President Obama vetoed as expected the bill that would waive sovereign immunity protections for Saudi Arabia. It looks as if both Houses of Congress have the muscle needed to override his veto. But should they?
Personally I’m in two minds about this. The President certainly gave some good and valid reasons why this bill is unsound policy. But on the other hand I think the 911 families are entitled to their day in court and, as the article comments, if Saudi Arabia is guiltless in this why is it so worried about the courts? I think on the whole I’d be inclined to support an override, financial consequences be damned.
I think it’s a huge can of worms for the USA to take the position that sovereign states should be sued in foreign courts for the negative consequences of their meddling. It’s rather like someone with $200,000 in credit card debt calling for debt collection regulations to be loosened.
(That’s not to say they don’t deserve it. Saudi Arabia is North Korea with money.)
I think the reasons for opposition are valid and I hope that when overridden, the Supreme Court gets a chance to strike it down.
Beyond policy, the 9/11 families have already been well compensated for their losses and now seem to be leeches wanting to live off perpetual victimhood. Yes, I know they suffered a terrible loss but enough is enough.
why would any Muslim country think it would be treated fairly in this circumstance, in an america where a dangerous and bigoted Trump is carrying 40% plus of the vote?
This seems like one of those “feel good” laws that actually does more harm than good. I know the US thinks it’s the most specialest country ever in all the wide world, but there are international norms that are best observed by all countries.
Still, what difference does it make if Obama vetoes it? Neither HRC nor Trump will, so Congress can just pass it again in a few months.
Our government has limited sovereign immunity from citizen suits against it, but on what basis would a court hold that despite a duly enacted law, a foreign government has sovereign immunity?
IOW, Congress could declare that Saudi Arabia is a rogue state that we don’t recognize as a country. Why could it not equally recognize the country but allow suits against it in federal court?
The families can sue in Saudi courts … I have no idea why people think US courts have jurisdiction outside the USA … they don’t normally.
The analogy is if the KKK blows up a building 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.
You are saying they should sue Saudi royalty in Saudi courts? Riiight.*
*FME, in commercial contracts Saudi Courts tend to rule against royals when merited; but that seems to be due to policy considerations, ones which would not apply here.
The funding of the 911 cowards occurred in the U.S. (as did their crimes) by Saudis living in the U.S. So I would think U.S. courts would certainly have jurisdiction (barring the immunity question).
I have googled and theWikipediaindicates the law tradition however is actually very old, but the US was the first nation to put a codification in this modern fashion.
I found this interesting.
The terrorists do not seem to have been cowardly at all, although horrible.
the american courts do not get jurisdiction in territories they do not control. It is the other sovereign that has this power, to agree or not.
Again, the crimes and funding occurred on U.S. soil - by your own statement then the u.s. does have jusridiction. You can’t have it both ways.
What would you call then horrific murder of the pilots on the planes? And the murder of of thousands of defenseless people who had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever supposed point the poltroons were trying to make?
If they were cowardly, they would not have had the courage to do what they did. What they did was horrific and yes evil. However, good attributes can be found in evil men; indeed often evil men have attributes like this is abundance.
your courts have jurisdiction over what is under their control. Persons on territories not under the us sovereign control
There is not having both ways.
an american court can issue a warrant against a canadian in canada. It is only a piece of paper unless the canadian sovereign gives it power by treating it.