Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill

[Shiloh Raven]

I'm not concerned about this development. The US government has been stomping around the world with impunity for decades. About time it was held liable in court for some of its transgressions, and about time victims were able to claim compensation.

I agree.

 

[Oafman]

It's always foreign people who hate America until their country is desperate for the help of America.

I hope that wasn't directed at me!

You're confused here also. This article regards American 9-11 victim families being able to sue another country, Saudi Arabia, not a law that allows other countries to sue America. Thanks

If American law allows for its citizens to sue the governments of other countries, then it seems likely that other countries will change their laws to allow their citizens to sue the US govt. As people have said, this is a Pandora's Box.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I hope that wasn't directed at me!

If American law allows for its citizens to sue the governments of other countries, then it seems likely that other countries will change their laws to allow their citizens to sue the US govt. As people have said, this is a Pandora's Box.

Not really. This is more a political statement than an actual judicial one. The Congress(bipartisanship btw. Isn't that what people have been clamoring for?) is sending a message to Saudi Arabia. Probably about their funding of Madrassas. No US court has any jurisdiction that could cause Saudi Arabia to do anything. As Vylo pointed out Saudi Arabia will simply ignore whatever comes of this and since the President opposed it, they have no diplomatic cause for insult. Should other countries follow suit and sue the US the US will be just as unharmed as Saudi Arabia will be by this and ignore these courts that have no more jurisdiction over the US than US courts have over Saudi Arabia. It would not surprise me to learn that the President was actually in favor of this but for diplomatic reasons has played a part. After all I suspect that more Democrats would have opposed it and voted against an override if the President really cared strongly about it in the negative.

 

[FreeinChrist]

It could become much more then that. Just wait until someone who lost loved ones in Iraq sues the United States for it's actions.

That is just the start of it.

What courts will the lawsuits pregress in? How is it binding on another country?

 

[Oafman]

The Congress(bipartisanship btw. Isn't that what people have been clamoring for?) is sending a message to Saudi Arabia.

As of yesterday, it is now official policy of one of the UK's 2 main political parties to ban all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Now that is a statement.

 

[Cute Tink]

I don't see how this law is anything other than political posturing. US courts have no jurisdiction over other countries. Where would such a suit be filed? How would any judgment be enforced?

 

[Oafman]

Should other countries follow suit and sue the US the US will be just as unharmed as Saudi Arabia will be by this and ignore these courts that have no more jurisdiction over the US than US courts have over Saudi Arabia.

Just as there are Saudi owned assets in the US, which could ultimately be seized, there are US owned assets in KSA

 

[grasping the after wind]

As of yesterday, it is now official policy of one of the UK's 2 main political parties to ban all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Now that is a statement.

How many sales and how much money would the UK be missing out on and how much would Saudi Arabia be inconvenienced by this? In other words I would like to know if it is a real statement or just a symbolic one like the US Congress' symbolic one.

 

[NotreDame]

I somehow expect that Saudi Arabia will simply ignore these cases.

Well, a judgment against them could result in freezing or seizing assets they have in the U.S., if they chose to "ignore" an adverse ruling.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Just as there are Saudi owned assets in the US, which could ultimately be seized, there are US owned assets in KSA

So why do you think a court would actually order the seizure of the assets of a foreign government? I assume there are already international laws forbidding such things and treaties that US has signed to obey those laws.

 

[NotreDame]

Not really. This is more a political statement than an actual judicial one. The Congress(bipartisanship btw. Isn't that what people have been clamoring for?) is sending a message to Saudi Arabia. Probably about their funding of Madrassas. No US court has any jurisdiction that could cause Saudi Arabia to do anything. As Vylo pointed out Saudi Arabia will simply ignore whatever comes of this and since the President opposed it, they have no diplomatic cause for insult. Should other countries follow suit and sue the US the US will be just as unharmed as Saudi Arabia will be by this and ignore these courts that have no more jurisdiction over the US than US courts have over Saudi Arabia. It would not surprise me to learn that the President was actually in favor of this but for diplomatic reasons has played a part. After all I suspect that more Democrats would have opposed it and voted against an override if the President really cared strongly about it in the negative.

This federal law limits sovereign immunity granted to countries and permits certain people to sue other governments under specific circumstances. Obtaining a judgment against the government could result in the seizure of money or other assets belonging to the foreign government.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This federal law limits sovereign immunity granted to countries and permits certain people to sue other governments under specific circumstances. Obtaining a judgment against the government could result in the seizure of money or other assets belonging to the foreign government.

If that is what the law says, (I have no idea what this law says I haven't read it myself) I expect courts will find it invalid as it either is unConstituional or violates treaty agreements or some other such thing. Possibly a court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs without finding any legal mechanism available to seize those assets. Does the law provide for such a mechanism or does it simply allow for suing alone?

 

[NotreDame]

So why do you think a court would actually order the seizure of the assets of a foreign government? I assume there are already international laws forbidding such things and treaties that US has signed to obey those laws.

Governments are lawfully permitted to seize the assets and money of another government under certain circumstances. One such known circumstance is to satisfy a judgment against a foreign government, a practice common under the law.

 

[Oafman]

How many sales and how much money would the UK be missing out on and how much would Saudi Arabia be inconvenienced by this? In other words I would like to know if it is a real statement or just a symbolic one like the US Congress' symbolic one.

It's huge. Britain is the world's 4th biggest arms exporter, and KSA is our biggest customer. It's hard to find good figures, as it fluctuates, but looks to be around £5bn - £10bn per year.

We stand to lose a fortune. But we will also prevent our weapons being used against civilians in Yemen, so it's worth every penny we lose.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Governments are lawfully permitted to seize the assets and money of another government under certain circumstances. One such known circumstance is to satisfy a judgment against a foreign government, a practice common under the law.

Permitted is not the same as required.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

One wonders if they understand the Pandora's box they have opened?

This bill applies specifically to Saudi Arabia, specifically for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. It doesn't permit lawsuits under any other circumstances.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's huge. Britain is the world's 4th biggest arms exporter, and KSA is our biggest customer. It's hard to find good figures, as it fluctuates, but looks to be around £5bn - £10bn per year.

We stand to lose a fortune. But we will also prevent our weapons being used against civilians in Yemen, so it's worth every penny we lose.

Then i would say it is more than a symbolic gesture.

 

[NotreDame]

If that is what the law says . I have no idea what this law says I haven't read it myself. I expect courts will find it invalid as it either is unConstituional or violates treaty agreements or some other such thing. Possibly a court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs without finding any legal mechanism available to seize those assets. Does the law provide for such a mechanism or does it simply allow for suing alone?

I've read the law. My representation is accurate.

It's doubtful the law is unconstitutional. Congress has the constitutional authority to expand or contract the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Here, Congress expanded federal jurisdiction by removing sovereign immunity in a very specified and narrow manner.

I'm not aware of any treaty denying the government the authority to limit sovereign immunity for other nations.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

It could become much more then that. Just wait until someone who lost loved ones in Iraq sues the United States for it's actions.

Nothing in the bill permits that...

 

[grasping the after wind]

Governments are lawfully permitted to seize the assets and money of another government under certain circumstances. One such known circumstance is to satisfy a judgment against a foreign government, a practice common under the law.

Also if by international agreement governments already can have their assets seized to satisfy judgements levied against them from lawsuits brought by private citizens, how is this law something that would open a Pandora's Box?