I don’t think that your comment really addresses the fundamental problem that the United States had in Iran. The US had supported the overthrow of someone who enjoyed democratic support, and we installed and supported a loyal regime - a regime which grew to be hated by many Iranians. The US didn’t install the Saudis. Our government and consumers have bought oil from them and the government has given them military protection and political legitimacy. But I don’t agree with any parallels with Iran.
If the US government believes that the Saudi government is partly responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorism, surely the correct response is for the government itself to take some sort of diplomatic action.
If it’s not going to do that, then the idea of making a 9/11-shaped hole in its own legislation so that its citizens can go after the Saudi government seems somewhat weird and underhand.
Except the unredacted part of the report explicitly says this isn’t the case. To the extent that the redacted part of the report implicates anyone, it’d have to be low level Saudi officials acting outside their gov’ts auspices.
Do you have a cite? I thought bonds paid out to the barer, not any particular person. So I have trouble picturing a mechanism by which a court could block payment. At worst, the Saudi’s would have to go through a third party.
Always? What previous case are you thinking of? I can’t really think of another example. In the US anyways, it seems that whenever the topic comes up the Executive branch squashes it (as they’ll almost certinaly end up doing here), because it basically hands off part of foreign policy to the Courts rather then keeping it in the WH. There was a bill to let victims of terrorism sue state-sponsers back in the 90’s for example, that got quashed by Bush on more or less those grounds.
Yea, if someone is blowing up buildings in NY, its hard to see how trying to sue them in a civil trial fifteen years later doesn’t seem like a particularly effective or logical response. Arresting them or blowing them up seems like a more robust response.
The bond payments can be blocked and seized by judicial rullings, this is not in any way a very novel
??
The Bearer? The USA banned the bearer bonds several decades ago, I do not know of any reputable issuance of the bearer bonds by sovereigns.
It is then because you do not understand the bond payments or the payment systems, the seizure of the payments to at least the escrowed accounts would be done on the simple valid order of a court.
it is the general observation from the global investment experience. Not something about your specific cases.
The legal precedents that open holes in any kinds of immunities are always exploited. This is why AK84 made his comment, as a lawyer.
If the Saudis believe they will be found liable in a USA court of law, perhaps they are indeed liable.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Saudis selling off their US Treasury securities on the secondary market has no effect, and with the current interest rates being offered I don’t see any problems in the primary market either. Saudis can invest in Russian securities, it’s been a couple decades since they’ve defaulted …
So then other nations (those without a democratic form) sue the USA in their biased and bogus courts of law, and seize all of our assets.
This is a *really stupid fucking *precedent to set.
I’m sure this has happened before, but why should citizens be given the right to sue the heads of another country? Isn’t this the type of thing diplomacy is for, so that issues between countries are worked out by the government and not anyone who can afford to file a case?
There’s no reason that the US would have to honor a judgement against Rumsfeld from a foreign court anymore than SA would have to actually extradite its citizens if the bill in question passed and the 9/11 victims’ families actually won their case (which is a huge if, anyway). So really this question is almost a non sequiter. I would be in favor of Bush, Rumsfeld and others being tried in an international war crimes court though, but obviously that’s off the table. If the Iraqi parliament decides that the moral principle of pursuing justice for their citizens is worth the economic, military and diplomatic fallout of such a move so be it. That’s their prerogative, just as its our prerogative to pass this bill or not. If your nightmare scenario is that the US and other nations would have a bigger disincentive to commit acts of terrorism, to look the other way while its citizens do, and/or to shield those actors after the fact, that seems to me in argument in favor of creating some exceptions to sovereign immunity.
I think it comes down to this; if the Saudi state has sovereign immunity everywhere in the world except the US, then for the Saudi state to invest in US assets involves a risk that they don’t face investing in any other assets. The other attractions of US assets might be so great that they would decide to accept this this risk; on the other hand, if they can find investments of similar quality elsewhere that don’t carry this risk, the rational strategy would be to sell US assets and buy those other assets, or at least to diversify partly into those other assets. Russian assets are not the only alternatives to US assets.
But I think it goes a little bit further; passing a bill of this kind creates an obvious and immediate risk for the Saudis, but it also increases the risk for every sovereign investor. Because, if the US does this to Saudi Arabia, it can and in the right circumstances will do this to any other sovereign. Hence US assets become that little bit less attractive to all sovereigns, not just to Saudi Arabia.
I don’t know what percentage of US assets are issued to or acquired by sovereigns, but if it’s large enough then this affects the attractiveness of US assets to a material degree, which in turn raises the cost of borrowing for the US, and specifically for the US government. Which needs to borrow an awful lot of money.
As Dr Cox told us:
Hasn’t that already been set through state seizures in other countries, like Cuba and Venezuela? Sure it might be a new argument in favour of it, but I don’t think legal precedent is what’s really holding them back as is.
Two thoughts:
First, Cuba and Venezuela have in the past seized the assets of US citizens and/or US resident corporations, but have they seized the assets of the US government? Big difference, since US citizens and corporations don’t enjoy sovereign immunity, whereas the US itself does. And what’s proposed here in relation to Saudi Arabia is the removal of sovereign immunity. You can already sue Saudi citizens/corporations in the US courts and, if you are successful, enforce your judgement against their assets; you just can’t sue the Saudi government, which is what the law proposes to change.
Secondly, even if it’s true that Cuba and/or Venezuela violated US sovereignty by seizing, or authorising the seizure of, US sovereign assets, the US can’t simultaneously object to that action and do the same thing itself. At the moment the precedent is that it’s only states like Cuba and Venezuela which do such things. If the US does it to then either (a) on the scale of “good global citizenship” the US must be bracketed with Cuba and Venezuela or (b) the precedent set is that this kind of thing can be done by any government, anywhere on the scale of good global citizenship.
So, yeah, even if Cuba and Venezuela have done this in the past, for the US to do it now would set a significant precedent.
By your own reasoning, wouldn’t a perfectly just world be one where we could bomb Saudi Arabia without fucking up everybody else around?
But you can’t be too careful about everybody else either.
What’s really required for a just world is to build a wall enclosing the Lower 48 and get the rest of the world to pay for it.
That’d learn 'em.
For Saudi Arabia the way to put hurt on the US economy for least disruption to their own would just be to switch to selling their oil denominated in Euros rather than USD.
This is one of the most insane bills the “New! Improved!” GOP has produced.
If we strip SA of sovereign immunity, how long before Iraq (we can’t keep puppets up forever) citizens produce damages for the “Mission Accomplished!” stunt?
We even had Generals bragging about the gun sight videos! Look how neatly we hit that bridge!