US House of Representatives votes to let 9/11 victims' families sue Saudi Arabia

[Ulysses G.]

6 minutes ago, Kasset Tak said:

Please let it go thru!!!

Then:

Vietnamese sue US for the use of Agent Orange

 

 

Such stupid examples - and some are completely fallacious. 

There is a big difference between what happens in wars and a terrorist attack on a civilian target. 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, Kasset Tak said:

Please let it go thru!!!

Then:

Read again. It is the US Government allowing US citizens to sue a foreign government. That has no connection, reciprocity or precedence for foreign citizens to sue the US government. 

[Andaman Al]

8 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Read again. It is the US Government allowing US citizens to sue a foreign government. That has no connection, reciprocity or precedence for foreign citizens to sue the US government. 

 

Of course it does. What Kasset Tak is saying is if the US Government encourage this then why should the Vietnamese Government not encourage it's own citizens to sue for damage and loss in the Vietnam war, after all it is proven to have been illegal and basically started after a false flag operation. One mans terrorism is another mans war and vice versa. And there is a whole queue of people waiting to join the party. In the invasion of Iraq we never declared war on them, we were fighting an unquantified and undefined 'war on terror'. Now these law suits are unlikely to be successful and could be started all over the world but they would have rather serious political, economic and diplomatic consequences if the cases were proven (mostly in absentia I would imagine).

Edited September 10, 2016 by Andaman Al

[Srikcir]

17 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

why should the Vietnamese Government not encourage it's own citizens to sue for damage and loss in the Vietnam war

The US currently provides hundreds of millions in foreign aid to Vietnam, some in part related to the consequences of the Vietnam War. That might be jeopordized with such a lawsuit, assuming it will be allowed against the US government.

 

But on a different tack, it was the attack of North Vietnam against a sovereign South Vietnam that was the cause for death and destruction in both countries -  the US being an ally of South Vietnam. So perhaps it might be more appropriate for the affected citizens of both countries as well as the US government and Americans who fought in the Vietnam War to sue the current government of Vietnam that overthrew the South Vietnam government for damages.

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

. Why is the US Government any less responsible for what happened in Vietnam than the Saudi Government for 9/11?

 

I have already explained that. The US government was involved in a war and there was collateral damage - like in every war. 9/11 was a terrorist attack that targeted civilians ON PURPOSE. They are two very different things.

[derator01]

Several off topic and bickering posts have been removed from view.  Please stick to the topic.

[Johpa]

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

There is a big difference between what happens in wars and a terrorist attack on a civilian target.

 

Really?!? Or is it just a matter of perspective as innocents die in either case. 

 

But I don't think the Saudis did it so bring on the lawsuit right into that big gaping rabbit hole of 9/11.

[Rancid]

If nothing else it allows a court to look at 9-11 evidence and make a ruling. The 9-11 events as we all know have many viewpoints ranging from the official government story, engineer reports disputing that version and all the way to the conspiracy stuff.

 

Interesting of course is that the Saudis are apparently heavily contributing to Hillary, so what is the likelihood of this progressing?

[Naam]

10 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I have already explained that. The US government was involved in a war and there was collateral damage - like in every war. 9/11 was a terrorist attack that targeted civilians ON PURPOSE. They are two very different things.

 

you have explained nothing! but you are right concerning "different things". the sep11 terrorist attack killed more than 3,000 people, during the war in Viet Nam 1.3 million were killed, tens of thousands maimed and many thousands are and will suffer for years to come from the aftermath of the defoliation poison "Agent Orange".

[derator01]

No personal attacks, please.

[Ulysses G.]

43 minutes ago, Naam said:

 

you have explained nothing! 

 

You do not understand the difference between a war between two parties and a terrorist attack on civilians?

 

Concerning Vietnam, if anything, sue the North Vietnamese. They started it!

Edited September 11, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[otherstuff1957]

This law could open a real can of worms...

 

There is no legal proof that the Saudi government was involved in the 9/11 attacks.  So, this law basically says that a government can be sued for the unsanctioned and illegal actions of their civilian citizens!  This could set a dangerous precedent that, if followed could unleash thousands of suits against many governments, including the US government. 

 

While it is easy to see why it passed the house, it is basically and stupid and unrealistic law that could lead to decades of legal wrangling which will be of no benefit anyone except lawyers.

 

Now, if they really wanted to help the  families of 9/11 victims they should pass a law allowing them to sue whoever funded the hijackers' flying lessons and financially supported their stay in the US while they were planning the attack.  This law would be focused enough to avoid unintended repercussions. 

[Srikcir]

16 minutes ago, otherstuff1957 said:

whoever funded the hijackers' flying lessons and financially supported their stay in the US

If it was Bin Laden and his associates, literally a deadend.

 

[bamukloy]

Ridiculous..what international ruling authority is going to adjudicate all these law suits?

 

If SA says " F- you, we dont recognise or follow your law"

then what will the US do?

 

Just another example of an arrogant country that thinks it can write the rules and lord it all over the world

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Really?!? Or is it just a matter of perspective as innocents die in either case. 

 

But I don't think the Saudis did it so bring on the lawsuit right into that big gaping rabbit hole of 9/11.

 

The topic related to possible legal action. So whether an action was legally sanctioned by state would probably play a role. While from the perspective on innocents involved non of this matters, the legal angle would usually incorporate an assessment of intent.

 

And to be clear, I don't think this is a very bright move, to put it mildly. 

 

[craigt3365]

41 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

If it was Bin Laden and his associates, literally a deadend.

 

He's got a good point.  Many individuals are contributing to Al  Qaeda, but mainly through these off shore financial institutions.  Open these up and a lot of this BS will stop.  Can't move money around any more.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#Financing

Quote

Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.^[75] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.^[75] A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.^[76]

 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You do not understand the difference between a war between two parties and a terrorist attack on civilians?

 

Concerning Vietnam, if anything, sue the North Vietnamese. They started it!

I'm not entirely convinced of the difference - once warfare changed to deliberately bomb civilians.

 

An appalling move - but attributed to the Brits I think (?) and quickly followed by everyone else.

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, Rancid said:

If nothing else it allows a court to look at 9-11 evidence and make a ruling. The 9-11 events as we all know have many viewpoints ranging from the official government story, engineer reports disputing that version and all the way to the conspiracy stuff.

 

Interesting of course is that the Saudis are apparently heavily contributing to Hillary, so what is the likelihood of this progressing?

The courts will do exactly what they are told to do by the government and certainly not allow any unknown controversial evidence into the public domain.

 

But putting aside the politics, and assuming the 'bill' passes and the courts award the families financial compensation against the Saudi govt (a long list of 'ifs') - does anyone think the Saudis will pay compensation?

 

I suppose they may find it worthwhile for some political reason.  But I doubt it.

[craigt3365]

33 minutes ago, bamukloy said:

Ridiculous..what international ruling authority is going to adjudicate all these law suits?

 

If SA says " F- you, we dont recognise or follow your law"

then what will the US do?

 

Just another example of an arrogant country that thinks it can write the rules and lord it all over the world

A country that lost 3,000 people with over 6,000 injured by a group of terrorists primarily from Saudia Arabia.  Arrogant?  I think you need to reconsider this. Extremely rude and uncalled for comment.  Especially today.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

The courts will do exactly what they are told to do by the government and certainly not allow any unknown controversial evidence into the public domain.

 

But putting aside the politics, and assuming the 'bill' passes and the courts award the families financial compensation against the Saudi govt (a long list of 'ifs') - does anyone think the Saudis will pay compensation?

 

I suppose they may find it worthwhile for some political reason.  But I doubt it.

The courts adjudicate proceedings.  they don't present evidence.  That's done by lawyers who'd make a bundle if this law is passed.  If there was proof positive, it's highly possible it will find it's way to the public.  That's the great thing about freedom of the press.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts have been removed.   Trying to compare some situations is like comparing apples and oranges.   This is a specific action.   It was done with the full intention of killing a lot of innocent people.    It was not a matter of collateral damage.  

 

 

[Basil B]

Seems stupid anyway...

 

How is one going to enforce any claim???  do you think the Saudi's will pay up???

 

Well there is always sanctions... 

[Krataiboy]

On 10/09/2016 at 10:02 AM, Ulysses G. said:

It will be most embarrassing for Obama if he vetoes this. Too many Americans already do not trust him concerning Islamic terrorism.

 

If Bin Laden family members who were in the US at the time of the Twin Towers attacks had not been allowed to leave immediately afterwards the whole sorry mess might have got sorted out a lot sooner.

 

The fact that it hasn't been is, of course, nothing to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia has been US vassal state for decades since it promised to keep the oil flowing in return for Uncle Sam acting as its protector.

[bamukloy]

Response to Craigt3365 (qoute function not working)

 

Sorry to have offended you, but I was addressing the issue of one country making laws (within its own borders) and thinking that somehow, every other country must recognise and abide by that ruling.

If it were this simple, could we not pass a law banning penalties of life in prison for drugs?..then demand every other country hand back our citizens who are incarcerated with life sentances for just having a few pills.

How about the idea of the families of victims of suicide bombers.. sueing the government of the country where the bomber came from?

What about the rest of the world sueing American bankers for the WWR? And the politicians that let it happen?

Pretty nonsensical yeah?

If governments were to be held responsible for the actions of citizens, then pretty soon laws would have to be made, forcing all citizens to return back to their countries of origin, so our governments could avoid any risk.

 

The issue of 9/11 is a completely different issue than what i was commenting on, but yes, i did reconsider.

Yes, respect for victims families and commisserations. It was a terrible attrocity. I could have chosen a better time in hindsight.

 

I get the whole idea was probably a token jesture, but to stir the emotions of the 9/11 victims families with something so impractical is not good for anyone, least of all honouring or being true to the memories of the victims IMO

[Naam]

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

If Bin Laden family members who were in the US at the time of the Twin Towers attacks had not been allowed to leave immediately afterwards the whole sorry mess might have got sorted out a lot sooner.

[hawker9000]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 11:52 PM, Naam said:

in any other country a ridiculous lawsuit like this one would cause roaring laughter.

 

I don't really have any strong opinions about this one way or the other, but why "ridiculous" exactly?  You seem very easily entertained.  Presumably, to win anything, the plaintiffs in these cases would have to prove (to a civil standard, meaning a preponderance of evidence) that the Saudi government was actually responsible for their personal losses.  If they indeed can do that, which doesn't sound easy - it'd take considerably more than simple allegations and conspiracy theories - then they rightfully deserve compensation, don't they?  I'm not sure why the U.S. government should be doing anything to prevent these suits in the first place, unless it's to step in and provide the compensation itself - which I don't see it doing.

 

I understand that there are diplomatic implications.  But that's the U.S. government's (i.e., Obama's) problem; it shouldn't be made the individual plaintiffs' problem.

 

If such lawsuits prove frivolous, then, as Srikcir points out, the courts can certainly throw them out.

 

Having said all that, and OTOH, I ALSO understand that this could result in an avalanche of tit-for-tat lawsuits against the U.S. government in certain other countries in which judicial standards and action might tend to be more, emmm, "politically driven" than legally driven...   That sounds like a good reason perhaps for the U.S. government - and actually in the legitimate interests of the taxpayers - to step in and compensate these victims itself...

 

But "ridiculous"??  Why are the claims of these victims "ridiculous"?   I gather you lost no one nor suffered any injuries on 9-11.

 

 

[ExpatOilWorker]

On 9/10/2016 at 2:44 PM, stevenl said:

This is not just SA related, it goes against the worldwide justice system when individuals can sue any country in the US for their own reasons.

Just a matter of time before the tables are turned. Very stupid, self centred, short term taking.

 

Did the victims of the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal ever sue the American Government? Don't think so and and from memory the US CEO was never prosecuted. 

Better Veto this bill.

[craigt3365]

10 hours ago, bamukloy said:

Response to Craigt3365 (qoute function not working)

 

Sorry to have offended you, but I was addressing the issue of one country making laws (within its own borders) and thinking that somehow, every other country must recognise and abide by that ruling.

If it were this simple, could we not pass a law banning penalties of life in prison for drugs?..then demand every other country hand back our citizens who are incarcerated with life sentances for just having a few pills.

How about the idea of the families of victims of suicide bombers.. sueing the government of the country where the bomber came from?

What about the rest of the world sueing American bankers for the WWR? And the politicians that let it happen?

Pretty nonsensical yeah?

If governments were to be held responsible for the actions of citizens, then pretty soon laws would have to be made, forcing all citizens to return back to their countries of origin, so our governments could avoid any risk.

 

The issue of 9/11 is a completely different issue than what i was commenting on, but yes, i did reconsider.

Yes, respect for victims families and commisserations. It was a terrible attrocity. I could have chosen a better time in hindsight.

 

I get the whole idea was probably a token jesture, but to stir the emotions of the 9/11 victims families with something so impractical is not good for anyone, least of all honouring or being true to the memories of the victims IMO

Well put.  It was 9/11 yesterday and I was on my way to the towers when the first plane hit.  I saw it with my own eyes.  Saw them fall.  And dealt with the aftermath for months while living in NYC.  So yes, I'm extremely sensitive to this event.  It had a huge impact on my life and I know people who perished.  People who didn't deserve to perish, especially by jumping out of windows.

[craigt3365]

8 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

Did the victims of the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal ever sue the American Government? Don't think so and and from memory the US CEO was never prosecuted. 

Better Veto this bill.

Yes they did.  Money was paid and executives were punished.  It was 49% owned by India.

[Scotwight]

7 minutes ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

 

Did the victims of the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal ever sue the American Government? Don't think so and and from memory the US CEO was never prosecuted. 

Better Veto this bill.

In 1989 the Indian Supreme Court approved a settlement of the civil claims against Union Carbide for $470 million. 

 

In 1999, a group of victims of the Bhopal disaster filed suit against Union Carbide in US federal court seeking compensation for the 1984 incident as well as for the alleged ongoing environmental contamination at and around the Bhopal plant site.

 

In addition to the US litigation, a criminal lawsuit against Union Carbide and Warren Anderson, its former CEO, has been ongoing in the Indian legal system since 1989