Congress overides 9/11 bill veto.

[eddie]

Congress overides the veto of the 9/11 bill, and it allows the families of those who were lost on 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia, if they can prove that the Saudi Govt was involved with the high jackers.
Part of me agrees with this, if the families can prove it, the other part of me says this is going to open a big can of worms. Other countries could now sue the US Govt, our military, etc. for what they see as a crime committed by the United States overseas. Going to be a mess if this bill overide makes it to the end when Congress finalizes it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/congress-rejects-obama-veto-on-9-11-bill-first-override-of-his-presidency/ar-BBwJ8wB?li=BBnb7Kz

[August]

Other countries could now sue the US Govt, our military, etc. for what they see as a crime committed by the United States overseas.

What was stopping other countries from doing that before?

[Gray Lensman]

What was stopping other countries from doing that before?

Well for U.S. Military presence in foreign countries it's usuallly a Status of Forces Agreement. Link! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement)

[August]

Well for U.S. Military presence in foreign countries it's usuallly a Status of Forces Agreement. Link! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement)

Right but signed agreements are a different situation. The President has said repeatedly that this will allow other countries to do the same thing to us as if it gives them some sort of legal authorization to sue us that they didn't have before. :hmmm:

[Gray Lensman]

Right but signed agreements are a different situation. The President has said repeatedly that this will allow other countries to do the same thing to us as if it gives them some sort of legal authorization to sue us that they didn't have before. :hmmm:

Well, if our leaders had any sack, they'd stand up for U.S. citizens abroad and if that particular country (depending on the circumstances) didn't have a justification, we just yank our business support from them. In most cases, they need us more than we need them.

The fact that in this case Saudi nationals with possibly the help from their govt' participated in what could be called an "act of war", makes this case somewhat different and the Saudis should just count their lucky stars that we didn't see it that way. They're going to get off lightly if all they have to do is pay off some damages.

[em2nought]

What was stopping other countries from doing that before?

Obama probably already has an airliner loaded up with billions and billions ready to be delivered to any enemy that received hurt feelings from evil US troops. Looted from social security no doubt. :yeah:

[XabbaRus]

Nothing new. Our UK forces have been getting sued let right and centre for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know it is a can of worms but I think Saudi should be looked at.

[Oberon]

I doubt the Saudi government was officially involved in anything to do with the hijackers, more likely it was done through some unofficial organisation like NORAID.

[Jimbuna]

Nothing new. Our UK forces have been getting sued let right and centre for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know it is a can of worms but I think Saudi should be looked at.

Agreed :yep:

[Skybird]

Afghanistan was attacked over 9/11 and sheltering Bin Laden, SA not. I never understood this. If you have 3000 of your people beign slaughtered, this is not a minor issue, and if a state in any way, actively or passively, assisted in that, knowingly, then this terror strike is more: it is a formal act of war.

And its not as if it is new news that SA actively supports Islamic terror groups. Aaginst Sunni Persia, but against the West as well.

BTW, if I were a America, I would have played tougher against Germany as well back then. The attackers of 9/11 found an all too convenient environment in Germany to hide, to prepare and to get ready. Germany too easily just played down such problems and ignores them (like Belgium, Sweden and some others), for the sake of some social X or Y - anything just as long as the word "social" is included. We may have turned a bit tougher on Muslim terrorism these days and years, but in principle we stick to that old pattern to just look at the other direction when we notice something bad is happening, if we do not try to find excuses for it, that is - thats is also for exmaple with regards to the great holiday ressort and refugium that Germany is for the Italian Mafia and its big names. Germany is the preferred retreat ground for them, since they have nothing to fear from police and state attorneys. Italian state attorneys since twenty years if not longer pull out their hairs over the ignorrance of the Germans, and their warnings not getting heard - it doesn't matter. Some insiders even claim there live more Italian mafiosi bosses in Germany, than in Italy these days.

[Mr Quatro]

Where's the list of individuals that have sued the US Gov or even the US military and won?
They on the other hand have other options than we do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/saudi-arabia-may-still-fight-back-against-911-lawsuit-bill/2016/09/29/b0ec6950-862b-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html


The oil-rich country, which has a long but often troubled relationship with Washington, maintains an arsenal of diplomatic and commercial tools it could respond with. They include curtailing official contacts, pulling billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, and persuading its close allies in the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council it dominates to scale back counterterrorism cooperation, investments and U.S. access to important regional air bases.

I just noticed this little fact: Senate voted today 97-1 to override President Obama’s veto

[Bilge_Rat]

I just noticed this little fact: Senate voted today 97-1 to override President Obama’s veto

Harry Reid was the "1". He is retiring this year so is not worried about political fallout.

[Platapus]

It is going to be a useless law. It will accomplish nothing other than convincing some citizens to re-elect their member of congress.

If a US citizen sues the government of Saudi Arabia, there is nothing preventing them from just saying, "ah, no."

What exactly will the US government do? We are not going to start a war with Saudi Arabia over a civil lawsuit. They know too many very embarrassing skeletons in various embarrassing closets.

If a foreign citizen decides to sue the US government, there is nothing preventing us from just saying, "ah, no". No country is going to start a war with us over a civil lawsuit.

They can't take the US to the ICJ as we have already said that we will not abide by any ICJ decisions, since 1986. Twice the ICJ has ruled against the US and twice we have given the ICJ the one finger salute.

So this was just a feel good waste of time to get the 911 families to shut up and to allow congress to pretend that they did something.

[August]

If a US citizen sues the government of Saudi Arabia, there is nothing preventing them from just saying, "ah, no."

But what about their assets in the US. Couldn't they be seized as at least partial payment?

[AndyJWest]

But what about their assets in the US. Couldn't they be seized as at least partial payment?

See https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttimussa2&f=m

[August]

See https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mttimussa2&f=m

That is oil we're buying from them. I meant tangible assets like property and bank accounts.

[AndyJWest]

That is oil we're buying from them. I meant tangible assets like property and bank accounts.

Perhaps I was too subtle. Don't you think the Saudi's might consider stopping exporting oil to the U.S. if they had their assets seized?

[AndyJWest]

Essential reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

[August]

Perhaps I was too subtle. Don't you think the Saudi's might consider stopping exporting oil to the U.S. if they had their assets seized?


They could I suppose but they'd be hurting their own bottom line quite a bit too, not to mention put that lost revenue into the pockets of their competitors. Can they afford to loose us as a customer?

Besides shouldn't the 911 families be allowed to seek compensation for their loss?

[AndyJWest]

They could I suppose but they'd be hurting their own bottom line quite a bit too, not to mention put that lost revenue into the pockets of their competitors. Can they afford to loose us as a customer?

Besides shouldn't the 911 families be allowed to seek compensation for their loss?

In answer to your first question, they might well reason that losing revenue (and keeping oil in the ground, in circumstances where its price was likely to go up) was preferable to conceding to a foreign court which appears to have no legitimate claim under customary international law as it is generally understood. And I suspect there would be a lot of other governments (including those of oil producing countries) who might support them over this. The whole concept of trying to take foreign governments to court is a huge can of worms, and an awful lot of political leaders have a significant stake in maintaining the status quo.

As for your second question, what 'should' happen rarely coincides with what actually does.

[Jeff-Groves]

A country that imports 90% of it's food can't afford to keep it's oil in the ground.
Or anywhere else for that matter.
You can't eat crude oil.

[Gray Lensman]

In answer to your first question, they might well reason that losing revenue (and keeping oil in the ground, in circumstances where its price was likely to go up) was preferable to conceding to a foreign court which appears to have no legitimate claim under customary international law as it is generally understood. And I suspect there would be a lot of other governments (including those of oil producing countries) who might support them over this. The whole concept of trying to take foreign governments to court is a huge can of worms, and an awful lot of political leaders have a significant stake in maintaining the status quo.

<snip>


Might have worked a few years back... Now... cut off the oil to us... effect is cost of oil goes up... now guess what happens next?

Answer:
U.S. domestic oil production becomes cost effective again. Fracking and Slate oil production sites go back on line as they were a couple years ago. Even off-shore rigs go back in demand and on-line. Result...Not a tear to be shed for those foreign oil producing countries.

Incidentally: Customary international law is applied in peaceful disputes. "If" it was determined and "proved" that the Saudi government itself was complicit in the 9/11 attack, then the question becomes one of what to do about an "act of war"? Reparations might look cheap to the Saudis in that light.

[AndyJWest]

A country that imports 90% of it's food can't afford to keep it's oil in the ground.
Or anywhere else for that matter.
You can't eat crude oil.

It would be something of a gamble to assume that Saudi Arabia would run ought of foreign exchange reserves before the United States economy slumped to the extent that any award they could reasonably expect to get via court action against the Saudi government became entirely insignificant. Especially when you take into account the likely support the Saudis would get from other governments keen not to establish a precedent.

If the United States really wants to put pressure on the Saudi regime, it needs to start looking at ways to make its own country less dependant on cheap oil. Though that of course may not make the U.S. oil lobby too happy.

[Jeff-Groves]

I agree to a certain point.

People get by with no oil longer then they do with no food.
The U.S. could probably stand longer with the food production it has.
Not to mention there's a lot of what could be food being made into fuel here.
There's a huge ethanol plant not 25 miles from me.

[AndyJWest]

Might have worked a few years back... Now... cut off the oil to us... effect is cost of oil goes up... now guess what happens next?

Answer:
U.S. domestic oil production becomes cost effective again. Fracking and Slate oil production sites go back on line as they were a couple years ago. Even off-shore rigs go back in demand and on-line. Result...Not a tear to be shed for those foreign oil producing countries.

Incidentally: Customary international law is applied in peaceful disputes. "If" it was determined and "proved" that the Saudi government itself was complicit in the 9/11 attack, then the question becomes one of what to do about an "act of war"? Reparations might look cheap to the Saudis in that light.

I suspect you are underestimating the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to oil price increases. Even a minor downturn could easily cost the economy far more than any court compensation which could reasonably be expected.

As for 'acts of war', if you are suggesting military action against Saudi Arabia, I can't think of anything more likely to push oil prices through the roof, and bring about a global depression.

And then there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Saudi_Arabia

[Jeff-Groves]

So what. We go to $3.87 a gallon for gas?
We got through that back in 2012 and the World did not end.
All it did was give our Company a bigger profit once prices went back down.
We adjusted our costs back then to get by. It was hard yes.
But we didn't lower our bids once prices went down.
We are not lacking work now.
Plus we can run on high ethanol fuels now with the newer vehicles.

I'm waiting for this next so called down turn.
We made a lot of money off the last one and are in a position to weather the next all the way to the bank.

[AndyJWest]

There is also the question of what would happen if the United States government actually succeeded in extracting compensation from Saudi Arabia. I suspect the most obvious initial result would be a rise in support for the sort of radical Islamism that led to 9/11 in the first place. The existing Saudi regime may be corrupt, despotic, and generally repulsive, but any likely alternative could be considerably worse. Which is presumably why so many western democracies have supported them one way or another for so long. Or indeed, why the House of Saud got to run the country in the first place.

I would like to think that the U.S. has learned a little about considering wider long-term consequences in the context of the middle east, rather than looking for short term gains of marginal utility. If nothing else has bean learned in the last couple of decades, surely there is some sort of awareness that it is easier to mess things up than to clear the mess up afterwards.

[Gray Lensman]

I suspect you are underestimating the vulnerability of the U.S. economy to oil price increases. Even a minor downturn could easily cost the economy far more than any court compensation which could reasonably be expected.

As for 'acts of war', if you are suggesting military action against Saudi Arabia, I can't think of anything more likely to push oil prices through the roof, and bring about a global depression.

And then there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Saudi_Arabia

And you are overestimating the effects. We were able to withstand $140 oil not too long ago. Now back around 1970-1990 we were extremely susceptible to oil shocks. Now, not so much... Why do you think the Saudis have been trying to force our alternative oil suppliers out of business? They are trying to keep market share by producing oil at a furious rate to try to force our alternate oil producers out of the market... say they do an oil embargo... Price of oil goes up and our suppliers are back in business negating their effect... Do you think the Russians would go along with them?... Nah... They need the money too much also. They would bump up their production to take advantage of the price increase. Net effect, OPEC loses long term market share.

Regarding my "act of war" comment... it was not to suggest military action against them, but to point out that customary international law is mostly applicable in "peaceful" disputes. We don't have to be in a shooting war to act towards them... example Iran sanctions... even if the rest of the world hadn't helped out, we probably still would have started the sanctions with less of an effect "and its a damn shame we are not still sanctioning them, no thanks to the current idiot in chief""

[Platapus]

But what about their assets in the US. Couldn't they be seized as at least partial payment?

Th US can always seize assets. Now whether that is legal or not is another issue. Again, since the US does not recognize authority of the ICJ with respect to decisions against the US, it becomes a moot point.

The issue with SA is that they have been involved in a lot of dirty work on behalf of the US... and have been well paid for it. If we annoy them enough, there might be an accidental "leak" of some documents that will prove most embarrassing.

What will probably happen is that if a citizen sues SA, the US will pay the citizen's claim (bet the tax payers will love that) and SA will "owe" the US the money. We will probably deduct that from some military sales deal.

What else can we do we going to do, take SA to the ICJ?
w

[Platapus]

Besides shouldn't the 911 families be allowed to seek compensation for their loss?

That is a good question with an easy answer: Yes they should be compensated. The much harder question is how much?

We already have the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF)which has paid out close to 10 billion dollars.

The report by the Rand Institute for Civil Justice finds that victims of the 911 attacks have received an average of $3.1 million per person.

(http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9087.html)

Compare this to what the survivors/families of the Oklahoma City bombing received. I believe all they got from the federal government, was a two year exemption from paying federal income taxes.

The 911 families are already getting more than other victims of terrorist attacks.

Any attempt to link a financial figure (dollar) to a human life is difficult.

Emotionally, the life of a loved one killed is worth about a Gazillion dollars. Morally, a human life can't be replaced so there is no way any insurance/charity/government can really compensate... but they do the best they can. This problem is rampant in personal injury cases too and it is not an easy answer.

But since the government can't replace a person (sorry about your loss, here is your replacement family member), all it can do is assign a monitory value.

How much is enough? If you ask the victims, it is probably never enough. If you ask tax payers you might get a different answer. I sure would hate to be in the position of assigning a monitory figure. But realistically, someone has to.

In any case, the surviving families of the 911 attack can't claim that they have been forgotten. I am sure the surviving families of the OK city bombings would like to have a quarter of what the 911 victims received and are still receiving.

[August]

In any case, the surviving families of the 911 attack can't claim that they have been forgotten.

Well I don't think they or anyone else is claiming they have been forgotten, but whatever they have received it has not been compensation or recognition from the people who perpetrated or assisted in the perpetration of the attack.

That's like saying you can't hold a criminal responsible for his actions because you received some money from a charity.

I am sure the surviving families of the OK city bombings would like to have a quarter of what the 911 victims received and are still receiving.

I'm sure they would and if McVeigh had financial backers then I say the victims families ought to have the right to go after them too.

[Bilge_Rat]

seizing assets in the USA of a foreign government would be difficult in practice.

You had some recent cases on that, namely there was a judgment in U.S. federal court forcing Argentina to pay off creditors of government bonds. U.S. lawyers tried to seize various assets in the USA, but you cannot seize diplomatic assets, like embassies or consular bureaus, so you have to try to seize commercial assets that belong to the government which are hard to track down.

You also had the Yukos case (since overturned). An arbitrator awarded US $50 Billion in damages against Russia to former Yukos shareholders. The shareholders tried to seize assets of the Russian govt around the world, but ran into the same issue since you cant seize embassies and diplomatic assets. In addition, when the creditors did manage to freeze Russian assets in Belgium or France, the Russians threatened retaliation against Belgian or French assets in Russia.

so yes, unless Saudi Arabia rolls over, it can turn into a mess.

As to what a life is worth, you could look to plane crashes.

http://time.com/3763541/germanwings-plane-crash-settlement/

U.S. average settlement in 2015 was US $4.5 million per.

[Platapus]

I think it would be difficult to prove that the SA government was behind the 911 attacks... in a fair court. Whether that could happen in a US court, where there is evidence that many people have a a presumption that the SA government was behind the attacks, is more problematic.

The group of people responsible for the attack are mostly dead I am not sure who we need to go after?

[Platapus]

Well it only took congress one day to think about what they did

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/298530-gop-leaders-open-to-fixing-saudi-9-11-bill

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

My favourite part was

GOP leaders quickly blamed the President for "dropping the ball" for failing to engage with Congress on the legislation before it passed."

Uh, the legislation did not start with the president. It starts in the congress. Congress wrote the damn thing! They were working on it for almost a year! It went through several committees just to get to the floor and no one read it?

It had to pass both houses before it got to the POTUS.


It pains me, but yeah, this was just a cheap political move so that these congresscritters could say that they are in support of the 911 victims and their families because there is an election coming up and I am sure many Senators and Representatives are sweating.... as they should be.

Tip from a citizen: Senators and Representatives, if you have houses in the DC area, you might wanna contact a realtor.


The attention is on the election of the president, but don't forget that we have senators and representatives that need to be voted out of office. That's where the real change will occur.

With the embarrassing conduct of congress over the past years, my motto is "when in doubt, vote em out" and I am all out of doubt when it comes to congress.

I almost think that anyone other than the clowns we have on the hill will be an improvement. Although I suppose I could wait until congress' approval numbers actually reach zero, but I want to be proactive.

One of the many advantages of being an Independent is that I can equally hate both sides :salute:

[Oberon]

http://i.imgur.com/INzFpoO.png

Wonder if we'll sue for NORAID? :hmmm:

[yubba]

I like it ,,, it leaves the door wide open,,, for Obama and Hillary to get the pants sued off of them for funding ISIS and for the horrible things that group has done,, follow the money trail.

[AndyJWest]

I like it ,,, it leaves the door wide open,,, for Obama and Hillary to get the pants sued off of them for funding ISIS and for the horrible things that group has done,, follow the money trail.

I suggest that before you go off along the 'money trail', you take a little time to read up on what this proposed legislation would actually entail, since it would have precisely zero impact on attempts to sue Obama or Clinton, given that neither of them are currently subject to sovereign immunity.