I agree with the OP.
On a related topic, I think the reason this veto looks likely to be overridden versus all the others, is that this one is not aligned along partisan lines. If Obama vetoes something in the name of Democratic/liberal principles, he’s virtually guaranteed of the Democrats in congress rallying around and upholding his veto. This one doesn’t fall along such lines, and the bill is popular with voters on both sides of the aisle.
I find this bill mostly confusing and I haven’t found any articles that explain in short words how international jurisprudence functions. Is suing another sovereign nation something that’s even done? I want to say it seems like a feelgood measure that will be red meat for the base, as it were, but ultimately won’t yield any benefits but will definitely piss off another country.
The International Court of Justice only has jurisdiction based on treaties and on a poorly defined customary international law.
In the case between Italy and Germany, the issue was based on a European treaty. I’ve not looked it up, but I doubt that the US is a party to that treaty. Can you point to a similar treaty that the US is a party to that might regulate the issue of sovereign immunity?
Also, a country can decline to consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction. The US did that in the case in the 80’s when Nicaragua challenged the US for mining Managua harbour. The ICJ held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim under the treaty cited by Nicaragua, since the US had not consented to jurisdiction. It did consider the claim under customary international law, and ruled against the US on that point, ordering the US to pay reparations.
The US ignored that judgment, which had no effect under US law unless ratified by the US government.
The US can abrogate sovereign immunity of other nations in the US courts because the US is a sovereign country and can determine for itself what the law governing sovereign immunity is in its own courts.
The common law cannot be used to strike down a statute. If a statute is constitutionally valid, then it is the law of the land, even if it changed the common law.
And now I see an existing thread. Oops.
Let me merge those for you before I get sued by someone in Burkina Faso.
It’s a stupid measure, but it’s not a feelgood one. As a general rule, sovereign states don’t allow suits in their own courts against other state actors. This is a fairly well-settled principle that originated right here in 'murica.
It’s called the Act of State doctrine: if you are “injured” by another sovereign acting in its sovereign capacity, your recourse is against your own government. People sue people, and governments deal with governments. Congress later codified this under the Foreign Claims Act or something along those lines.
For example, if Ooo-becky-becky-stan-stan tells BP it is expropriating all of BP’s beckystanese oil leases and taking the profits for itself, BP can’t sue beckystan. It can claim compensation from its own government(s), which will likely take similar action against beckystanese assets within its own borders.
So when Castro expropriated US Sugar assets in Cuba (among much else), the US government took lots of Cuban-held assets in the US and used them to compensate US Sugar, some textile producers, Americans with vacation homes, and so on. What the US didn’t do was allow US Sugar or other Americans to sue Cuba; that would have been a farce. Cuba certainly wasn’t going to come and defend itself in US courts, so the plaintiffs would have won by default and the courts would likely have been unable to fairly divide Cuban assets to ensure all claimants got paid. Instead, the first ones to sue would get whatever there was and everyone else would be screwed.
Even assuming the Saudi government can receive a fair trial in an American court, which is doubtful, it will now (theoretically) be forced to defend itself against thousands of such claims. Some would no doubt be consolidated or certified for class action, but it will still be a farce. And there is no guarantee that any of the claimants will have anything left to collect against.
The Senate just voted 97-1 to override.
By this do you mean that in the event of a judgment in favor of the victims of the attacks on September 11th, there wouldn’t be any Saudi Arabian assets (in the US?) that american courts could divvy up?
Both Hillary and Trump are for it. So goes the campaign…
Harry Reid was the only hold-out. Should breeze thru the House.
So, will we see Saudi Arabia follow through with their threats to start dumping all their US assets before they can be threatened by forfeiture via lawsuit?
As usual I have no clue what Trump would do, but why wouldn’t HRC veto it? I doubt even that whether Congress is controlled by the GOP or the Dems would matter - this passed unanimously IIRC and probably would next year as well.
Hillary has what might euphemistically be referred to as a “good relationship” with the Saudi government. I would expect her to veto it just as readily as Obama did.
Regards,
Shodan
Just heard on right -wing radio-“Congress will pass a law freezing all their assets so that they can’t do that before they are sued!”
Apparently, stupid doesn’t stop at “brain dead”. :smack:
nm
Unfortunately, the apparent meaning of this would have changed since the mods merged two threads.
To be clear, the OP I agree with was Bricker’s OP to the thread in which I posted the above - that OP is currently Post #58 of this thread.
Wow, that’s a huge majority. I guess now, as the House override is a given, we’ll see what the consequences are of tinkering with the principle of sovereign immunity, although that principle had already been breached in the case of countries such as Iran, N Korea, Syria, etc.
Candidate Clinton wouldn’t veto it. I have no doubt president Clinton would. (Sic semper campaignis)
I take your point, and agree.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t Saudi Arabia, as a nation, relative safe anyway? Their government didn’t plan or execute the attacks, and any reasonable trial should be able to establish that very clearly.
It’s a waste of time, but the decision can’t be threatening… Can it?
There’s too much emotion here. Juries often vote on emotion, and the bigger the crime, the more 'something must be done" result.
The lawyers will show that Saudi Arabia either knew or should have known about the support given to the terrorists.