Saudi Arabia has ways to hit back at 9/11 lawsuit effort

[webfact]

Saudi Arabia has ways to hit back at 9/11 lawsuit effort

By AYA BATRAWY

 

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Saudi Arabia and its allies are warning that U.S. legislation allowing the kingdom to be sued for the 9/11 attacks will have negative repercussions.

 

The kingdom maintains an arsenal of tools to retaliate with, including curtailing official contacts, pulling billions of dollars from the U.S. economy, and persuading its close allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council to scale back counterterrorism cooperation, investments and U.S. access to important regional air bases.

 

"This should be clear to America and to the rest of the world: When one GCC state is targeted unfairly, the others stand around it," said Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, an Emirati Gulf specialist and professor of political science at United Arab Emirates University.

"All the states will stand by Saudi Arabia in every way possible," he said.

 

When Saudi Arabia wanted to pressure Qatar to limit its support for the Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, it spearheaded an unprecedented withdrawal of Gulf Arab ambassadors from Doha in 2014 and essentially isolated the tiny gas-rich nation within the GCC.

 

When Sweden's Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom strongly criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record last year, the kingdom unleashed a fierce diplomatic salvo that jolted Stockholm's standing in the Arab world and threatened Swedish business interests in the Gulf. Sweden eventually backpedaled.

 

On Wednesday, the Senate and House voted to override President Barack Obama's veto of the Sept. 11 legislation, with lawmakers saying their priority wasn't Saudi Arabia, but the 9/11 victims and their families.

 

Chas Freeman, former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and ambassador to Saudi Arabia during operation Desert Storm, said the Saudis could respond in ways that risk U.S. strategic interests, like permissive rules for overflight between Europe and Asia and the Qatari air base from which U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are directed and supported.

 

"The souring of relations and curtailing of official contacts that this legislation would inevitably produce could also jeopardize Saudi cooperation against anti-American terrorism," he said.

 

Fahad Nazer, an analyst at intelligence consultancy JTG and a former political analyst at the Saudi Embassy in Washington, said he'd be surprised if Saudi Arabia cut back counterterrorism cooperation since it's been beneficial for both countries.

 

Still, relations with Washington had already cooled well before the 9/11 bill sailed through both chambers of Congress.

 

The Saudis perceived the Obama Administration's securing of a nuclear deal with Iran as a pivot toward its regional nemesis. There was also Obama's criticism of Gulf countries in an interview earlier this year, despite their support for the U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria.

 

Obama had vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, arguing that allowing U.S. courts to waive foreign sovereign immunity could lead other foreign governments to act "reciprocally" by giving their courts the right to exercise jurisdiction over the U.S. and its employees for overseas actions. These could include deadly U.S. drone strikes and abuses committed by U.S.-trained police units or U.S.-backed militias.

 

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told reporters in June that the U.S. has the most to lose if JASTA is enacted. Despite reports that Riyadh threatened to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy if the bill becomes law, al-Jubeir says Saudi Arabia has only warned that investor confidence in the U.S. could decline.

 

Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said estimates put the figure of official Saudi assets in the government at somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion when considering potential foreign bank deposits and offshore accounts.

 

The kingdom had $96.5 billion in holdings of Treasury securities in August, according to the most recent number released by the Treasury Department. Saudi Arabia ranked 15th in its holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

 

Gagnon, who previously worked at the U.S. Federal Reserve Board and Treasury, said there isn't much realistically the kingdom could do to move against the dollar or other U.S. assets "that would hurt us a tenth as much as it would hurt them." He said the U.S. would actually welcome downward pressure on the dollar and questioned what other markets are big enough to absorb what they could sell.

The U.S.-Saudi Business Council's CEO and Chairman Ed Burton says business between the two countries will continue, though potential deals could be jeopardized by JASTA.

 

"No business community likes to see their sovereign nation basically assailed by another nation," Burton said.

 

As one of the world's largest oil exporters with the biggest economy in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia also has other business partners to choose from in Europe and Asia, said President and CEO of the National U.S.-Arab Chamber of Commerce David Hamod.

 

"America is no longer the only game in town," he said. "No one knows how Saudi Arabia might respond to an override of President Obama's veto, but what's the point of calling the kingdom's bluff?"

 

The CEOs of Dow Chemical and General Electric had sent letters to Congress warning of the bill's potentially destabilizing impact on American interests abroad. Defense Secretary Ash Carter this week sent a letter to Congress saying "important counterterrorism efforts abroad" could be harmed and U.S. foreign bases and facilities could be vulnerable to monetary damage awards in reciprocal cases.

 

Such reactions may not come directly from Riyadh but countries connected to Saudi Arabia, said Stephen Kinzer, a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

 

He said the eight-decade-long U.S.-Saudi relationship is "entering into a new phase," in which ties will be mostly underpinned by arms sales, unlike during the era of warm relations under President George W. Bush.

 

Abdullah, the Gulf analyst at UAE University, said he expects to see a GCC that acts more assertively and independently of the U.S. in places like Yemen, Bahrain and Egypt.

 

"This is not just a threat. This is a reality," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Martin Crutsinger contributed reporting from Washington.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-29

[OMGImInPattaya]

The United States isn't Sweden...just one blow from the US and the House of Saud would tumble like a house of cards. They'll do what they're told.

Edited September 29, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[stevenl]

16 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States isn't Sweden...just one blow from the US and the House of Saud would tumble like a house of cards. They'll do what they're told.

This law is dangerous and will backfire tremendously. No, SA will not 'do as they're told'. The arrogance of your statement is baffling.

[OMGImInPattaya]

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

This law is dangerous and will backfire tremendously. No, SA will not 'do as they're told'. The arrogance of your statement is baffling.

And so is the naivete of your's.

[KarenBravo]

53 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States isn't Sweden...just one blow from the US and the House of Saud would tumble like a house of cards. They'll do what they're told.

 

Yay. Spoken like a true tyrant with a rather simplistic view of the world. Trump supporter?

[Johpa]

This really opens up a large can of worms.  Even the US government, as do most governments, enjoy sovereign immunity.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States

 

Now you might have a precedent that will revoke that immunity.  I suppose Iraq can sue the US for the invasion over the false pretenses of the existence of weapons of mass destruction.  Besides, I doubt the Saudis are the problem here, just another layer of subterfuge.

 

 

 

[stander]

Successive American and British foreign policy has been and still is determined by the House of Saud but, now 9/11 victims WILL sue Saudi Arabia. America: 1 Globalist Obama: 0

Edited September 29, 2016 by stander

[geriatrickid]

1 hour ago, stander said:

Successive American and British foreign policy has been and still is determined by the House of Saud but, now 9/11 victims WILL sue Saudi Arabia. America: 1 Globalist Obama: 0

 

The law puts every US citizen outside the USA at risk.

I get it. Many people  blame Saudi Arabia. Maybe there was a benign complicity, a tacit support of 9-11. Fine. If that's the case, then the successive US governments, businesses and employees who were  even remotely involved  in the overthrow of latin American governments are  subject to prosecution. Any US national who participated in the Vietnam conflict by spraying pesticides linked to birth defects and cancer, and all  US nationals who bombed  Cambodia and Laos are subject to prosecution. The US government  denied it was bombing Cambodia and Laos, This makes the bombers criminals since the US government denied  the bombing was  sanctioned. On and on it goes.  

[kamahele]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

This law is dangerous and will backfire tremendously. No, SA will not 'do as they're told'. The arrogance of your statement is baffling.

I'm not agreeing with the Trump supporter that they will do as they are told, but the blow back that the Saudi's are talking about will hurt them much more than it will hurt the US if they truly do what they threaten to do.

[boomerangutang]

       I think S.Arabia has most of its investments in Texan cities.  Go ahead sheiks, put all your skyscrapers up for sale there in Houston and Dallas.  It will run down property values, so what.  Texas is shaping up to be a very dry place as it is.  Major water supply problems statewide, particularly with GW looming.  

 

       S.Arabia is similar to China and N.Korea in that it's a heavily top-down paternalistic mind-control with mega tight restrictions on free speech and the press.  They don't allow anyone Jewish to enter the Kingdom.   It should be interesting how this plays out, particularly when evidence shows which Saudi individuals were financing/supporting their fellow Saudis in bombing the USA.

[williamgeorgeallen]

yanks should have invaded the Saudis after 9/11. not Iraq. americas military hand is unbeatable apart from the nuclear wild card.

[blazes]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The law puts every US citizen outside the USA at risk.

I get it. Many people  blame Saudi Arabia. Maybe there was a benign complicity, a tacit support of 9-11. Fine. If that's the case, then the successive US governments, businesses and employees who were  even remotely involved  in the overthrow of latin American governments are  subject to prosecution. Any US national who participated in the Vietnam conflict by spraying pesticides linked to birth defects and cancer, and all  US nationals who bombed  Cambodia and Laos are subject to prosecution. The US government  denied it was bombing Cambodia and Laos, This makes the bombers criminals since the US government denied  the bombing was  sanctioned. On and on it goes.  

 

 

An interesting exposé of some of the American war crimes of the last several decades.  

 

I think it is at least possible that a new generation of Americans is coming of age (the "feel the Bern" people), and, unlike previous generations, they will say to the war criminals of Washington and of the board rooms of the multinationals, "go fk yourselves....we will not participate any longer in your maiming of the world."

 

At last, some of the idealism that gave birth to America in 1776 will re-assert itself.

[elgordo38]

5 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The United States isn't Sweden...just one blow from the US and the House of Saud would tumble like a house of cards. They'll do what they're told.

You tell em Donald. The US could then add the Saudi's scalp to their belt. One more country steamrollered by the US military juggernaut. More young lives sacrificed and of course a large bonus for the American war machine industry. 

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

yanks should have invaded the Saudis after 9/11. not Iraq. americas military hand is unbeatable apart from the nuclear wild card.

The reason that they did not invade Saudi Arabia is because it was hiding among the Bushes. 

[OMGImInPattaya]

3 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

 

The law puts every US citizen outside the USA at risk.

I get it. Many people  blame Saudi Arabia. Maybe there was a benign complicity, a tacit support of 9-11. Fine. If that's the case, then the successive US governments, businesses and employees who were  even remotely involved  in the overthrow of latin American governments are  subject to prosecution. Any US national who participated in the Vietnam conflict by spraying pesticides linked to birth defects and cancer, and all  US nationals who bombed  Cambodia and Laos are subject to prosecution. The US government  denied it was bombing Cambodia and Laos, This makes the bombers criminals since the US government denied  the bombing was  sanctioned. On and on it goes.  

What you're forgetting is that the US is a Superpower and therefore sets the rules. Few, if any countries, would pass their own laws targeting the American government, and its agents, because of its worldwide actions. You can rail all you want that that's not right...but it is what it is.

 

In addition, the law in question is very narrowly targeted and any cases would be very hard to prove and to uphold on appeal. The cases could takes a decade or more to litigte as well, and at any time, the defendant state could pay-off the plaintiffs and thereby settle the case (the real goal of the law change).

[maewang99]

Saudi requires dollars for oil.  100% of the time that I know of. if they were to change that at all, it would be huge. 

Edited September 29, 2016 by maewang99

[chilli42]

I beleive that some very ugly things about the US government and its agencies will come out of this.  I beleive that Obama was trying to protect the best interests of stable government from possible ugly truths ...  I am less convinced it has much to do with protecting the Saudi's.  It has the potential to overshadow everything else going on.  Good or bad, time will tell.

[stander]

Obama: Congress made mistake with veto of Saudi 9/11 lawsuits bill. No. America made a mistake electing him.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37503224

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by stander

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

 

Yay. Spoken like a true tyrant with a rather simplistic view of the world. Trump supporter?

Do you have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion or only ad hominem attacks?

[Grubster]

I think the west should take the Saudi's up on their offer to break all ties between the west and the middle east. That would be great. Yes Saudi please sell all your US assets, we will gladly give you ten cents on the dollar, now go FO. Won't happen this way though as for some reason we always kiss up to them. Disgusting!

[The Deerhunter]

6 hours ago, maewang99 said:

Saudi requires dollars for oil.  100% of the time that I know of. if they were to change that at all, it would be huge. 

The original piece describes SA as having the largest economy in the region.  I wasn't aware that they had an economy at all in the usual sense of the word.  They just pump oil and sell it for well over 90% of their revenues don't they?  And they are already involved in a "who blinks first" war with USA on oil prices, aren't they, which is really hurting them and darned near destroying some other anti USA oil producers like Venezuela?  The USA is now a net energy exporter for the first time in decades selling oil to China of all places!!!!!    This is not new.  President Obama has been acting in a quite surprising way re Saudi Arabia for a reputedly Muslim sympathizing POTUS (President of the US) in his final year or so, since all this 911/FBI stuff came out.  But,  I'm sure he knew it all years before we got to hear the wiki-leaks and saw the official released documents on it and some of these moves could have been years in the planning.  It could get a lot more interesting yet. (If interesting is the correct word to use.)    It is a dangerous game being played with unpredictable people in an unstable part of the world.   I sure wouldn't have the nerve to be POTUS.

The Bush family were/are family and business best-friends with the house of Saud.  The Obama family does not seem to be shaping up the same way.

Edited September 29, 2016 by The Deerhunter

[boomerangutang]

It would seem that lawsuits would target individuals or businesses (who transfer funds), not the Saudi government itself. Trouble is, for the Saudis, some of the individuals and/or businesses are inextricably embedded in the royal House of Saud.  That's what spooks the Saudi power structure who are the royals.

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

The reason that they did not invade Saudi Arabia is because it was hiding among the Bushes. 

 

That's a witty sentence.  However, the actual bombers, (15 out of 16 were Saudi citizens, the other was Lebanese) .....got most of their indoctrination in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. They later holed up in Germany, and then to the US the minimum needed to fly a large plane, without caring about taking off or landing.  Months before 9-11, the US had bombed an Al Qaeda outpost in Sudan (one survivor said it was a paint factory, which is probably untrue). Bill Clinton had also authorized bombing a major Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan.  That was called off at the last minute when it was realized some civilians were milling around at the site.

[Johpa]

8 hours ago, maewang99 said:

Saudi requires dollars for oil.  100% of the time that I know of. if they were to change that at all, it would be huge. 

 

Yes, things have not gone so well for nations that  have threatened to accept alternative currencies for oil other than the "petrodollar".  Things would not go so well for the US if an alternative currency were accepted by OPEC members.  Fortunately for the US, the Euro is not looking so good right now, nor are any other currencies.

[NeilSA1]

IMHO the legal eagles will be the ultimate winners, or will they be willing and patriotic to work for free / very little? 

[vaultdweller0013]

9 minutes ago, NeilSA1 said:

IMHO the legal eagles will be the ultimate winners, or will they be willing and patriotic to work for free / very little? 

 

This is my biggest concern about the law -- the suit ultimately fails and leaves the victims of 9/11 on the hook, or even if it succeeds, the lawyers take a huge cut and little works it way down to the people who deserve it.

 

 

[Steely Dan]

Obama: Congress made mistake with veto of Saudi 9/11 lawsuits bill. No. America made a mistake electing him.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37503224
 
 
 

They did indeed. As if to prove a stopped clock is right twice a day I do for once side with Obama. This is a can of worms of colossal proportions.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Chicog]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:16 AM, maewang99 said:

Saudi requires dollars for oil.  100% of the time that I know of. if they were to change that at all, it would be huge. 

Can you imagine if the GCC persuaded OPEC into dealing in Yuan per barrel rather than dollars?

And if you think that is impossible, you missed the news this week about a significant landmark that is tomorrow.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-chinese-yuan/

 

[CaptHaddock]

On 9/29/2016 at 1:16 PM, maewang99 said:

Saudi requires dollars for oil.  100% of the time that I know of. if they were to change that at all, it would be huge. 

 

If we are talking about spot prices, changing the currency wouldn't matter.  Currencies are fungible.  For example, gold has approximately the same value at all times in any currency.  If it didn't, the arbitrageurs would leap in and correct it.  Same with oil.  There could be some effect for long-term contracts priced in a specific currency if the exchange rate were to drift during the term of the contract.

[Chicog]

You really have to wonder about the mental health of these idiots.

 

Why pass it if you know it's stupid?!

 

Quote

"We want to make sure the 9/11 victims and their families had their day in court," Ryan told reporters. "At the same time, I would like to think that there may be some work to be done to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution."

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/298486-mcconnell-opens-door-to-changing-9-11-bill