But the funding was not official Saudi governmental policy. Therefore suing Saudi government is the wrong policy. If the 911 families wanted to pursue lawsuits against the individuals, that might be different.
But the individual suffering of the suffering of the survivors of 911 is not so important next to damage this will cause nationally and internationally, as foreign investors move their funds out of the US, in order to protect them from seizure, and US funds in foreign investments are immediately frozen by foreign nations as the citizens of those countries line up to sue the US government.
The 911 families deserve their blood money but what they’re proposing with this bill can ruin the global economy.
We can’t compell anyone residing in a foreign country to come and testify. That would be their choice - but the courts can still proceed even if they don’t. So no extradition concers would apply. Any judgements would b e against assets here in the u.s. - although there is likely an international prceedure to go beyond that.
Cowardly murder.
Also cowardly murder and cowardly terroristic murder.
It would be akin to me (a grown adult) beating up a child who is related to you because I don’t like what you say. Absolutely craven by any twisting of the definition.
yes you can use Judicial taking to sieze assets others have in your country. They are in the sovereign territory. It gives no jurisdiction on things foreign.
There is nothing very craven or cowardly about the sacrifice of own life in combat for a cause.
You wish to insult and attack them, it is understandable. But no, it is not by any definition, this is lashing out.
Exactly - the u.s. courtts can seize assets in the u.s after due proess.
Combat? Hardly - there was no declared war and there were no armed forces involved whatsoever. Truth hurts I know.
And you didn’ t answer my question (I am sure this was just an oversight on your part) so I will repeat it - by your reasoning then can I (as an adult) beat up a child who is related to you because I don’t like something you said or do. And be considered brave???
It is a very weird non sequitur to speak about the “declared war” or “armed forces” - combats in the guerillas or in the insurrections of civil on civil are also combat. And the phrase was: “*There is nothing very craven or cowardly about the sacrifice of own life in combat for a cause. *” Combat for a cause is not meaning only war.
You have it seems the mistaken idea that because your use of the word coward is criticized that there is some sympathy for the terrorists. That is not the case.
Since you wish to be irrational on this, there is no conversation really possible.
It was not a question of any interest, it is a poor rhetorical ploy. It is boring.
“Cowardly” and "brave"are not the only words in the dictionary, so if I object to the use of the word “cowardly” when it comes to describing their actions it doesn’t mean that I think they were “brave”. Their actions were misguided, fanatical, despicable and horrendous…but “coward” and “cowardly” are words that have specific definitions, and those definitions do not include “really, really bad!!”
Where did I say the u.s. could seize assets overseas? We are in agreement and still you don’t like it?
What armed forces did the hijackers fight?
You (and another poster) are falsely assuming because you object to the use of cowardly I assume you have sympathies to the criminals. I do think that the of the word brave (or courage) displays sympathy if not a twisted admiration.
I could equally say you are being irrational.
It is not a matter of rhetoric but a use of allegory - a long established mode of discussion or debate. And I notice you still are evading answering the question.
I’m with Obama on this one. The families have already received government compensation (which, actually, I didn’t favor either.) The Saudi Government had no part in the crimes in question. The law was a foolish “feel-good” sop to American emotionalism, and very bad legislation. I hope, if any of these claims are filed in court, that the judges dismiss them quickly, most especially for total lack of evidence of wrongdoing.
(Otherwise, every time an American, abroad, commits a crime, the U.S. Government would get sued and have to pay compensation. Absurd!)
Also, I would say the terrorists were a little cowardly, for attacking those who were helpless. They were also courageous, in facing certain death. Their acts partake of both courage and cowardice. That sometimes happens.
And I would like to know what that has to do with the subject of this thread. Were the terrorists elder or superior relatives of those they terrorized? I’m sorry, but your two foot by two foot by two foot cube of a response just doesn’t fit in the OP’s one foot in diameter circular hole of a question.
Takes two to tango does it not? (And I just said that the u.s. would have jurisdiction because the crimes (and the funding) occurred within the u.s. The excursionary tangent began with your response.)
And since the ultimate reason for the proposed bill was the hijackings it seems rather silly (IMHO of course) to say that they would not be germaine.
I’m declaring that bit about cowardice and such a hijack and better served in its own thread. Please feel free to create one. I’m sure many would welcome it.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you on these points, but shouldn’t a jury determine that? Shouldn’t the courts be open to see if the Saudi government was responsible? If the claims have no merit, then they will be dispensed with on summary judgment.
Are you kidding? I don’t know about Hilary, but no way will Trump let the law pass. After all, he’s only against poor loser Muslims - rich winner Muslims like the Saudis are his kind of people.
As is often the case with American jurisprudence the lawsuit(s) would be as much about exposing responsiblity the Saudi government may have had in the sordid affair and in exposing the (apparent) subsequent cover up by both the Bush and Obama administrations as it would be about the money. The trial would determine if the Saudi government (more specifically any of its agents) did indeed have any responsibility - or if as postulated they had aboslutely no responsibility. (Responsibility would include the Saudi government (or its agents) having any knowledge about the events before they occurred and doing nothing about it even if they did not actively support them. ) Such a trial would likely well include evidence of any support the Saudi government (or its agents) have given to terrorism elsewhere in proving a pattern of behaviour.
IMHO if the U.S. government actively supports someone who they know is going to commit a crime they should be held accountable. Or if they know about it before hand and do nothing.