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

[Synthaholic]

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

I disagree. I think he would love to release it. He said that he's waiting for James Clapper to finish his report on whether anything in the 28 pages would jeopardize national security.

I think Obama would love to release the JFK info, and a bunch of other stuff hidden from the public, also.

 

[Blackrook]

If Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terror, the proper avenue of redress is diplomatic or military, i.e. the President's use of his powers to freeze Saudi Arabian assets and create a fund to compensate 9/11 victims. This is not an issue that should be adjudicated by the courts.

Also, I would like to mention that that the 9/11 victims are the best compensated victims in the history of terrorism, and many of them have become millionaires.

What Have We Learned About Compensating Victims of Terrorism? | RAND

Over 97 percent of those eligible voluntarily applied to the fund rather than choosing to litigate against the airlines, the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Massachusetts Port Authority, and others. The average tax-free award to surviving family members was more than $2 million, with physical injury awards ranging from $500 to $8.6 million for a survivor who had suffered third-degree burns over 85 percent of his body. By the time the fund terminated on June 15, 2004, it had awarded more than $7 billion to 5,553 eligible families and victims.

Victims of the Oklahoma bombing, by comparison, did not receive this outflowing of generous charity.

Also, I would like to point out that the survivors of your typical personal injury victim does not receive an award as high as $8.6 million, even for burns covering the entire body. While this doesn't seem over-compensation for an injury this severe, most victims must settle for less because a commercial policy has $1 million per person/$2 million per accident limits, and personal policies have even lower limits.

 

[Blackrook]

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.

You're joking right? It says on his profile that he has made 2,163 posts.

 

[Tehon]

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

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

How so?

 

[Tehon]

If Saudi Arabia is a sponsor of terror, the proper avenue of redress is diplomatic or military, i.e. the President's use of his powers to freeze Saudi Arabian assets and create a fund to compensate 9/11 victims. This is not an issue that should be adjudicated by the courts.

Also, I would like to mention that that the 9/11 victims are the best compensated victims in the history of terrorism, and many of them have become millionaires.

What Have We Learned About Compensating Victims of Terrorism? | RAND

Over 97 percent of those eligible voluntarily applied to the fund rather than choosing to litigate against the airlines, the World Trade Center, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Massachusetts Port Authority, and others. The average tax-free award to surviving family members was more than $2 million, with physical injury awards ranging from $500 to $8.6 million for a survivor who had suffered third-degree burns over 85 percent of his body. By the time the fund terminated on June 15, 2004, it had awarded more than $7 billion to 5,553 eligible families and victims.

Victims of the Oklahoma bombing, by comparison, did not receive this outflowing of generous charity.

Also, I would like to point out that the survivors of your typical personal injury victim does not receive an award as high as $8.6 million, even for burns covering the entire body. While this doesn't seem over-compensation for an injury this severe, most victims must settle for less because a commercial policy has $1 million per person/$2 million per accident limits, and personal policies have even lower limits.

The government is not interested in taking the issue up with the Saudis and these people are guaranteed the right to a redress of their grievances by the first amendment.

The Saudis may be implicated in 9/11, the government may be attempting to conceal it, and you are ok with that?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'm not. We should have taken the war directly to Saudi Arabia - not Iraq. That was a huge mistake by Bush Administration. The Saudi's are not our friends.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

The fact that if it becomes law every country will have citizens filing lawsuits against the U.S. A lot will be frivolous, but some will be valid. I don't want our government lawyers spending all their time in foreign courts, especially with Republicans cutting funding to Judiciary.

 

[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?

The fact that if it becomes law every country will have citizens filing lawsuits against the U.S. A lot will be frivolous, but some will be valid. I don't want our government lawyers spending all their time in foreign courts, especially with Republicans cutting funding to Judiciary.

That is not fact, it's your opinion, partisan at that, and I'm not sure what it is based on. It doesn't seem to validate giving foreigners immunity to conduct terrorism in America. The legislation that is written has a narrow scope, it's not repealing immunity in general. Just stripping immunity in cases of terrorism on American soil.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

I would hope that "fear" has nothing to do with any delays in releasing the report. I would hope that upon reading the report, Mr. Obama and the other key people in his administration see it for what it is and what potential impacts it may catalyze upon our affairs, domestic, foreign or both, and release the report only after having made plans to counter the worst of the possible consequences of the disclosure.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

thank Trump for getting to the bottom of the story. Otherwise, it may not be coming up......

 

[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?

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.

I read it and it doesn't list any actual scandals. It just lists things that have been called scandals by conservative media. In fact, they group 1975-2001 into one paragraph, stating that they are wholly spurious and investigated ad nauseum without anything criminal found.

As for the writer of the piece, conservative wet dream manufacturer DeadAndy.com says he's a hack:

David A. Graham: A Closer Look at a Newsweek 'Reporter'


So, once again: name a Hillary Clinton scandal that actually has turned out to be a scandal.

 

[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.

You're joking right? It says on his profile that he has made 2,163 posts.

Maybe you should read what I wrote again real slow or get someone to help you with it.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

The fact that if it becomes law every country will have citizens filing lawsuits against the U.S. A lot will be frivolous, but some will be valid. I don't want our government lawyers spending all their time in foreign courts, especially with Republicans cutting funding to Judiciary.

That is not fact, it's your opinion, partisan at that, and I'm not sure what it is based on. It doesn't seem to validate giving foreigners immunity to conduct terrorism in America. The legislation that is written has a narrow scope, it's not repealing immunity in general. Just stripping immunity in cases of terrorism on American soil.

What is my opinion, and not fact? That Republicans are cutting funding? That is a fact.

 

[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?

The fact that if it becomes law every country will have citizens filing lawsuits against the U.S. A lot will be frivolous, but some will be valid. I don't want our government lawyers spending all their time in foreign courts, especially with Republicans cutting funding to Judiciary.

That is not fact, it's your opinion, partisan at that, and I'm not sure what it is based on. It doesn't seem to validate giving foreigners immunity to conduct terrorism in America. The legislation that is written has a narrow scope, it's not repealing immunity in general. Just stripping immunity in cases of terrorism on American soil.

What is my opinion, and not fact? That Republicans are cutting funding? That is a fact.

No it's your opinion. This is how you demonstrate fact.

National Law Journal

"This is an excellent result," Judge Julia Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, chairwoman of the budget committee of the judiciary’s policymaking arm, said in a statement. “This is the third consecutive year that the judiciary has received essentially full funding of its appropriations requirements. We appreciate that Congress has, since sequestration, treated the judiciary as a top funding priority.”


Also you don't know how other countries will react to the new legislation. The only country that the bill brings into question currently is Saudi Arabia and we already know how they intend to react.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Google 9-11 conspiracy and you get 19,300,000 results

 

[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?

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.

Google 9-11 conspiracy and you get 19,300,000 results

Google "Bush lied" and you get 12,400,000 results