|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th May 2016, 04:04 PM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
Victims can now sue Saudi Arabia.
Will this be spun by the truthers, will they try to claim the credit for it?
Senate passes bill allowing Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia via Yahoo News Digest Get the app and the day's need-to-know news. https://yho.com/newsdigestall |
17th May 2016, 10:05 PM | #2 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
Already on 'spin cycle' by 9/11 truth:
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/4...rorists-2.html See post 17 |
18th May 2016, 02:21 AM | #3 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
18th May 2016, 03:54 AM | #4 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
|
18th May 2016, 04:00 AM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,753
|
|
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. For my complete compilation of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon -http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ For my compilation of evidence for UAL93 - http://ual93.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88 |
|
18th May 2016, 04:13 AM | #6 |
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Intergalatic Solar System!
Posts: 1,692
|
So, What exactly did Saudi-Arabia do? Fund Al-Qaeda?
|
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton "And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong |
|
18th May 2016, 04:48 AM | #7 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,952
|
|
18th May 2016, 04:50 AM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
18th May 2016, 05:03 AM | #9 |
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Intergalatic Solar System!
Posts: 1,692
|
Oh, god. Makes you wonder what else they were connected with. They appearently have had connections with ISIS aswell according to what they said in the news a few months ago.
And how are the twoofers reacting to this (since they hate Saudi-Arabia)? |
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton "And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong |
|
18th May 2016, 05:14 AM | #10 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,937
|
Probably should correct the threat title to read "Victims can now sue Saudi Arabia, if bill passed by the Senate (and the House?) is signed by the President".
|
18th May 2016, 11:10 AM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Can someone please link to the language of this Senate Bill? What sorts of lawsuits by whom against whom does it allow?
It would indeed be a major depart from the basics of international law, where private parties don't have the sort of relations to states that private parties have among each other, or that states have among each other. This Bill would create a bit of international law, as it seeks to regulate relationship of certain parties in one nation to the governments of other nations. However, the international scholarly and practical consensus on what the source of international law are, is expressed in Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (to which all UN member countries, including the USA and Saudi Arabia, are members): 1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:A law passed by the US Congress only fails to meet all these criteria; thus, Congress cannot create international law - this Bill, if signed into law, would not get accepted by anyone outside the USA, and if a case was brought to the ICJ, the USA would clearly lose, and walk away with egg on her face.a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
18th May 2016, 02:46 PM | #12 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
|
|
19th May 2016, 04:26 PM | #13 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
__________________
Vive la liberté! |
|
19th May 2016, 09:39 PM | #14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
20th May 2016, 05:03 AM | #15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,952
|
That's fine, because this is about holding the Saudis accountable under US law, not internationally. As others have pointed out, the Saudis have enough assets here to make US court judgment meaningful. Seeking enforcement of the judgment outside the US simply isn't important if you can reach billions of dollars right here.
|
20th May 2016, 05:31 AM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
err...
Who are "the Saudis" who have assets which are accessible to legal judgement in the USA? What basis is there for legal action against "those Saudis"? In what US jurisdiction? Civil of criminal? Which asset owning Saudis are responsible beyond reasonable doubt for criminal activities within US jurisdiction? Which asset owning Saudis are liable on the balance of probabilities for causing "injuries" to US citizens which could attract "damages" and who has standing to take the action? |
20th May 2016, 05:49 AM | #17 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,952
|
|
20th May 2016, 06:09 AM | #18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
Who do you think is buying up the mineral rights, to the Illinois basin, and other oil fracking
Fields in the USA? Oil is cheap, American independent oil is going bankrupt and Saudi investors are buying up The leases for pennies on the dollar. Do you even realize how many investment properties, are owned by the House of Saud, in the United States or how much corporate investment the Saudis have in the USA? If it has been found that the house of Saud willingly supported Alqueda billions are at stake, All in the USA. It might however do serious harm to future forien investment to the USA, and could cause a down turn in the US. Economy. |
20th May 2016, 11:26 AM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Hence my request:
Can someone please link to the language of this Senate Bill? What sorts of lawsuits by whom against whom does it allow? Who would "The Saudis" be? Would these be criminal or civil suits? If China or Germany or Russia or Iran or, indeed, Saudi Arabia passed a law with the exact same language, only roles reversed, and started suing current and former US government members, or the US government, and started to freeze or grab US assets and investments in those countries, would you feel this is reasonably within the confines of existing international law, or even just? |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
20th May 2016, 11:41 AM | #20 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
This what you need?https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...nate-bill/2040
|
20th May 2016, 11:52 AM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
20th May 2016, 11:57 AM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
|
20th May 2016, 12:54 PM | #23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,952
|
Since "US assets and investments" is vague, I'll make clear that we're talking about ceasing assets owned by the royal family on the assumption that the royal family is involved - not freezing assets of random private Saudi citizens or Saudi businesses.
In that context, it happens all the time that assets of US companies in foreign countries get seized when they run afoul of local laws, including laws a lot more mercurial than what I believe we're discussing here. Again, the international law restrictions only come into play if you want to try to act on assets or entities outside of the country making the ruling. |
20th May 2016, 01:05 PM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
The Senate Bill makes explicit reference to narrowing the scope of "foreign sovereign immunity". There is an explicit law in US code that covers this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreig...Immunities_Act I need to read and understand at least this, then the new Bill, before commenting further. |
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote) The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton) |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|