This is pretty big news, but I haven’t seen that much coverage in the press. But, according to the Independent and The New York Times, the Senate passed a bill yesterday allowing U.S. citizens to sue Saudi Arabia for its purported role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York. This overturns previous legislation giving foreign countries immunity from such lawsuits. The impetus for this, of course, is the suspicion that Saudi Arabia was partly complicit in the 9/11 attacks, as most of the terrorists were Saudi and, more important, the famous 28-page unreleased section of the 9/11 report is said to implicate the Saudi government directly (see one member’s claim here).
The measure still has to pass the U.S. House, and I suspect it will, but Obama has said he’ll veto the measure. That, I think, would be an unwise move that puts oil before morality. The Saudis, of course, have protested, saying they’ll pull their assets out of the U.S. if the bill passes, but if Obama vetoes it that may be unnecessary (it takes 2/3 of each house of Congress to overrride such a veto). But a veto sends the wrong message to Saudi Arabia: they can continue subsidizing terrorism without threat of reprisal, and abusing gays, women, apostates, and foreigners, so long as they send us oil and remain our “ally.” It’s time to stop playing pattycake with the Saudis, though. Even the UN coddles them, with a Saudi heading one of the UN’s human rights panels, though the nation is one of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
So long as Saudi Arabia don’t suffer for its actions, and so long as the U.S. continues to get in bed with its rulers, this repressive nation has no impetus to reform. It’s time for the U.S. to pull a Lysistrata.
sub
The US State Department has been doing gymnastics not to even slightly criticize Saudi Arabia. Obama’s position is, sadly, not a surprise.
Good idea!!
Sent from my iPhone Harold Sanders
>
//
Saudi Arabia can’t afford for us to call their bluff. They need us almost as much as we need them. They’re nearly out of economically recoverable oil — as is everybody else. That’s a problem for our entire civilization, but it’s especially a problem for Saudi Arabia. Their own wealth is built on their oil bubble, and that bubble is about to begin a permanent deflation at about the same rate as caused all the uproar in the States in the Great Recession.
If the Saudis get into an economic war with the States, just the basic costs of fighting that war will result in quickly-devastating local economic chaos. They could maybe keep a stiff upper lip for a year or three, but then they’d be bankrupt and a ripe target for DAESH.
…not that there’s that much difference between the House of Saud and DAESH as far as outsiders are concerned, but they are different people, and the royals aren’t likely to be happy being deposed by al-Bagdhadi, even (especially?) if he’s largely their own creation.
b&
Ah heerd tell somewhar(NPR, IIRC) that thuh Saudis are a-thinkin’ about gittin’ into solar power in a big way, whut with their generally cloudless climate.
I wonder what high morally-reasoned sentiments the N. American shale petroleum crowd, and the Exxon-Mobil folks and their ilk, will offer in response to this news.
Shale oil has changed the game. The amount of recoverable shale oil has ballooned with current technology and the cost is dropping. So SA’s high prices of the past will not be sustainable. (Additionally if Venezuela and throws out the socialists who destroyed the economy, another major source is available)
The US could pay whatever is being asked of the Saudi government.
The Saudi theocracy is such a nightmare of human rights violations they will sink themselves with or without suit.
The Lysistrata reference is sublime in more than one way. The future of all Middle Eastern countries rests in their women. If they would just stand up and say “Enough”, I contend, all problems there would cease.
Utopic, I think. All I wish is for women of Western places like Cologne to stand up and say “Enough”.
I think this is a bad idea, and sets a bad precedent. We shouldn’t be singling out one country, and one incident.
I agree. This is a really bad idea. It is wrong to single out one country like this, however awful.
It also opens up the US to be sued by other countries, which is why Obama, quite sensibly, is going to veto it. Does the US really want to be dragged through the courts by every family they’ve dropped a bomb on for the last 70 years? The legal fees alone would bankrupt you.
“It also opens up the US to be sued by other countries”
That’s essentially what I was thinking when I mentioned our setting a bad precedent. I didn’t go into detail because I’m not sure what other governments policies are. That being said even if citizens of other countries are allow to sue us, as long as we don’t allow our citizens to sue them we can justify not defending ourselves against such suits, or paying judgements made against us.
Other countries don’t do it, but they would if the US started. The main opposition to the TPP is that the opponents think it opens governments to be sued by foreign companies. I don’t understand the argument well enough to know whether that’s true though the same clause in other FTAs hasn’t led to lawsuits.
Most FTAs allow government-government actions (often for the benefit of a particular company) but not individual v government actions. Such actions are however allowed in Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and are quite common – the reason that not much is heard of them is that they operate under arbitration rules and attract little attention. These clauses were originally inserted because recipient governments had fairly dodgy legal systems. The US is now pushing to have them in both the TTP and the TTIP because large corporates are special people and should be immune from democratic decision-making processes such as plain package tobacco rules or environmental and health standards.
Thanks for the info G. Interesting.
And the plain package tobacco case is another reason to hate tobacco companies!
Agree with all this.
(As I said at #10 before I read this exchange).
cr
I have not considered that – that allowing citizens here to sue another state would be a precedent that effects our state. I am not sure if that really would be a consequence, but if it could be, then that is pretty sobering.
“It also opens up the US to be sued by other countries.”
I hope that would mean that the families of the 20 victims of the Cavalese cable car disaster will finally get to see the reckless US airmen prosecuted in an Italian court.
“I hope that would mean that the families of the 20 victims of the Cavalese cable car disaster will finally get to see the reckless US airmen prosecuted in an Italian court.”
That might be all well, and good in a country like Italy with a robust western style judicial system, but do you really want to open the floodgates so that countries where guilty until proven innocent is the standard, or where religious tribunals adjudicate guilt or innocence?
“do you really want to open the floodgates so that countries where guilty until proven innocent is the standard, or where religious tribunals adjudicate guilt or innocence?”
Of course, it should be every citizen’s right, no matter here they live. US is bigoted about people’s rights, as so often. (Especially since you so often swear on a religious text. :-/)
And why not? It could serve to make US and other help these failed jurisdictions manage better.
It may be that, if the U.S. has a base in ones country, one should move to a country where the U.S. does not have a base. Apparently an “indispensable nation,” a nation refulgent in “Exceptionalism,” is not subject to the constraints to which other mere mortal nations and citizens are subjected.
I’m reminded of the so-called “SOFA” (Status of Forces Agreement) the U.S. is assiduously careful to negotiate with countries in which the U.S. has bases, or in which, e.g., the U.S. Navy is making a port call. From my time in the navy, I remember watching certain young sailors depart the ship and thinking to myself, “Stand by!”
Of course such agreements were the problem in the Cavalese cable car disaster.
The other problem was that while they were tried this was in a US military court. As I recall they were acquitted by a ‘friendly’ military jury partly because they were able to destroy most of the evidence on returning to their Italian base – although I would have thought there should have been other evidence available.
We have already basically told other countries to pound sand in this respect; Spain, for example, allows suits against non-citizen non-residents, but we refuse to go along with them, and have cited international law and sovereignty as reasons why we don’t.
So yeah, fully agree with you its a bad idea, and while I think the Senate is indulging in some political theater, I think Obama, in rejecting it, is not doing so for ‘oil’ reasons. He’s doing it because, as you say, he doesn’t want to honor similar laws passed by other countries.
Yeah.
Also, I think these days the US only gets about 10% of its oil from Saudi. That amount could easily be sourced from elsewhere, or its need obviated if more renewable sources like wind were created at home.
And it was a Spanish judge who brought Pinochet rightly to book.
What was the U.S.’s position on that? (Since, IIRC, the U.S. supported the overthrow of Allende in favor of the likes of Pinochet?)
I think you need to consider the fact that this single act of terrorism is the logical outcome, one of many, of the madrassas the Saudis have spread throughout the region in a devil’s bargain with Islamic clergy.
First search on “madrassa” yielded this:
“A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia.”
I know exactly what a madrassa is and have written on my own website how Saudi is to blame for much of the Islamist terrorism because of their export of Wahabbism and the funding of its spread. And in court that would become an issue of freedom of speech, even though the Saudis don’t allow that in their own country.
There are plenty of people, including USians, who consider the war in Iraq terrorism by by the US. There are also heaps who regard all of Israel’s actions in relation to the Palestinians as such. And what about the Vietnam War, especially after Kissinger deliberately prolonged it to win an election? There’re a lot of cans of worms that are available to be opened, whatever your politics.
If there’s proof and some way for the government to follow this up through the international courts I think they should, though some would argue against that too, but giving that ability to individuals wouldn’t work.
Besides, the GOP knows perfectly well that Obama has to veto this, and they would do the same in his shoes. This is an election ploy to attack Clinton in areas she’s beating Trump – foreign policy and ability to deal with terrorism.
+ 1. I dislike both Saudi Arabia and Obama, but I think the President is right about this and is behaving responsibly as he should.
Hasn’t a precedent been set already? As I recall Jerry had a post within the last couple of weeks relating to victims of the Beirut bombing being able to sue Iran. The point made that if one country allows it so will others is a good one as it opens up a massive retaliatory can of worms. The US Congress changing international law to suit domestic politics would not be most peoples idea of a good thing.
I’m with Mike Paps, and the others here, who see this as a bad idea.
It’s still not at all clear what ‘role’ the Saudi state played in 9/11, but nor is it clear why the US Senate has passed this bill (taking a stance against Obama rather than looking out for US citizens?)
I’m really not sure what it would mean for an individual to sue a nation-state – would these law-suits be arbitrated through some international body who have the power to ‘call’ each case, and enforce payment?
If it’s true, as Heather H states, that the US now only gets 10% of its oil from Saudi, and as Ben G mentions, Saudi oil is coming to an end anyway, maybe the US and the rest of the west should be making concerted efforts to break ties with Saudi Arabia now – or is Saudi investment in the US economy a big issue?
And of course, there’s the setting of precedents: surely the US has the longest list of countries with citizens who may feel the right to sue?
My mother worked for Aramco in Saudi for 10 years, up by the Kuwaiti border. She called me one evening early 1991 as the first Gulf war escalated, to ask for my opinion on ‘an issue’: “Chris, we’ve got SCUD missiles flying over the compound, one just landed in a car-park, they’ve offered to fly us back to the UK, what do you think I should do??” Despite my panic, she stayed.
A prime case of that old saying back then: you go work in Saudi with a bucket in each hand, one to collect the money you earn, the other to collect all the shit you have to put up with – as soon as one’s full, you leave. But you end up cutting a hole in the bottom of the shit-bucket,
Chris G
I’m still with Jerry on this one. What does the clarity of Saudi Arabia’s role have to do with a citizen’s ability to sue them? Part of the exploratory process of such a suit may reveal relevant information either damning or exculpating Saudi Arabia.
And who cares if other citizens in other countries can sue the United States? Sure, it is in our own financial interests not to have to pay out on such suits, but do we really want to live in a world where justice isn’t served, even if the justice is sometimes to our own detriment?
I think this situation is perfectly analogous to the situation with citizens here suing gun companies. I think anyone should be allowed to file suit for anything. The courts don’t necessarily have to hear the case and; of course, they don’t have to rule in favor of the plaintiff. But, in my opinion, this borders on restricting free speech. It’s preventing the ability of those who don’t hold positions of power from pursuing information held by those in power that may be beneficial.
Trying to think of any country that may have tried this successfully or otherwise? It could only be symbolic I think. What they usually did in the old days was declare war on the other country but we don’t actually do that any more. So now it’s sue, just like Donald Trump does every time someone looks at him sideways.
I think the government and the states are basically immune from being sued by their own people so it looks a little strange.
Successfully? I don’t know. But there’s one or a few Spanish judges that have allowed their court system to be used by foreigners to sue other foreigners. See here for example.
I think some Palestinians sued Israel in Belgium because of the Sabra and Shatila massacre, and after that the Belgians changed the law in a way that the crime in question must have some relevance to Belgium.
Well said. I’m sure people like Raif Badawi would support the United STATES showing some spine against Saudi Arabia.
Indeed.
I disagree with this.
I entirely agree that Saudi Arabia should be stamped on for all sorts of reasons, but IMO that is the province of other nations, acting as states, and the UN. Allowing individuals to sue a state for, effectively, not controlling its citizens strikes me as a very dangerous precedent. Unless the law is so couched that it is explicitly and emphatically one-issue-only.
And how will lawsuits over 9/11 in any way address Saudi’s appalling human rights record? If the US wanted to do anything about that, why not add it to the list of no-trading nations which was occupied solely (and vindictively and pointlessly) by Cuba until recently.
I have in mind that the US currently treats corporations as individuals. The current loathsome TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership) which is disguised as a ‘trade deal’ would give multinationals (‘people’, remember) the right to sue for decisions that impact their economic interests. So, for example, tobacco companies could threaten to sue if the government passes any anti-smoking laws. Environmental impact? Working hours? Company tax? Prohibited chemicals? Food additives? ‘Intellectual Property’ laws. Do we really want our government’s attempts to legislate these being distorted by the threat of multi-million-dollar lawsuits?
I don’t care what is done to Saudi Arabia, I’m just concerned that the weapon thus created may be misused by other interests.
cr
And it only took 15 years for Congress to allow Americans prosecute foreigners who are accessories to terrorism and murder. The news has more that is disturbing than is encouraging.