Congress overides 9/11 bill veto.

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

See https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Le...mttimussa2&f=m

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

Originally Posted by August

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?

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

[August]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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?

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gray Lensman

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_...f_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.

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]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

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_...f_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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.