The Obama Administration standing between 9/11 victims and Saudi Arabia is stunning. Congress, including Democrats, today repudiated President Obama’s effort to protect the Saudis from lawsuits. What is going on here? This is a monarchy that seems to have controlled our presidents for decades. Why?
Aha!
Hootie-Hoo!
–Gomer Pyle
Let ’em sue ..wouldn’t Shrub and Cheney be on the list
Good post. I’m not sure why other than oil. I thought however we had weaned ourselves off of Saudi oil somewhat? I’m glad they voted against the President here.. Let people sue..
oh boy Trump violated the Cuban embargo
that should do something to his vote in Little Havana where he left a slime trail yesterday
reporting by Newsweek
Carrying forward from previous thread:
Easy answer to the new thread: Anything we can do they can do better. Set a precedent for suing a sovereign nation for possible government involvement in the death of 3000+, just watch the suits come rolling in from Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria not to mention Kosovo and other nations on the receiving end of American munitions. We’ve killed an awful lot of civilians who probably objected to the practice just as much as the relatives of those who died on 9/11
There is some precedence already in existent in such forms as families suing various entities to recoup property and art stolen by Nazis. The biggest problem in the case of Saudi Arabia is who do you sue and how do you prove their involvement in the training, financing, and encouragement of the terrorists.
Jaime
I think the lawsuit is to get some information from the Saudi govt to see if there is a there there
Letting people sue is distinct from whether they prevail. Judges can always toss frivolous cases. But let people have their day. As my first year contracts law professor often said, “Any fool can sue”
Obama’s explanation on CNN tonight:
“If we eliminate this notion of soverign immunity then our men and women in uniform around the world could potentially start seeing ourselves subject to reciprocal laws.”
Seems like a stretch to me
Oil.
Oh, and not wanting the US to be sued for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Just sayin’
Craig
It wouldn’t be a stretch any more than anything done by our soldiers to Iraqis at
Abu Ghraib had direct effect on torture of US Prisoners. Any excuse will do until they start holding a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition or just a few hangings following Nuremberg.
Of course I haven’t read the law, so I’m not sure what it allows, but getting personal jurisdiction seems to be a nutty problem.
I wouldn’t be counting my money yet.
Craig, my torts prof said the rule is “Sue everyone, assert every claim.” The prof was a civil rights attorney who didn’t really hold the ambulance chasing plaintiffs’ bar in high esteem.
KC, I would expect the Saudi government to respond to discovery just about when the sun ceases to.fuse hydrogen atoms into helium. And Bin Laden ain’t talking. Hmmm, wonder if his family will submit to the jurisdiction of the American courts..so a judgment can be brought against them? Not holding my breath.
sure is gonna make a lot of lawyers rich. also gonna add to clog in courts. just what we need with our dearth of fed judges
Jamie, yep… 1st one in line will be the Iraqi who lost his home and family, became an interpreter for the invading occupiers and who was promised move to or help by usa but got left in the lurch to face uncertain future with folks who considered him a traitor.
Every soldier from private to general is obliged to follow the international law of armed conflict (LOAC). The trials following WW-II make that fact quite evident. And, in Afghanistan, despite our cause being righteous, we have routinely compensated innocents and/or their survivors victimized by our targeting errors. The individuals responsible for the errors have been punished as well.