After unanimous Senate vote, House votes to allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia - Polidicks

[quote]The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation on Friday that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia's government for damages, despite the White House's threat to veto the measure. The U.S. Senate in May unanimously passed the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," known as JASTA. The bill's passage in the House by voice vote, two days before the 15th anniversary of the attacks that killed about 3,000 people, was greeted with cheers and applause in the chamber. "We can no longer allow those who injure and kill Americans to hide behind legal loopholes, denying justice to the victims of terrorism," said Republican Representative Bob Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers who crashed airliners in New York, outside Washington and in Pennsylvania were Saudi nationals. The Saudi government, which strongly denies responsibility, has lobbied against the bill. Opponents of the measure said it could strain relations with Saudi Arabia and lead to retaliatory laws that would allow foreign nationals to sue Americans for alleged involvement in terrorist attacks. The White House on Friday reiterated that President Barack Obama would veto the bill.[/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN11F27R[/url]

Is Saudi government really responsible for it?

What is the purpose of this other then to feel good and annoy Saudi Arabia?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51028677]What is the purpose of this other then to feel good and annoy Saudi Arabia?[/QUOTE] You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? How dare they go after the country where a lot of the attackers came from, can't bother baby Arabia or they'll get annoyed.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good?[/QUOTE] Yep, taking money from the government who unfortunately gave birth to religious extremists should totally pay thousands of dollars to random families so they can live luxuriously 15 years after the death of a family member. Oh, and it's not like they haven't received life insurance policy payouts already. The whole American mentality of "Something bad happened, I want money" is absolute shit.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;51028717]That's what a lawsuit can help find out[/QUOTE] Suppose it goes forward. Somehow. How the fuck do we actually enforce it? The Saudi Arabian government, for quite obvious reasons, isn't under the jurisdiction of our legal system.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? How dare they go after the country where a lot of the attackers came from, can't bother baby Arabia or they'll get annoyed.[/QUOTE] Should people sue the US government when US citizens carry out terrorist acts? Unless the SA government is actually responsible, what is the purpose here?

[QUOTE=Aetna;51028733]Yep, taking money from the government who unfortunately gave birth to religious extremists should totally pay thousands of dollars to random families so they can live luxuriously 15 years after the death of a family member. Oh, and it's not like they haven't received life insurance policy payouts already. The whole American mentality of "Something bad happened, I want money" is absolute shit.[/QUOTE] There's nothing wrong with investigating their involvement, I'm not american and I didn't even mention money.

Such a waste of money and time. But hey if it makes them feel good to lose and be out of money, more power to the families.

Do I think that those who lost loved ones to Death Squads financed by the US in South America should sue the US government? Yes. Do I think those that lost loved ones by British financed and supplied Paramilitaries should sue the UK government, again yes. Countries that do criminal things like enable and finance terror should be held accountable by law, just like individuals. Saudi Arabia is probably one of the biggest financiers of terror on the planet.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? How dare they go after the country where a lot of the attackers came from, can't bother baby Arabia or they'll get annoyed.[/QUOTE] This still makes no sense, unless there is evidence the Saudi government authorized or help orchestrate the attacks then it's just stupid.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? [/QUOTE] Am I crazy or is this blatantly feels before reals? If we're going to go and let people sue countries who tangentially assisted Al-Queda they should be allowed to sue the US too.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? How dare they go after the country where a lot of the attackers came from, can't bother baby Arabia or they'll get annoyed.[/QUOTE] Yeah let's fuck up international relations with bullshit lawsuits over feelings.

I can't wait for someone to turn the tables on this and use this as a precedent to file a mass of lawsuits against the US for all the shit it's supposedly responsible for.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? How dare they go after the country where a lot of the attackers came from, can't bother baby Arabia or they'll get annoyed.[/QUOTE] I guess Middle Eastern countries can sue us then because some of our citizens decided to go fight for ISIS. * Or South American like mentioned above where we financed tyrant regimes. Why is Saudi Arabia to blame for some of their citizens going rogue without them knowing. Why the fuck should Saudi Arabia even bother to acknowledge the lawsuit since they're obviously not under U.S legal jurisdiction.

[QUOTE=bitches;51028741]Should people sue the US government when US citizens carry out terrorist acts? Unless the SA government is actually responsible, what is the purpose here?[/QUOTE] If you, or anyone in this thread really, took the time to read the article, yes. That is the reason. The act allows the families to sue [I]on the grounds that Saudi Arabia knowingly allowed the attacks to take place.[/I] Whether or not they did would then be up to a court. Even in the snippet posted here, there's worry that Saudi Arabia would enact laws that are effectively the same in regard to the U.S. and I think that's absolutely fine. If America failed to stop or hinder an attack, and knowingly let a terror strike be carried out in Saudi Arabia, I would hope someone would be sued for that. Here, just for reading, [quote] [B]JASTA would remove sovereign immunity, preventing lawsuits against governments, for countries found to be involved in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. It also would allow survivors, and relatives of those killed in them to seek damages from other countries. In this case, it would allow suits to proceed in federal court in New York as lawyers try to prove that the Saudis were involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.[/B] [/quote] That seems like a pretty good law, to me.

I dont undetstand this, does this not mean US born terrorists that commit crimes in the US fall under this law allowing families of those killed to sue the US government?

[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51028671]Is Saudi government really responsible for it?[/QUOTE] The real question is, how do you sue an entire country? Even if the country praised them for what they've done, I'm pretty sure America already got their revenge when they went in and flattened cities after it.

There's been a lot of negative propaganda surrounding Saudi Arabia lately. This development doesn't surprise me in the least.

[QUOTE=Oscar Lima Echo;51028819]Yeah let's fuck up international relations with bullshit lawsuits over feelings.[/QUOTE] I guess every country in the world should just shut down their justice system on homicides side part and other related crimes because the families victim's wanting to have an investigation on who's responsible or the person who murdered their family member or an accomplice arrested because it's just their feelings and not the fact that an innocent got killed.

It's not just because some of the hijackers were Saudi; its that pilimanary investigations right after 9/11 identified some ties from their government to a few of the hijackers. This was not made public until this July: [Quote]One section said Omar al-Bayoumi, said to be a Saudi intelligence officer, met with two hijackers at a public place after they arrived in San Diego. Citing Federal Bureau of Investigation files, it said his salary rose to $3,700 a month from $465 two months after two of the hijackers arrived in California.[/quote] [URL="http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0ZV1W0"]Reuters[/URL]

As much as I loathe Saudi Arabia (As someone who lived there for many years) The premise of this lawsuit is ridiculous. Osama Bin Laden was a sworn enemy of Saudi Arabia because of their actions during the first Gulf war. There's no way he'd have buddied up with them after that. In fact, he wanted to overthrow the Saudi Government and institute what he saw as a [I]truly[/I] Islamic caliphate.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51029033]As much as I loathe Saudi Arabia (As someone who lived there for many years) The premise of this lawsuit is ridiculous. Osama Bin Laden was a sworn enemy of Saudi Arabia because of their actions during the first Gulf war. There's no way he'd have buddied up with them after that. In fact, he wanted to overthrow the Saudi Government and institute what he saw as a [I]truly[/I] Islamic caliphate.[/QUOTE] The problem is in the article in the post before yours, where there are indications the Saudi government knew about, and possibly contributed to, the attackers.

I'm not sure this is a precedent that should be set. Because the US intermittently bombed Iraq on an ongoing basis after the "end" of the Gulf War in 1991 through the resumption of open hostilities in the post-9/11 invasion, and I'm sure at least some of those munitions will have caused civilian collateral damage, either in casualties or in demolished assets. Even if we assume half of those cases never materialize (possibly because everyone in the family is dead now), that's going to be an uncomfortable defense to mount. Or, y'know, the people of Iran collectively suing the US government for the CIA-backed coup that toppled democracy and installed a strict religious theocracy (that came to threaten Israel and attempt to obtain nuclear weapons) that fucked up what had been a progressive and prosperous modern Islamic state. The idea of a class action suit consisting of a significant portion of a population against another sovereign country is kind of insane to consider -- I mean, that's what international diplomacy and, barring that, war is for. So, really, what's going on here is that the US government is delegating its diplomatic responsibilities (to pressure Saudi Arabia into paying for its alleged wrongs) to the judiciary branch of whatever jurisdiction would hear this case. Don't get me wrong, I think proven wrongs should be answered, but properly. But, likely, what's really going on is Congress screwing with Obama and trying to make the word "Democrat" have a bad taste in voter's mouths close to the election by [U]getting the President to veto a bill supporting 9/11 victims' families[/U]. On the other hand, if Obama doesn't veto it, Congress gets to look like it did something useful, even though it's just set a kind of terrible legal precedent. And look when the news broke. [I]HOW CONVENIENT.[/I]

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028716]You really wonder why victim's families of a horrific terrorist attack want to feel good? How dare they go after the country where a lot of the attackers came from, can't bother baby Arabia or they'll get annoyed.[/QUOTE] If a child kills a person does that make the parent responsible?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51029157]Or, y'know, the people of Iran collectively suing the US government for the CIA-backed coup that toppled democracy and installed a strict religious theocracy (that came to threaten Israel and attempt to obtain nuclear weapons) that fucked up what had been a progressive and prosperous modern Islamic state.[/QUOTE] Then we can counter sue for their various offenses against citizens of western nations, their constant attempts to stir violence against the United States, their choice of a strict religious theocracy (lol why would they sue when they brought it in) and their attempts to stir further shit in the Middle East today through direct support to terrorist groups that are just as bad as ISIS. Or we can even go deeper. Why not just sue them for the variety of issues that brought the coup which wasn't just "lol evil west destroyed iran" The US and UK is largely to blame but the endless whitewashing of the conflict into "big bad west" vs. "innocent iran" is so silly, ESPECIALLY given the last twenty years of Iranian craziness.

[QUOTE=gk99;51029410]If a child kills a person does that make the parent responsible?[/QUOTE] it's pretty negligent if that happens, so yes, there's responsibility on their part

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51029465]it's pretty negligent if that happens, so yes, there's responsibility on their part[/QUOTE] how naive can you be? 1) he's not talking about a minor and 2) even if you did think he was, don't take analogies literally. i'm sure you are smart enough to realize the point he was making.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;51028751]There's nothing wrong with investigating their involvement, I'm not american and I didn't even mention money.[/QUOTE] But it's not like you need people to press charges to start investigating.

[QUOTE=NixNax123;51029500]how naive can you be? 1) he's not talking about a minor and 2) even if you did think he was, don't take analogies literally. i'm sure you are smart enough to realize the point he was making.[/QUOTE] 1. I'm sure a child is someone under the age of full legal responsibility which falls under the definition of minor, so... what? 2. What is it, am I supposed to care or not because if I'm not then there's no point in the first place if I'm not supposed to take his post seriously. Thanks for acting like I'm an idiot while telling me one very dumb statement and another conflicting one though. [QUOTE=Kljunas;51029543]But it's not like you need people to press charges to start investigating.[/QUOTE] You can't investigate or press charges when there's immunity in place and laws that prevent governments for being held responsible. That's what this bill is for.