CDZ Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout if Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

[Synthaholic]

I think we should just assume that Hillary is lying about everything she says and says she believes.

Why is that? Do you just lap up wingnut talking points and swallow them whole?

I bet you think she's been involved in "scandals", too!

 

[Synthaholic]

Recent article about how the 9/11 attack caused a major drop in the Dow, a major recession, and huge increases to government spending on two wars and the War on Terrorism:

How the 9/11 Attacks Still Damage the Economy Today

Only one of those wars was justified, and it didn't cost anywhere close to what the Iraq Quagmire did.

 

[Blackrook]

I think we should just assume that Hillary is lying about everything she says and says she believes.

Why is that? Do you just lap up wingnut talking points and swallow them whole?

I bet you think she's been involved in "scandals", too!

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton Comes Out in Support of Schumer's 9/11 Bill

Hillary Clinton, as a person who may be our next President, should not be advocating a bill that will take a major wrecking ball to foreign relations. On the bright side, she's probably lying and really opposes the bill.

I like a politician who is willing to tell Saudi Arabia to screw themselves

 

[Fishlore]

If it is revealed that Saudi Arabia had a hand in 9/11 I won't want to file a lawsuit against them, I'll want to bomb them.

Start stocking up explosives-wise because the financial support from high up in the "royal family" (and in the Kingdom, the royal family IS the government -- not like Sweden or the UK at all ) and technical assistance from Saudi consular officials in CA has been know and documented for years. The lawsuit is just a way of getting the whole mess on the public record.

And why would we want to do this? Because now that Saudi and Israel have become allies because they both are getting support from the USA, both nations are conspiring to do whatever they want and have Uncle Sam pay the bill. Saudi and Israel need a jerk on the leash.

 

[rightwinger]

If choosing between the rights of 9-11 families and the Saudis

I go with the 9-11 families

 

[Synthaholic]

I think we should just assume that Hillary is lying about everything she says and says she believes.

Why is that? Do you just lap up wingnut talking points and swallow them whole?

I bet you think she's been involved in "scandals", too!

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

What was the result of the Republican investigation of Whitewater?

Answer: The Clintons did nothing illegal.

FAIL #1

What scandal are you imagining with Benghazi?

 

[Synthaholic]

Saudi and Israel need a jerk on the leash.

I agree, but this bill is ill-advised, and I oppose it.

 

[320 Years of History]

The Saudi's have communicated their intentions in the event the U.S. enacts the law. That's wonderful. It means that we now know what to expect and anticipate in connection with enacting the law. All laws have consequences, but that they do does not mean one must not enact or break a given law. One need only be prepared to accept and deal with the consequences.

I don't care what the Saudis threaten. The U.S. should nonetheless pass laws that serve its and its citizens' interests.

Frankly, in light of the recent slump in oil prices, I suspect that the Saudis are keen to raise money and have been just looking for an excuse to do so by selling off their U.S. securities. This surely comes as no surprise to the U.S. government's top economists. I fully expect the Fed has a plan in place to deal with it if/when the Saudis do begin a sell-off. To that end, what catalyzes their doing so is something of a moot point.

Additionally, even if Congress passes the "9/11" Bill, so what? (I'm not an attorney, so the legal "what" may well be something that I don't know about.) It means that U.S. citizens can bring suit in U.S. court against the Saudi government. They'd still need to win their suit, something that is hardly a foregone conclusion given the nature of the case they'd be bringing. I mean really...How is one going to obtain the information needed to show that the Saudi government actually had a causal (or more significant) role in the events of 9/11? The "9/11" Bill seems at best a moral victory for survivors and surviving family members of 9/11 victims.

Out of curiosity, but also to understand just where this bill is "coming from":

• What is the point of the law under consideration given the existence of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008?
• Is the "9/11" Bill proposed largely some information has come to the fore and that was not available prior to the arrival of 11-Sep-2011 (the statute of limitations date in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)?
  
• Why doesn't the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (See Section 1083) already permit folks to bring the sorts of cases the "9/11" Bill appears, to my layman's mind, to address? (I'm expecting to see that the temporal limits it defines are the reason, but maybe they aren't...)

 

[Fishlore]

Saudi and Israel need a jerk on the leash.

I agree, but this bill is ill-advised, and I oppose it.

No argument from me on that one. Obama said twice he would release the 28 pages. He hasn't. I understand that he isn't hiding some scandal of his own (obviously) but he fears the effect on US policy in the Middle East if the voters knew what is in those pages. The law is a crowbar attempt by both sides in Congress to get the information out. We don't need the law, we need the 28 pages.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!" -- that seems to be what Obama thinks about We the People.

 

[Tehon]

The Saudi's have communicated their intentions in the event the U.S. enacts the law. That's wonderful. It means that we now know what to expect and anticipate in connection with enacting the law. All laws have consequences, but that they do does not mean one must not enact or break a given law. One need only be prepared to accept and deal with the consequences.

I don't care what the Saudis threaten. The U.S. should nonetheless pass laws that serve its and its citizens' interests.

Frankly, in light of the recent slump in oil prices, I suspect that the Saudis are keen to raise money and have been just looking for an excuse to do so by selling off their U.S. securities. This surely comes as no surprise to the U.S. government's top economists. I fully expect the Fed has a plan in place to deal with it if/when the Saudis do begin a sell-off. To that end, what catalyzes their doing so is something of a moot point.

Additionally, even if Congress passes the "9/11" Bill, so what? (I'm not an attorney, so the legal "what" may well be something that I don't know about.) It means that U.S. citizens can bring suit in U.S. court against the Saudi government. They'd still need to win their suit, something that is hardly a foregone conclusion given the nature of the case they'd be bringing. I mean really...How is one going to obtain the information needed to show that the Saudi government actually had a causal (or more significant) role in the events of 9/11? The "9/11" Bill seems at best a moral victory for survivors and surviving family members of 9/11 victims.

Out of curiosity, but also to understand just where this bill is "coming from":

• What is the point of the law under consideration given the existence of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008?
• Is the "9/11" Bill proposed largely some information has come to the fore and that was not available prior to the arrival of 11-Sep-2011 (the statute of limitations date in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)?
  
• Why doesn't the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (See Section 1083) already permit folks to bring the sorts of cases the "9/11" Bill appears, to my layman's mind, to address? (I'm expecting to see that the temporal limits it defines are the reason, but maybe they aren't...)

Why doesn't the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (See Section 1083) already permit folks to bring the sorts of cases the "9/11" Bill appears, to my layman's mind, to address?

Section 1083 of the 2008 NDAA added section 1605A to title 28 of the US code. Section 1605A stipulates that in order for a claim to be heard, the Foreign State had to be listed a state sponsor of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is not on such a list, therefore a claim can not be brought against them.

28 U.S. Code § 1605A - Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

(c)Private Right of Action.—A foreign state that is or was a state sponsor of terrorism as described in subsection (a)(2)(A)(i), and any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, shall be liable to—
(1)
a national of the United States,
(2)
a member of the armed forces,
(3)
an employee of the Government of the United States, or of an individual performing a contract awarded by the United States Government, acting within the scope of the employee’s employment, or
(4)
the legal representative of a person described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3),
for personal injury or death caused by acts described in subsection (a)(1) of that foreign state, or of an official, employee, or agent of that foreign state, for which the courts of the United States may maintain jurisdiction under this section for money damages. In any such action, damages may include economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. In any such action, a foreign state shall be vicariously liable for the acts of its officials, employees, or agents.

 

[Tehon]

Saudi and Israel need a jerk on the leash.

I agree, but this bill is ill-advised, and I oppose it.

Why? What is in the bill that you find objectionable?

 

[320 Years of History]

Section 1083 of the 2008 NDAA added section 1605A to title 28 of the US code. Section 1605A stipulates that in order for a claim to be heard, the Foreign State had to be listed a state sponsor of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is not on such a list, therefore a claim can not be brought against them.

28 U.S. Code § 1605A - Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

So to further/clarify my understanding, for, as I said, I'm not an attorney thus I'm not trained in how to read legal code, I ask and discuss the following:

Does the outline level of the code define/imply the level of superiority one section has over another?

I'm asking that because I saw and read that section of the code when I too posted the link to it (I like the layout of your link better...it's physically easier to read). When I read it, I noticed the following:

• Section 2 has a description -- "Claim Heard. -- The court shall hear a claim under this section if—"
• Section 2(A) has nothing.
• Section 2(A)(i) has nothing.
• Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II) has content, namely two conditions that allow the claim to be heard
• Section 2(A)(ii) has content as well, namely what appears to be a continuation of the sentence begun at Section 2, "the claimant or the victim was, at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred—"
• Sections 2(A)(ii)(I), (II), and (III) go on to identify three "or-related" (rather than "and-related") statuses the claimant or victim can have held:
  (1) being a U.S. national,
  (2) being a member of the armed forces, or
  (3) being an employee of the U.S Government or as a contractor acting as such.

So, given what I observed and putting it all together into a standard English sentence (albeit Faulknerian in length LOL), I read the law as saying,

"The court shall hear a claim under this section if the claimant or the victim was,
-- at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred a national of the United States,
-- a member of the armed forces, or
-- [worked in or on behalf of the U.S. Government],
and the claimant has afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance with the accepted international rules of arbitration.​

I took the silence of Sections 2(A) and 2(A)(i) as implicit indications that Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II) are not to be construed as having primacy over Section 2(A)(ii), which exists at a "higher outline level" than do Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II). In other words, I determined that even though Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II) appear in the document before Section 2(A)(ii), they are not that section's equal in priority/primacy of law. I used these documents to guide my thinking in that regard:

• Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting Conventions: A Primer for Judges
  
• Uniform Law Commission DRAFTING RULES

As I wrote earlier, I'm not trained to read laws. So, assuming you have been -- I don't recall if you said you are or are not -- your input on how the presentation/format of a law plays into how it must be interpreted will be informative.​

 

[Tehon]

Section 1083 of the 2008 NDAA added section 1605A to title 28 of the US code. Section 1605A stipulates that in order for a claim to be heard, the Foreign State had to be listed a state sponsor of terrorism. Saudi Arabia is not on such a list, therefore a claim can not be brought against them.

28 U.S. Code § 1605A - Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

So to further/clarify my understanding, for, as I said, I'm not an attorney thus I'm not trained in how to read legal code, I ask and discuss the following:

Does the outline level of the code define/imply the level of superiority one section has over another?

I'm asking that because I saw and read that section of the code when I too posted the link to it (I like the layout of your link better...it's physically easier to read). When I read it, I noticed the following:

• Section 2 has a description -- "Claim Heard. -- The court shall hear a claim under this section if—"
• Section 2(A) has nothing.
• Section 2(A)(i) has nothing.
• Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II) has content, namely two conditions that allow the claim to be heard
• Section 2(A)(ii) has content as well, namely what appears to be a continuation of the sentence begun at Section 2, "the claimant or the victim was, at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred—"
• Sections 2(A)(ii)(I), (II), and (III) go on to identify three "or-related" (rather than "and-related") statuses the claimant or victim can have held:
  (1) being a U.S. national,
  (2) being a member of the armed forces, or
  (3) being an employee of the U.S Government or as a contractor acting as such.

So, given what I observed and putting it all together into a standard English sentence (albeit Faulknerian in length LOL), I read the law as saying,

"The court shall hear a claim under this section if the claimant or the victim was,
-- at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred a national of the United States,
-- a member of the armed forces, or
-- [worked in or on behalf of the U.S. Government],
and the claimant has afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance with the accepted international rules of arbitration.​

I took the silence of Sections 2(A) and 2(A)(i) as implicit indications that Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II) are not to be construed as having primacy over Section 2(A)(ii), which exists at a "higher outline level" than do Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II). In other words, I determined that even though Sections 2(A)(i)(I) and (II) appear in the document before Section 2(A)(ii), they are not that section's equal in priority/primacy of law. I used these documents to guide my thinking in that regard:

• Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting Conventions: A Primer for Judges
  
• Uniform Law Commission DRAFTING RULES

As I wrote earlier, I'm not trained to read laws. So, assuming you have been -- I don't recall if you said you are or are not -- your input on how the presentation/format of a law plays into how it must be interpreted will be informative.​

I am not trained to read laws either but I am comfortable with my reading of this one combined with a little rational thinking.

The first requirement for a claim to be heard is that the foreign state in question be designated a state sponsor of terrorism.

(2)Claim heard.—The court shall hear a claim under this section if—
(A)
(i)
(I)
the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time the act described in paragraph (1) occurred, or was so designated as a result of such act, and, subject to subclause (II), either remains so designated when the claim is filed under this section or was so designated within the 6-month period before the claim is filed under this section; or

My understanding is that if a state is not designated as a sponsor of terrorism, the claim need not be heard.

Furthermore, though I'm not a lawyer, I have got to believe the lawyers on capital hill who have written the 9/11 bill as well as those lawyers representing the families of the 9/11 victims are smart enough not to be wasting their time drafting new legislation needlessly. The bill passed the judiciary committee.

Motley Rice - Attorneys at Law
Justice Against the Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA)
On Sept. 20, 2012, in what the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism called “a bold move to empower 9/11 family members and survivors to achieve justice by holding accountable all who aid and abet terrorism,” the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Justice Against the Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA).

An amended version of the bill was introduced a year later to both chambers of Congress by Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Peter King (R-NY) with broad bi-partisan support, and in late December 2014 it was passed by the Senate.

JASTA (S.1525), if passed into action, would allow “ any person who aids, abets, or conspires with a person who commits an act of international terrorism … that injures a U.S. national” to be held liable for that action in U.S. courts. Additionally, it would remove any protections from civil actions that foreign states or officials could hide behind if they were found to be connected with acts of terrorism.

In support of our clients, as well as numerous other victims of terrorist acts, we strongly support the 9/11 Families in the call for Representatives and Senators to approve and enact JASTA. To date, the 9/11 Families have received sworn declarations from former Senators Bob Graham (FL) and Bob Kerrey (NE) that were filed in the case.

9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism
Originally founded as the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, this group of survivors and families of 9/11 victims is founded on the premise that those who sponsor terrorist organizations are liable for the damages caused by those organizations. Motley Rice co-founder Ron Motley (1944 – 2013) served as lead counsel for the 9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism litigation until his passing. Today, several Motley Rice attorneys serve on the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee for the In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 lawsuit.


S.1535 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act - Amends the federal judicial code to include among the exceptions to U.S. jurisdictional immunity of foreign states any statutory or common law tort claim arising out of an act of extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, terrorism, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, or any claim for contribution or indemnity relating to a claim arising out of such an act.

Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) impose liability on any person who aids, abets, or conspires with a person who commits an act of international terrorism that is committed, planned, or authorized by a designated foreign terrorist organization and that injures a U.S. national; and (2) repeal provisions prohibiting civil actions against foreign states or foreign officials for damages related to acts of terrorism.

Grants U.S. district courts personal jurisdiction, to the maximum extent permissible under the Fifth Amendment, over any person who commits or aids and abets an act of international terrorism, or who otherwise sponsors such act or the person who committed such an act, that injures a U.S. national.

Makes this Act applicable to any civil action: (1) pending on, or commenced on or after, this Act's enactment date; and (2) arising out of an injury to a person, property, or business on or after September 11, 2001.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am not trained to read laws either but I am comfortable with my reading of this one combined with a little rational thinking.

LOL

Yes, well, I'm comfortable with my read as well, but I know my self-perceived comfort with interpreting written English and my accuracy of actually reading and interpreting statutes need not be in line with one another...mainly because I don't have legal training, and I know that the legal profession has its own conventions that aren't always consistent with standard English composition just as my own profession has similar industry specific conventions that if not fully grasped by lay folks will lead them to misconstrue what they read.

Seeing as neither of us has legal training, it's wholly possible either or both of us may have misconstrued the code section(s) in question. Our respective degrees of confidence have no bearing on that.

I have got to believe the lawyers on capital hill who have written the 9/11 bill as well as those lawyers representing the families of the 9/11 victims are smart enough not to be wasting their time drafting new legislation needlessly.

Well, you know, by my read of the "old law," it'd seem that merely amending the temporal limitations would "get the job done." But, like you, it's not clear to me why that's not the approach being pursued. Now I wouldn't have given a damn, or minimally I would not have thought about the legislation one way or the other but for the OP-er having created this thread and my having bothered to read the OP.

Furthermore, though I'm not a lawyer, I have got to believe the lawyers on capital hill who have written the 9/11 bill as well as those lawyers representing the families of the 9/11 victims are smart enough not to be wasting their time drafting new legislation needlessly.

Motley Rice - Attorneys at Law

Okay...so, since you've cited Motley Rice, I'll take it upon myself to call them and ask why Congress is pursuing new legislation rather than amending the statute of limitations aspect of the "old law." My curiosity is now truly piqued.

 

[Blackrook]

I think we should just assume that Hillary is lying about everything she says and says she believes.

Why is that? Do you just lap up wingnut talking points and swallow them whole?

I bet you think she's been involved in "scandals", too!

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

What was the result of the Republican investigation of Whitewater?

Answer: The Clintons did nothing illegal.

FAIL #1

What scandal are you imagining with Benghazi?

I already linked to an article listing many of the Clinton scandals and you are free to read it.

Or you could do a search on the internet and have millions of documents to read.

Google "Clinton scandals" and you will get 72,300,000 results.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Tehon]

I am not trained to read laws either but I am comfortable with my reading of this one combined with a little rational thinking.

LOL

Yes, well, I'm comfortable with my read as well, but I know my self-perceived comfort with interpreting written English and my accuracy of actually reading and interpreting statutes need not be in line with one another...mainly because I don't have legal training, and I know that the legal profession has its own conventions that aren't always consistent with standard English composition just as my own profession has similar industry specific conventions that if not fully grasped by lay folks will lead them to misconstrue what they read.

Seeing as neither of us has legal training, it's wholly possible either or both of us may have misconstrued the code section(s) in question. Our respective degrees of confidence have no bearing on that.

I have got to believe the lawyers on capital hill who have written the 9/11 bill as well as those lawyers representing the families of the 9/11 victims are smart enough not to be wasting their time drafting new legislation needlessly.

Well, you know, by my read of the "old law," it'd seem that merely amending the temporal limitations would "get the job done." But, like you, it's not clear to me why that's not the approach being pursued. Now I wouldn't have given a damn, or minimally I would not have thought about the legislation one way or the other but for the OP-er having created this thread and my having bothered to read the OP.

Furthermore, though I'm not a lawyer, I have got to believe the lawyers on capital hill who have written the 9/11 bill as well as those lawyers representing the families of the 9/11 victims are smart enough not to be wasting their time drafting new legislation needlessly.

Motley Rice - Attorneys at Law

Okay...so, since you've cited Motley Rice, I'll take it upon myself to call them and ask why Congress is pursuing new legislation rather than amending the statute of limitations aspect of the "old law." My curiosity is now truly piqued.

You asked the question. Not sure if you don't like the answer or you don't like it coming from me. There is no temporal limit that needs to be addressed. You have to break down the state sponsor of terrorism requirement.

Committee Reports - 110th Congress (2007-2008) - House Report 110-844
Section 1083 of the FY2008 National Defense Authorization Act (`FY08 NDAA'), P.L. 110-181, amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1978 to enable victims whose claims were dismissed for lack of a Federal cause of action to re-file their claims under new 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1605A, a new FSIA terrorism exception and explicit cause of action against terrorist states. Section 1083 also facilitates victims' efforts to enforce judgments by attaching a defendant state's assets.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not sure if you don't like the answer or you don't like it coming from me.

Given the facts you've shared, I find your answer to be much the same as I find mine: inconclusive and unpersuasive insofar as neither of us has the training to be certain and neither of us is implausibly off base with our read of the code. It has nothing to do with whether I like that the response that came from you or me, or even whether I like the answer itself that you offered.

I don't care who has and/or delivers the answer or what be the answer; I want an authoritative answer, which, as far as I'm concerned, is one that comes from an attorney. Since neither of us is an attorney, IMO, neither of us has an authoritative answer/interpretation.

After reading the "new law," it seem to me, more than anything else, to remove the ambiguity that leads to discussions such as the one you and I are having. LOL

 

[Blackrook]

I think we should just assume that Hillary is lying about everything she says and says she believes.

Why is that? Do you just lap up wingnut talking points and swallow them whole?

I bet you think she's been involved in "scandals", too!

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

What was the result of the Republican investigation of Whitewater?

Answer: The Clintons did nothing illegal.

FAIL #1

What scandal are you imagining with Benghazi?

I already linked to an article listing many of the Clinton scandals and you are free to read it.

Or you could do a search on the internet and have millions of documents to read.

Google "Clinton scandals" and you will get 72,300,000 results.

Knock yourself out.

Or you could decide you are completely indifferent to reality and that in your head there is no substance to the scores of Clinton scandals that have cropped up in the last 25-30 years.

If you choose to live in this fantasy world of your own creation, do not expect me to put in any effort to rescue you from it.

I am not responsible for you...

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't care what the Saudis threaten.

Who did you used to be on this site? Because there's no way I missed over 2,000 of your posts.