I feel like a lawsuit would get as much traction as suing the RNC because the leader of the party knew there was the possibility of an attack and didn’t attempt to prevent it. Except US courts might have the ability to collect damages in the latter case. What are they gonna do, seize the Saudi embassy?
I dont think you understand what we are saying. we are saying that this NEW law, that Congress **JUST **passed, will, for most intents and purpose, have the USA give up it’s long time subscription to customary international law.
What occurred BEFORE the USA passed this law does nothing but strengthen the idea that this law will change how such lawsuits are handled.
Bringing up court orders BEFORE this law passed is meaningless.
Yes, that’s exactly what we’d do. That’s what we did to Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran. The fact that it would be hypocritical for the US to assert a right that it would never grant to other countries doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do it. Have you met the United States?
And not having diplomatic relations with a country is not the same thing as asserting that no such country exists.
**I dont think you understand what we are saying. we are saying that this NEW law, that Congress JUST passed, will, for most intents and purpose, have the USA give up it’s long time subscription to customary international law.
What occurred BEFORE the USA passed this law does nothing but strengthen the idea that this law will change how such lawsuits are handled.
Bringing up court orders BEFORE this law passed is meaningless.
**
Basis? We don’t have no basis. We don’t need no stinkin’ basis!!
Yes, it would be ridiculous and hypocritical to pass this law and then turn around and refuse to pay when other countries sue us. That doesn’t mean we’d pay up. Of course we’d refuse to pay up. The fact that we’re trying to extort money out of the Saudis doesn’t mean we’d pay up with other countries try to extort money out of us.
Of course it strengthens the idea that this is the new international norm, and makes us look like fools and bullies. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t do it–we just passed this horrible law and over-rode the president’s veto, so it’s pretty clear the United States doesn’t mind looking like an idiot on the international stage.
There are probably billions in Saudi-owned assets in the US. Treasury bonds, gold stocks, maybe even government commercial investment. Of course, that doesn’t mean this law is a good idea.
If our reason really is just that we have a bigger military and so there’s nothing anyone else can do about it, then we should have just been honest about it and declared war on Saudi Arabia. What we have now is just ludicrous.
The particulars may vary, but it almost seems obvious to me how they are going to walk this back. It doesn’t take a genius to guess that they’ll handle it how they handle everything these days - through creative accounting.
They’ll amend the law so that 9/11 families that win a judgement against S.A. will be paid out of some US-government controlled slush-fund or other, and then it will be the purview of Congress and the State Dept. to decide if/when/how *they *decide to enforce the judgment by collecting from S.A.
It will basically boil down to our diplomats using a somewhat make-believe/self-proclaimed ledger of “debts” as a stick to carry in their back pockets for when the carrots aren’t working.
That’s not true, we have basis in Germany, basis in Japan, basis in Kuwait…
No. All your basis are belong to us.
I agree, but in practice we don’t respond to friendly countries that way because our interests in not attacking SAudi Arabia outweigh our interests in attacking Saudi Arabia. So perhaps the best tool for getting them to care more about what elements of their government are doing(and this goes double for Pakistan), is if it’s costing them revenue. Besides, paying compensation when you kill people is part of the Islamic tradition. We paid out to tons of families for our operations in Iraq:
So none of this should be shocking to the Sauds.
Heck, I’m just glad it’s finally official that 9/11 wasn’t Iraq’s fault.
When I was living in Japan there were, as I recall, several instances in which US servicemen had (potentially negligently) killed civilians in Japan and Korea, one involving a Korean girl who was crushed by a tank. I’m almost certain that arrangements are made to compensate for the families of the deceased but I would imagine that it’s coordinated through DOD or DOS. Allowing the spectacle of a long, drawn out emotional trial would almost certainly create the sort of spectacle that would exert a lot of pressure on our strategic alliances worldwide, and not just in the Middle East.
But Cuba and Iran don’t really have a lot invested in the United States, nor does the United States have a lot invested in Iran and Cuba.
It’s quite different when you have people from one international “partner” suing people of the other “partner” - or suing the “partner” directly. Countries have strategic partnerships and relationships that are, to put it mildly, not necessarily always popular with ordinary folk on the street. Partners can and do occasionally engage in behavior that offends the other partner, but it’s worked out at diplomatic levels. But having ordinary people sue other nations and governments and drawing their occasionally egregious behavior out in a legal process and turning it into a public spectacle will exert a lot of strain on these strategic alliances.
This is not even talking about the fact that countries invest directly in the American economy with central banks buying up bonds, with foreign individuals and banks investing in American companies, with American governments and businesses negotiating economic partnerships across the globe. There is already and process and a remedy for dealing with offenses committed by state actors. The 9/11 bill is just emotional theater.
They’re next!
Not only that, but has Senator Corker ever actually paid attention to the United States House of Representatives? Perhaps nowhere in the country can you find 400-odd bigger self-serving dunderheads crammed in to single room. If there’s a group of people anywhere that you could reasonably predict would pass a stupid bill, it would be House of Reps.
Not only that, but the Senate didn’t just pass it; they passed it, and then they sat down and explicitly voted on it AGAIN in order to override the veto. The idea that they can pass the blame on this is hilarious.
Others have already pointed out the legal problem with you argument. Your political position on this issue seems to be, effectively, “I want to define unlawful actions, for the purposes of this discussion, as things done by people that i don’t like.” I’m sure that you would, in your wisdom, find all US actions to conveniently fall under your definition of “belligerent actions.”
DrDeth, please don’t assume that because I find your arguments unconvincing that I don’t understand them.
And please don’t assume that repeating your arguments in bold somehow makes them more convincing.
That’s simply the message board equivalent of talking louder and louder.
I don’t accept your argument, for three reasons:
1. The US has weakened sovereign immunity for others before, while insisting on sovereign immunity for itself.
The example of the US refusing to accept the Iranian judgments is highly relevant, because that came out of the last time the US asserted that other countries were liable in the US courts, but the US was not liable in their courts. It is therefore the best predictor of what will happen with this new bill.
In 2008, the US passed a law to allow for civil actions against foreign countries that are on the US list of state-sponsors of terrorism: i.e. Iran, Cuba and North Korea. See 28 USC 1605A:
Iran protested and argued that the US law was contrary to international law. It also passed a “tit-for-tat” statute, which said that the US was liable in Iranian courts. That’s the basis for the Iranian court judgements which the US has ignored.
In short, for the past eight years, the US has asserted that it can pass a law to strip foreign countries of their sovereign immunity in US courts, but that statute does not mean the US will recognise measures by other countries which strip the US of sovereign immunity in their courts.
I see no reason why the US would take a different approach here: asymmetry is the US policy.
2. There is nothing in the bill which weakens US sovereign immunity. The recently passed act is all about expanding the jurisdiction of the US courts to consider claims against foreign nations. There is nothing in the bill which recognises that the US will be liable to actions in the courts in other countries.
If Congress had wanted this bill to permit actions in other countries, they would have had to say so, because US law currently provides that the US federal courts have exclusive justification over all actions against the US government or its officials for negligent or wrongful injuries or deaths. See 28 USC 1346(b)(1):
A grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the federal courts means that under US law, no other courts have jurisdiction to hear those types of complaints. If a foreigner wants to sue the US government, under US law the foreigner has to begin the action in the US federal courts.
The recently passed bill does not amend that grant of exclusive jurisdiction.
3. The Congressional Reaction to the Veto Shows Congress Does not Want Foreign Courts to Have Jurisdiction over the Inited States
Following the veto and override, the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate have said that the bill needs tweaking because they do not want US servicemen and diplomats to be subject to lawsuits in foreign courts.
Taking them at their word, that means that Congress does not want this bill to weaken US sovereign immunity in foreign courts. How they think they can prevent such law suits in foreign courts is another matter, but is a clear statement from congressional leaders that the bill is asymmetrical and is not intended to weaken US sovereign immunity.
Intent is irrelevant; what matters is what actually happens. The other countries don’t here US approval any more than we did theirs.
I think this is the part you may be missing: the theory is that allowing claims under this bill will encourage other countries to adopt tit-for-tat or even broader legislation. Iran, Cuba and North Korea are different in the sense that we don’t have diplomatic relations with them, so ignoring the judgments of their courts is basically par for the course.