 9:52 PM


The courts do have power over funds held in US Institutions. The US Courts can freeze assets.
I think it is more the legal wrangling that the want to avoid. I am no fan of the Saudi government, but it will be extremely difficult to find them guilty of any wrong-doing for 9/11 unless someone can tie them to the terrorists directly. Either through money transfers or purposeful direction on their part. If the event was somehow state sponsored by them, then that would be grounds for a lawsuit. Although ironically, if the Saudi government is directly linked to the terrorists and directed their actions, then technically that is an act of war. The lawsuit would be the least of their problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 09-29-2016 9:52 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by 1.61803, posted 09-30-2016 12:28 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 6 of 29 (792007)
09-30-2016 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tanypteryx
09-29-2016 9:48 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
I can't imagine why the Saudis or any other country would pay any attention. What power does a U.S. court have over foreign governments?
The Saudis in particular have a very cozy relationship with the US that they don't want to screw with. We currently have military bases in Saudi Arabia meaning that any attack on Saudi Arabia would probably result in immediate retaliation from the US. There are also the very close economic ties between the countries. They are probably our closest arab allies in the entire region.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2016 9:48 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 7 of 29 (792013)
09-30-2016 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Diomedes
09-30-2016 9:55 AM


Hi Diomedes,
I do not think there is a "direct" link. However the U.S. has lost face in this instance yet once again imo, in so far as the US congress overriding the president's veto.
It freakin pisses me off that someone as astute in the law as President Obama would be brushed aside like this. Bringing a lawsuit against the Saudi government may be more symbolic and in more ways than first glance. It is political.
I realize our government is in bed with the Saudi government for obvious reasons (OIL)but this will certainly be a game changer now.
We are talking about a government with some of the worse human rights infractions on the planet they will fart in our general direction.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Diomedes, posted 09-30-2016 9:55 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(2)
Message 8 of 29 (792014)
09-30-2016 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tanypteryx
09-29-2016 9:48 PM


Hi Tanypteryx,
I think personally this is more symbolic than substantive litigation.
I will eat my words if the case brought brings out a smoking gun.
We are as the Prez said inserting our collective penis's into a hornets nest. Ok maybe that was someone else but you get the gist.
Edited by 1.61803, : jist to gist

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2016 9:48 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 09-30-2016 2:43 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 9 of 29 (792031)
09-30-2016 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by 1.61803
09-30-2016 12:38 PM


1.61803 writes:
Hi Tanypteryx,
I think personally this is more symbolic than substantive litigation.
I will eat my words if the case brought brings out a smoking gun.
We are as the Prez said inserting our collective penis's into a hornets nest. Ok maybe that was someone else but you get the gist.
"Hoisted by one's own petard" would be the idiom of choice on this one. A good example is the law they passed in Oklahoma allowing religious iconography to be displayed on state owned property, like the statehouse. The OK legislature thought that this would be a great idea since it would allow them to put all the crosses and suffering Jesus' in the statehouse that they wanted. What they didn't forsee was a group of people who wanted to put up a Satanic statue at the OK statehouse. A classic example of something blowing up in your face, or being hoisted by the bomb you are planting on your enemy's door (the petard).
The "sue the Saudis law" has the same potential. It opens us up to the very thing some people want to do to other countries.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by 1.61803, posted 09-30-2016 12:38 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-30-2016 5:53 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 10 of 29 (792034)
09-30-2016 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taq
09-30-2016 2:43 PM


And Congress seems to forget that no country commits acts more often that most certainly could be the basis of a lawsuit than the US.
This bill could be the biggest Foreign Aid bill ever passed.
Edited by jar, : addaline

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 09-30-2016 2:43 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2016 6:25 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 11 of 29 (792036)
09-30-2016 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
09-30-2016 5:53 PM


And Congress seems to forget that no country commits acts more often that most certainly could be the basis of a lawsuit than the US.
In the days since overriding the veto, several Congress critters have thought about some of the consequences and are blaming Obama for not engaging them prior to his veto. I find those claims absolutely bizarre. I have yet to hear of a downside that I and everyone else did not understand prior to the bill passing.
Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto | HuffPost Latest News
"Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto"
From Mitch McConnell.
quote:
By the time everybody seemed to focus on some potential consequences of it, members had already basically taken a position.
So the inability of Congress to act adult is the president's fault? eFFing moron.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 09-30-2016 5:53 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 12 of 29 (792077)
10-03-2016 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 1.61803
09-29-2016 10:59 AM


Retrospective laws?
Sorry. I made a big mistake.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 1.61803, posted 09-29-2016 10:59 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 13 of 29 (792078)
10-03-2016 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by 1.61803
09-29-2016 10:59 AM


Retrospective laws?
Not being a lawyer and all that.
Can a country like the US make retrospective laws to be enforced today? Maybe it's a question for another thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 1.61803, posted 09-29-2016 10:59 AM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-03-2016 8:31 AM Pressie has replied
 Message 19 by NoNukes, posted 10-03-2016 1:48 PM Pressie has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 14 of 29 (792081)
10-03-2016 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Pressie
10-03-2016 5:24 AM


Re: Retrospective laws?
The US has particularly stringent rules against ex post facto laws. However, they probably don't apply in this case. Though really one would have to ask the Supreme Court, and indeed this is what's going to happen if no-one stops it any sooner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2016 5:24 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 10-03-2016 8:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 16 by Pressie, posted 10-03-2016 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 29 (792083)
10-03-2016 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
10-03-2016 8:31 AM


Re: Retrospective laws?
Which would be a real test of this court to see if the Constitution really has any validity. The issue will likely end up on the somewhat annoying fact that the Constitution specifies that there are three, not one, sources of supreme authority of the law in the US, the Constitution, Treaties and laws passed by Congress.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-03-2016 8:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024