Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto of Suing Saudi Arabia Bill (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

It's another symptom of the Trump disease that has taken over this country: populism. Let's do what feels good. To hell with the long term consequences. USA! USA! USA! 

It's funny that you of all people would say this given your position on TPP.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Rare to see the senate agree 97-1 on any issue.

It is. But it is impressive that the one time they do, they do it on something so frigging stupid.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Is there anyone that thinks SA is fighting radical Islam?  I'd like to meet said person.....been trying to off load some ocean front property in Nevada, maybe they're interested.

The SA government absolutely fights against radical Islamic terrorist that are a threat to the Royal Family and the status quo. The state religion of the country is a fairly radical strain of Islam, but there is an implicit understanding that the local Wahabbis not destabilize the government. The government turns a blind eye to support of radical Islamic terror groups that are not in their direct neighborhood. And many private citizens of SA, along with some members of the Royal Family, are enthusiastic benefactors of violent jihadist groups.

So yeah, it is a very stable place.

 

[timschochet]

It's funny that you of all people would say this given your position on TPP.

That's a long term issue as well. 

 

[timschochet]

The SA government absolutely fights against radical Islamic terrorist that are a threat to the Royal Family and the status quo. The state religion of the country is a fairly radical strain of Islam, but there is an implicit understanding that the local Wahabbis not destabilize the government. The government turns a blind eye to support of radical Islamic terror groups that are not in their direct neighborhood. And many private citizens of SA, along with some members of the Royal Family, are enthusiastic benefactors of violent jihadist groups.

So yeah, it is a very stable place.

The very existence of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia is a threat to radical Islam. But perhaps more importantly for our long term interests in the region, they represent the last stable bulwark against Iran. 

 

[timschochet]

But it doesn't even matter. Even if the Saudis were our sworn enemies along the lines of North Korea, this would be a stupid move. Individual lawsuits, even if valid, can't be allowed to get in the way of diplomacy and the State Department. We are effectively tying our hands. 

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

The very existence of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia is a threat to radical Islam. 

I'd say it is more the opposite.

 

[Cjw_55106]

It's another symptom of the Trump disease that has taken over this country: populism. Let's do what feels good. To hell with the long term consequences. USA! USA! USA! 

It's been the Dems montra for years, but nice to see you were able to tie Trumps name to it. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

Didn't we just pay Iran billions of dollars because of a similar lawsuit? I'm unsure why we would pay that on the one hand and then argue that our own victims don't have the same right. 

Who cares if it hurts our relationship with Saudi Arabia? If they helped fund the 9-11 terrorists then they absolutely should pay for that and only have themselves to blame.

/endOfThread. 

 

[MaxThreshold]

Rare to see the senate agree 97-1 on any issue.

So I guess we can get along after all.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

/endOfThread. 

Not similar and only the end of thread if you don't care about understanding anything.

 

[cstu]

It is. But it is impressive that the one time they do, they do it on something so frigging stupid.

 

[The Commish]

The SA government absolutely fights against radical Islamic terrorist that are a threat to the Royal Family and the status quo. The state religion of the country is a fairly radical strain of Islam, but there is an implicit understanding that the local Wahabbis not destabilize the government. The government turns a blind eye to support of radical Islamic terror groups that are not in their direct neighborhood. And many private citizens of SA, along with some members of the Royal Family, are enthusiastic benefactors of violent jihadist groups.

So yeah, it is a very stable place.

Tip toe around on the moral scale all you want.....this, IMO is support for radical Islam, not fighting against it.  Like Hillary, their actions speak louder than their words.  I've been to the country several times and it's pretty clear they are ok with some really oppressive and despicable teachings framed in the guise of Islam

 

[The Commish]

That's a long term issue as well. 

Sure is

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Tip toe around on the moral scale all you want.....this, IMO is support for radical Islam, not fighting against it.  Like Hillary, their actions speak louder than their words.  I've been to the country several times and it's pretty clear they are ok with some really oppressive and despicable teachings framed in the guise of Islam

I'm not tip toeing around anything. I am trying to be as direct and straight forward as possible in describing how Saudi Arabia really works, without oversimplifying it.

The House of Saud made a deal with the devil 100 years ago in embracing the Wahabbis. They (and we) are still dealing with the repurcussions.

 

[The Commish]

I'm not tip toeing around anything. I am trying to be as direct and straight forward as possible in describing how Saudi Arabia really works, without oversimplifying it.

The House of Saud made a deal with the devil 100 years ago in embracing the Wahabbis. They (and we) are still dealing with the repurcussions.

If one knows there are deplorable acts being leveed, and chooses not to do anything, one might as well be part of it...that's direct and to the point.  What goes on over there, unaddressed is the worst of the worst and there is NO attempt by the gov't to curtail it.

 

[msommer]

If one knows there are deplorable acts being leveed, and chooses not to do anything, one might as well be part of it...that's direct and to the point.  What goes on over there, unaddressed is the worst of the worst and there is NO attempt by the gov't to curtail it.

If they try to mess inside Saudi they get a head shorter. Outside the Saudis don't care.

Problem is there is no alternative to the House of Saud. What will you get without them? ISIS Rex, with half the world's oil is probably not far from the truth.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

If they try to mess inside Saudi they get a head shorter. Outside the Saudis don't care.

Problem is there is no alternative to the House of Saud. What will you get without them? ISIS Rex, with half the world's oil is probably not far from the truth.

This.

 

[cstu]

If they try to mess inside Saudi they get a head shorter. Outside the Saudis don't care.

Problem is there is no alternative to the House of Saud. What will you get without them? ISIS Rex, with half the world's oil is probably not far from the truth.

An Islamist Party would likely win a democratic election, but they would be opposed to ISIS (only has 5% support in Saudi Arabia).  As long as ISIS has money and fighters it would create a civil war however.

 

[msommer]

An Islamist Party would likely win a democratic election, but they would be opposed to ISIS (only has 5% support in Saudi Arabia).  As long as ISIS has money and fighters it would create a civil war however.

There are more ways to come to power than a democratic election. And frankly the ISIS Rex comment was meant to portray a mental image of something like ISIS but worse, with lots of teeth, not actually ISIS taking over Saudi Arabia.

Apparently that was not made clear enough for which I apologize

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

How is discovery handled if the Saudi's merely say, "nah, we won't make Habib available for depostion" or simply refuse to comply with orders for document production and the like?  Who gets put in the slammer for contempt?  Can a judge levy a hefty fine and if so how hefty would it have to be to make the Saudi's take notice?  Can a government official who is named as a witness be arrested and detained if they visit the US while in contempt?  Is diplomatic immunity waived for individuals in the case?

I don't know if Saudi Arabia is signatory to The Hague agreement on taking evidence or whether they do Letters Rogatory or what. Foreign discovery is a real challenge in many countries. Even in Germany you need to depose someone in a Consular office. In Brazil, you submit questions to a judge and he asks you the questions. 

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm buying what your selling. So who in our government would typically negotiate these settlements? Is that a Legislative branch function or an Executive branch function? I know the Treaty power is a legislative function, but this wouldn't be a treaty. 

State Department

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Didn't we just pay Iran billions of dollars because of a similar lawsuit? I'm unsure why we would pay that on the one hand and then argue that our own victims don't have the same right. 

Who cares if it hurts our relationship with Saudi Arabia? If they helped fund the 9-11 terrorists then they absolutely should pay for that and only have themselves to blame.

We paid Iran to release our hostages

 

[The Commish]

If they try to mess inside Saudi they get a head shorter. Outside the Saudis don't care.

Problem is there is no alternative to the House of Saud. What will you get without them? ISIS Rex, with half the world's oil is probably not far from the truth.

This.

You guys are talking about groups.  I am talking about ideals and actions allowed.  That's probably my fault for not being clearer.  There is plenty within the Sharia Law that is plenty "radical" to be considered deplorable.  I'm looking at this through the lens of morality not legality.  Sorry, I wasn't clearer before.  

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

You guys are talking about groups.  I am talking about ideals and actions allowed.  That's probably my fault for not being clearer.  There is plenty within the Sharia Law that is plenty "radical" to be considered deplorable.  I'm looking at this through the lens of morality not legality.  Sorry, I wasn't clearer before.  

Oh, sure. I have no argument with that.

There are many peaceful and wonderful Muslims, but the religion, as it is practiced across a wide swath of the world, isn't peaceful or wonderful.

But that isn't remotely relevant to a discussion of sovereign immunity.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Imagine if someone filed suit against you for molesting their child. Innocent or guilty you are tagged with having to defend yourself. In the eyes of your friends, family, coworkers, etc you are "that guy who went to court for child molestation".

Do you think the Saudi's want to have to defend themselves in court on counts of being connected to terrorism? Do you think they might be mad at the people who make that happen?

The ####?

 

[cstu]

Oh, sure. I have no argument with that.

There are many peaceful and wonderful Muslims, but the religion, as it is practiced across a wide swath of the world, isn't peaceful or wonderful.

But that isn't remotely relevant to a discussion of sovereign immunity.

Islam is a mess - too many ways for it to be misinterpreted to justify violence or the mistreatment of women.  Good for the Muslims (mainly Westernized non-Arabs) who take the religion with a grain of salt. 

 

[msommer]

Islam is a mess - too many ways for it to be misinterpreted to justify violence or the mistreatment of women.  Good for the Muslims (mainly Westernized non-Arabs) who take the religion with a grain of salt. 

Many Saudis and other Arabs too. Mostly outside of Saudi Arabia, though. The religious police is a #####

 

[The Commish]

You guys are talking about groups.  I am talking about ideals and actions allowed.  That's probably my fault for not being clearer.  There is plenty within the Sharia Law that is plenty "radical" to be considered deplorable.  I'm looking at this through the lens of morality not legality.  Sorry, I wasn't clearer before.  

Oh, sure. I have no argument with that.

There are many peaceful and wonderful Muslims, but the religion, as it is practiced across a wide swath of the world, isn't peaceful or wonderful.

But that isn't remotely relevant to a discussion of sovereign immunity.

I was commenting on this notion that somehow the SA gov't was actively fighting against radical Islam.  They aren't....at least not on behalf of their people.  My point is/was that their core way of life, Sharia Law, is at the core of this sort of treatment.  They embrace those radical ideas.  They don't fight them as suggested above.

 

[SkyRattlers]

The ####?

What exactly did you not understand?

 

[The Commish]

Watching and listening to all the commentary from yesterday to today, it seems that the sovereignty of the United States is the primary driving force to Obama's objection to this and that his fear is it will set a precedent allowing citizens (or businesses I guess) to hold the United States accountable for our actions overseas.  Is this a fair assessment? 

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I think he was being facetious 

Not at all. It's not a partisan issue -- clearly, our interventionist foreign policy in the ME hasn't been successful. Starting with propping up the Shah in Iran, through Saddam in Iraq, and continuing on with the Saudis, I think that it's pretty clear that we have thrown gasoline on the fire in many ways.

On the flip side, non-intervention would likely lead to the unchecked spread of fundamentalist theocracy in the region, hence my "to play devil's advocate." I don't see a good solution; it's a matter of walking the thin line of "least terrible," but overall I don't think that our actions in the region have been very well thought out or focused on long term solutions in general.

 

[SkyRattlers]

Watching and listening to all the commentary from yesterday to today, it seems that the sovereignty of the United States is the primary driving force to Obama's objection to this and that his fear is it will set a precedent allowing citizens (or businesses I guess) to hold the United States accountable for our actions overseas.  Is this a fair assessment? 

Yes that is the primary reason. But not the only one.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Watching and listening to all the commentary from yesterday to today, it seems that the sovereignty of the United States is the primary driving force to Obama's objection to this and that his fear is it will set a precedent allowing citizens (or businesses I guess) to hold the United States accountable for our actions overseas.  Is this a fair assessment? 

yes.

 

[beer 30]

I'm not tip toeing around anything. I am trying to be as direct and straight forward as possible in describing how Saudi Arabia really works, without oversimplifying it.

The House of Saud made a deal with the devil 100 years ago in embracing the Wahabbis. They (and we) are still dealing with the repurcussions.

And I believe that deal is eroding to the point that the House of Saud is on the downhill portion of their reign. Radical Islam is just that, radical. They enjoy the money associated with living in Saudi Arabia but as the stipends & government supported programs begin to run out you'll see the rise of the radicals and the end of the House of Saud. I don't know what the timeline is but we're closer to seeing it than not. Their country is based on an unsustainable system of handouts to keep the wolves at bay. My personal opinion

 

[The Commish]

Watching and listening to all the commentary from yesterday to today, it seems that the sovereignty of the United States is the primary driving force to Obama's objection to this and that his fear is it will set a precedent allowing citizens (or businesses I guess) to hold the United States accountable for our actions overseas.  Is this a fair assessment? 

Yes that is the primary reason. But not the only one.

I'm actually interested in the other reasons, because if I am being honest, this primary reason doesn't seem to be enough.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I'm actually interested in the other reasons, because if I am being honest, this primary reason doesn't seem to be enough.

Really?

Protecting the sovereignity of the United States from actions in kangaroo courts around the globle isn't important?

What good will come of allowing US citizens to sue Saudi Arabia? Do you think they are going to recover monies if they prevail in court?

 

[SkyRattlers]

I'm actually interested in the other reasons, because if I am being honest, this primary reason doesn't seem to be enough.

The primary reason should be enough. Imagine being sued for every drone strike or Seal black op you guys do. 

Another reason though is that lawsuits brought about by the act may force the Government to reveal top security secrets. And it's not just US secrets they are keeping. It affects every ally you have. 

 

[The Commish]

Maybe I am missing something here, but how does our national sovereignty play into the acts we take in other countries if we aren't engaged in an official declared war?  I'm not sure the term sovereignty is being applied the same way by all of us, so perhaps we should start there?

 

[The Commish]

the authority of a state to govern itself or another state.

is what I am thinking when I use the term.  That's not the same as not being held accountable in other countries when you have your hands in their cookie jar.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Look up sovereign immunity. 

And the authority to "govern itself" would preclude other state actors from enforcing their laws on it. 

 

[msommer]

And I believe that deal is eroding to the point that the House of Saud is on the downhill portion of their reign. Radical Islam is just that, radical. They enjoy the money associated with living in Saudi Arabia but as the stipends & government supported programs begin to run out you'll see the rise of the radicals and the end of the House of Saud. I don't know what the timeline is but we're closer to seeing it than not. Their country is based on an unsustainable system of handouts to keep the wolves at bay. My personal opinion

Well, the Crown Prince is trying to reform the economy for that not to happen. There is a lot to do and it will be a long slog, to be sure-. Will it be succesful or too little too late?

Time will tell

is what I am thinking when I use the term.  That's not the same as not being held accountable in other countries when you have your hands in their cookie jar.

States holding other states accountable pretty much only has two options, sanctions and war.

Neither seems that attractive to me as you don't want social upheaval in Saudi now - every current alternative to the House of Saud is worse

Let's suppose the 9/11 victims' families win their case and the Saudis tell them to pound sand. They will ask their government to do something about that.

Sanctions or war?

Take your pick

 

[cstu]

Look up sovereign immunity. 

And the authority to "govern itself" would preclude other state actors from enforcing their laws on it. 

We invaded Afghanistan since they aided Bin Laden, but I guess the 9/11 families should have just sued them?

 

[cstu]

That's another thing - if Saudi Arabia were in fact found guilty in court of aiding 9/11 then we would have legitimate grounds to invade.

 

[The Commish]

Look up sovereign immunity. 

And the authority to "govern itself" would preclude other state actors from enforcing their laws on it. 

Does SA subscribe to "sovereign immunity" as a practice?  If so, this is short and sweet.  Honestly, I have more questions about how any of this would work than answers.  What would jurisdiction look like in a world where people can sue governments?  Would a case like this be in some sort of international court or would it be heard in the courts of the country where the lawsuit was filed?

What I object to from the start is this notion that the President doesn't want this because it would open the United States to similar lawsuits when we are in other countries affecting the lives of their citizens in a negative way.  If you don't want to be open to those lawsuits, don't do things in a manner that would impact their citizens in negative ways.  I'm open to all the various arguments, and I am actually forming some of those arguments myself, but this one just seems lazy and off putting.  To me, it's weak sauce.  If we insist on operating globally and try to assert ourselves as a global moral authority, "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't a very productive (or sound) foundation to start on.

This last paragraph is venting on my part and not the main focus.  I'd really like to understand more about how the process would work internationally if anyone knows that.....tia.

 

[The Commish]

Well, the Crown Prince is trying to reform the economy for that not to happen. There is a lot to do and it will be a long slog, to be sure-. Will it be succesful or too little too late?

Time will tell

States holding other states accountable pretty much only has two options, sanctions and war.

Neither seems that attractive to me as you don't want social upheaval in Saudi now - every current alternative to the House of Saud is worse

Let's suppose the 9/11 victims' families win their case and the Saudis tell them to pound sand. They will ask their government to do something about that.

Sanctions or war?

Take your pick

Not following...the US government isn't suing SA, individuals are.  So depending on how the above questions are answered, I don't see how "sanctions or war" are alternatives given an individual US citizen can't do either.  

 

[msommer]

Not following...the US government isn't suing SA, individuals are.  So depending on how the above questions are answered, I don't see how "sanctions or war" are alternatives given an individual US citizen can't do either.  

I've bolded the relevant sentence that you must have missed in the below for you

Well, the Crown Prince is trying to reform the economy for that not to happen. There is a lot to do and it will be a long slog, to be sure-. Will it be succesful or too little too late?

Time will tell

States holding other states accountable pretty much only has two options, sanctions and war.

Neither seems that attractive to me as you don't want social upheaval in Saudi now - every current alternative to the House of Saud is worse

Let's suppose the 9/11 victims' families win their case and the Saudis tell them to pound sand. They will ask their government to do something about that.

Sanctions or war?

Take your pick

 

[The Commish]

I've bolded the relevant sentence that you must have missed in the below for you

I didn't understand it when you posted it.  So if the lawsuit is successful and they "win", the SA gov't telling them to "pound sand" is how their government is set up?  That's why all my questions above seem like they have to be answered before we can get to particulars.  I just don't see this as a scenario.  I'd see the "pound sand" response happening well before it even getting to trial, right?  Like the lawyers there refusing to take their case or the government's judges refusing to hear the case etc....but again, I don't know how this would work.  Does anyone?  We can come up with mythical scenarios all we want, but what's the point if we don't even know if they are possible?

However, if I were to indulge in your scenario here, I'd say it would be a good lesson for anyone trying to sue another nation and maybe it would make them think twice about doing it   I don't see why our government's response would be anything other than "sorry, can't help you....next time come to us first".  

 

[B Maverick]

I didn't understand it when you posted it.  So if the lawsuit is successful and they "win", the SA gov't telling them to "pound sand" is how their government is set up?  That's why all my questions above seem like they have to be answered before we can get to particulars.  I just don't see this as a scenario.  I'd see the "pound sand" response happening well before it even getting to trial, right?  Like the lawyers there refusing to take their case or the government's judges refusing to hear the case etc....but again, I don't know how this would work.  Does anyone?  We can come up with mythical scenarios all we want, but what's the point if we don't even know if they are possible?

However, if I were to indulge in your scenario here, I'd say it would be a good lesson for anyone trying to sue another nation and maybe it would make them think twice about doing it   I don't see why our government's response would be anything other than "sorry, can't help you....next time come to us first".  

I understood it to be (and maybe this was covered) that US Citizens would be allowed to sue foreign Governments using US Courts.  Which would then open the US Gvt to be sued by foreign citizens in their courts/tribunals, etc (not sure every country has a 'court" system like ours).  This doesn't seem ideal depending on the country.

This would also lead to the issue of would the foreign government show for the trial?  Would they accept the judgement? And how would any judgement be enforced?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Jesus.

We know they're possible because we're not completely ignorant of the legal system.  If counsel for Saudi Arabia simply didn't appear in the case or file any pleadings, the victim families would get a default judgment.  So Saudi Arabia would certainly send lawyers (from a US firm).  Those lawyers would still argue that Saudi Arabia was immune to suit by virtue of sovereign immunity or by any number of jurisdictional challenges.  But let's assume they lose all of those.  Saudi Arabia is found complicit in the 9/11 attacks and the victims receive a judgment of, let's say $500 million.

That money doesn't magically appear out of thin air when you get a judgment.  You need to enforce that judgment.  When a party's assets are in the United States, we have mechanisms to do that.  We can attach a bank account or garnish wages or repossess a car.  When the party's assets are in a foreign country, we can't.  When the party's assets are controlled by a foreign sovereign, we particularly can't.  The Court can't order any relief.  So the victim's only recourse would be to go the government and say, "How can you persuade Saudi Arabia to pay this judgment?"  And maybe the government would: a) have some leverage that they could use (foreign aid, a weapons sale, something like that), and b) be willing to use that leverage.  Or maybe it wouldn't.  At the point where Saudi Arabia needs to pay up, it becomes an issue of foreign policy anyway.  As a matter of institutional competence, our courts are not the most effective means of addressing these types of potential issues.