House gives 9/11 victims capacity to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts for 9/11.

[dullard]

This is a bizarre one - is anyone familiar with the legislation? Do U.S. citizens/corporations have the right to sue foreign governments ordinarily? One poster suggested the answer is yes - if so, what does this bill change exactly?

This seems like a diplomatic nightmare waiting to happen to me. What happens if a foreign government says "fuck off" and ignores the court's orders? Is the federal govt obligated to intervene?

Historically, the answer was no (customary international law). No person/corporation in any country could sue another country. The US Supreme Court even ruled that way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Schooner_Exchange_v._M'Faddon
Disputes that related to foreign nations were regulated to the State Department to settle--not the courts.

In the mid-1900s countries started clarifying this custom. The US adopted the Restrictive Theory of Sovereign Immunity that said that foreign states could be sued only for private acts (such as a bad business deal) but not public acts (such as a diplomat in negotiations).

Later the US passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that basically took the matter out of the hands of the State Department and put it into the courts. You can not sue a foreign nation, except for specifically identified reasons listed in that act.

This new law doesn't directly allow other people to sue the US. But, it is the start of a pissing match. Any other country can pass a similar law and then anyone can sue the US. A US missile goes haywire and that foreign country calls it terrorism? Now we can be on the hook in their courts with their laws with their damage amounts if they pass a similar law.

We have just started the equivalent of turning up our stereo full blast just because a neighbor's stereo is too loud. It doesn't solve anything, and potentially escalates the problem to far worse states, but makes you feel temporarily better.

 

[Sonikku]

The Saudis are like bad guys knowing what side their bread is buttered on.

 

[Mandres]

Historically, the answer was no ...

Very interesting, thanks!

 

[senseamp]

GOP already pulling a bait and switch on that one:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/298357-senators-eye-changes-to-9-11-bill-after-veto

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said lawmakers need to make sure they didn't open "Pandora's box" and reassure Saudi Arabia that Congress isn't "finding them guilty of 9/11."

"I think the things we can do that would preserve the right to sue here in America ... but also minimize the exposure we have overseas," he added. "We need to think hard about how to modify this bill."

Graham, who supported the veto override, estimated that approximately 20 senators currently support changing the bill, something he thinks could happen as soon as the end-of-year lame-duck session.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who also supported the veto override, said he agrees that 9/11 families deserve an "outlet" and has had talks with "people in Europe about a tribunal being set up."

"I think most senators felt like the best way to try to influence that over time was to go ahead and acknowledge that the victims need an outlet," he said. "[But] there are concerns. ... I think there's a desire to get this into a better place."

Though the Senate overwhelmingly nixed the president's veto, a handful of lawmakers publicly expressed skepticism about the bill in the days leading up to Wednesday's vote. Lawmakers, however, argue their push to try to find an alternative before the vote was largely ignored by the Obama administration.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who said he hasn't heard from the White House, said the legislation turned into a "political issue."

"I don't think we had enough time to consider all of the ramifications," Hatch, who is a co-sponsor of the original bill, said Tuesday. "I'm worried about getting into a tremendous legal morass that could really cost this country."

So they passed a defective bill for election month, and when Obama rightly vetoed it, instead of fixing the bill, they overrode his veto, thinking they'll flip flop on it after the election. Time to throw the bums out.

 

[dullard]

So they passed a defective bill for election month, and when Obama rightly vetoed it, instead of fixing the bill, they overrode his veto, thinking they'll flip flop on it after the election. Time to throw the bums out.

As I thought about it last night, the biggest problem to me is that they are retroactively enacting it. I can see a future, less sympathetic, UK retroactively suing the US for our terroristic guerilla warfare tactics in the revolutionary war. What about all the weapons we supplied for regime change in dozens of countries in the 1960s to 1980s? Will we be held liable for those, they were state sponsored weapons used in ways that could be called terrorism by the governments we tried to overthrow.

Justice only works when it is timely. Retroactively changing laws destroys that.

 

[senseamp]

And then when 9/11 families spend millions suing, they'll retroactively pull the rug under them too and undo this law.
All so they could ponder to their dumb electorate before an election. Shameful.

 

[Atreus21]

And then when 9/11 families spend millions suing, they'll retroactively pull the rug under them too and undo this law.
All so they could ponder to their dumb electorate before an election. Shameful.

I guess a whole lotta senate democrats wanted to pander to their dumb electorate too.

 

[IronWing]

I see it as the Congress being too craven and too beholden to the weapons complex to go after the House of Saud for the murders of three thousand Americans and the Sauds' continued export of terrorism so they decided to throw this out and see what the litigants can dig up.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I guess a whole lotta senate democrats wanted to pander to their dumb electorate too.

Yup. This is one of those cases where both parties are equally bad. The only vote to uphold the veto in the senate was not running for reelection.

 

[senseamp]

Republicans are the ones who initiated this whole mess to score cheap points, Democrats just didn't want to be attacked for blocking 9/11 emo bill.

 

[Atreus21]

Republicans are the ones who initiated this whole mess to score cheap points, Democrats just didn't want to be attacked for blocking 9/11 emo bill.

Strange. That didn't appear to deter the 59 house democrats who voted against it. Nor the 18 house Republicans.

 

[senseamp]

Strange. That didn't appear to deter the 59 house democrats who voted against it. Nor the 18 house Republicans.

Good for them. Doesn't change the fact that this is a Republican initiated mess. The Republicans will be the first to screw 9/11 families after the election by pulling this rug from under them. This is what you get when GOP doesn't have anything to offer voters except cheap bait and switch publicity stunts.

 

[Phynaz]

Good for them. Doesn't change the fact that this is a Republican initiated mess.

I'm assuming you missed the point that the bill's co-sponsor is a Democrat. Maybe just once you'll be able to think past your partisan bullcrap.

 

[Phynaz]

A bunch a lawyers voted to create more money making opportunities for lawyers.

I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised by this.

 

[Cr0nJ0b]

Yeah, the lawyers finally win something.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Hopefully the Saudis don't pull cooperation in the war on terror or find other means of retaliation.

 

[IronWing]

Hopefully the Saudis don't pull cooperation in the war on terror or find other means of retaliation.

This is why we need the sarcasm font.

 

[PokerGuy]

It would be funny if it wasn't a serious problem. One of the rare times the parties can agree on something almost unanimously is when they are both wrong . obummer actually had this one right, this could open the door to all sorts of nasty unintended consequences. All but one senator voted for the override, so useless flailing about which party is in the right / wrong is stupid. Both parties are wrong on this one.

 

[PokerGuy]

Hopefully the Saudis don't pull cooperation in the war on terror or find other means of retaliation.

You screwed up my sarcasm meter!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This is why we need the sarcasm font.

I have to have my fun somehow. Mind you there is still a small but undisclosed presence in Saudi but I believe the bulk of it is a drone base.

 

[senseamp]

Just watch, Republicans are going to gut this bill in a rider after the election. Saudi interests are aligned with US fossil fuel industry which has GOP firmly by the balls.

 

[hal2kilo]

As I thought about it last night, the biggest problem to me is that they are retroactively enacting it. I can see a future, less sympathetic, UK retroactively suing the US for our terroristic guerilla warfare tactics in the revolutionary war. What about all the weapons we supplied for regime change in dozens of countries in the 1960s to 1980s? Will we be held liable for those, they were state sponsored weapons used in ways that could be called terrorism by the governments we tried to overthrow.

Justice only works when it is timely. Retroactively changing laws destroys that.

All good points which were absolutely ignored for political purposes.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is why we need the sarcasm font.

Yea, I kind of blinked and gulped when It read that.

 

[ivwshane]

This is why we need the sarcasm font.

You don't need a font, you just need to use the right tag. Sarcasm = /s

 

[VRAMdemon]

This bill sets a horrible precedent, allowing suit against a sovereign power. I know Saudi Arabia is unsympathetic and the 9/11 families are highly sympathetic. But that's not the basis for upending sovereign immunity. I agree with the President: this bill is well intentioned but misguided. It is a naked grab for votes on behalf of both political parties, with the expectation that, if/when any problems should occur, they will fall on the shoulders of the Executive...if they thought that far ahead at all.

If the KKK blows up a jewish synagogue in Italy, should the victims' families be able to sue the US Government in Italian courts? I say no, the US Government is not responsible.