|
Post by Prince Hal on Sept 28, 2016 9:11:40 GMT -5
She's certainly not my favorite, but Trump seems to have done more criminal things and gotten away with them too so I figure the score's even there which leaves actual, sound policies that don't involve, "Well, I want to shoot the brown people" All I care about is seeing certain groups of individuals get blown up so I push my meager stack of worthless chips in the corner of the person who will probably do that, versus the person on their payroll. Just curious: Whom, exactly, do you want "blown up"? Whom, specifically do you "want dead"? Who, specifically, is on whose particular payroll? For what specific crimes should Hillary Clinton be serving time? Whose murder or murders did Hillary Clinton order?
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Sept 28, 2016 12:23:37 GMT -5
All I care about is seeing certain groups of individuals get blown up so I push my meager stack of worthless chips in the corner of the person who will probably do that, versus the person on their payroll. Just curious: Whom, exactly, do you want "blown up"? Whom, specifically do you "want dead"? Who, specifically, is on whose particular payroll? For what specific crimes should Hillary Clinton be serving time? Whose murder or murders did Hillary Clinton order? All good questions, and thank you for asking them in a reasonable fashion.
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,745
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 29, 2016 5:22:11 GMT -5
Say, is that the lid of Pandora's box? Why, it is!!!
Now that the president's veto has been overturned and that people can sue the government of Saudi Arabia for maybe being somehow involved in the 9/11 attack, what's preventing the people of Iraq (and Syria, come to think of it, in an indirect fashion) from suing the US for screwing up their country, thanks to the dim-witted decisions of George W. Bush?
Naturally that wouldn't lead to anything... Neither Iraq nor Syria has the means to get the US to pay up even if a court somewhere agreed that the country must pay them a gazillion dollars in damages. Once again, we can wrap ourselves in a mantle of rectitude, but military power still trumps everything.
I am a little sickened by the hypocrisy of the western democracies who like to think they have moved beyond the primal belief that might makes right. Because some of us have social services and functioning electoral systems, because we sign trade accords with our nice neighbours, we like to pretend we are so much better than the barbarians from a thousand years ago. But at the core we remain as self-centered as ever, without the honesty of proclaiming loud and clear "vae victis". And that's true whether we're Canada, the US, France or anyone in the west.
(Mind you, I am not a big fan of the International Criminal Court either. It sounds good on paper, but I will probably drop dead from shock when it tries anyone who has no military power and no ally in Moscow, Washington or Beijing... essentially meaning it's an exercise in self-congratulation for big countries and their hangers-on. Nice cocktail parties and photo ops, though).
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 29, 2016 5:51:23 GMT -5
Strongly disagree with you RR
The act of suing is to get an opportunity to publically show evidence and have it judged as fact or not. The case of Saudi Arabian officials involved in the funding of the 911 terrorists is quite compelling. How high up this terrorist support went,who knows? The U.S.Government still has not released all the information from their own investigation and has a history of shielding Saudi Arabia since they are an important "Ally" in the region besides a big oil producing country. So if our own government is not truthful, and Saudi Arabia is not truthful, what other recourse is there? The 911 terrorists were supplied big bucks over the years and meetings with Saudi officials have been documented
The Twin Towers were just a few miles from my home. I knew folks who died there. Firemen from my local annex also perished there. I'd like to know who was responsible for 3,000 deaths in my neighborhood. It wasn't Iraq but we invaded that country for stupid reasons. But a lawsuit to get answers I feel is quite reasonable in light of the fact both Bush and Obama both squashed info from the public
Is this a Pandora's box? Remains to be seen. Maybe evidence against Saudi involvement is not compelling enough to win and the lawsuit fails. But why do you feel it needs to remain hidden is my question to you?
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 29, 2016 6:07:23 GMT -5
I am a little sickened by the hypocrisy of the western democracies who like to think they have moved beyond the primal belief that might makes right. If you are sickened by hypocrisy you should be supporting this veto because it might very well expose both the Bush and Obama governments' involvement with covering up evidence concerning 9/11
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,745
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 29, 2016 11:36:16 GMT -5
Strongly disagree with you RR By all means! If the government can't be arsed to act on actual evidence that a foreign country contributed in a significant way to an act of war on your territory, it is not a private suit that's going to change anything. I doubt that the courts have the wherewithal to dig deeper than the government has. The US government can put pressure on the Saudis so that they deliver the head of anyone actually involved in an act of war on US soil; the US government has a lot of leverage. Meanwhile, the involvement of the US government in the destruction of Iraq and its role in the eventual rise of the mess in Syria is not a matter of maybe and perhaps; it's a simple fact. Allowing foreign states to be sued is an invitation for the US government to be sued in turn. (And why wouldn't Vietnam and Laos join the ball, then?) I apologize for my lack of knowledge on the judicial system in the US but don't you have the equivalent of a Royal Commission? Such a commission has powers even greater that those of an ordinary court and is called to investigate matters of great importance, like say "organized crime and its links to the office of the president". Such a commission can do everything a court can, and more, but is not meant to indict anyone; it is meant to find out the truth. Anything anyone reveals in such a case can not be used against them in a court of law, so it's usually easier to get to the bottom of things because even criminals can then reveal what they've done. Such a commission would strike me as more useful than a suit against a foreign government, if the goal is to find hidden truths. I feel no such thing, thank you very much, but I highly doubt it will serve any purpose even if the conspiracists are right and that the Saudi government was actively involved in 9/11. Why I call this a Pandora box is because the US involvement in deliberately destroying Iraq and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths for no reason at all is not a matter of conjecture: it's a historical fact. The US government is therefore likely to be the next one to face a massive suit. I highly doubt that the Obama administration would have gone to any length to protect the Bush administration from all the opprobrium it could pour on it. Were there strategic reasons that forced the two administrations to go easy on this or that relative of King Fahd who may have met Osama Bin Laden a few times and said "damn, i hate America?" Perhaps. It wouldn't surprise me, as per the saying regarding politics and sausage. But even if it were revealed that some people three steps removed from Mohammed Atta managed to escape scot free, I really would not care much. I find the use of this tragedy as an excuse to trigger a useless war a far greater injustice.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 29, 2016 13:06:33 GMT -5
You asked about a Royal Commission. That I guess is our equivalent to the government hearings and published Report On 9/11. But like all government investigations that can be sensitive, many hearings were behind closed doors and many pages were not made public in the name of National Security. Remember, as I said, all governments do that.
The years went by and independent investigations by reputable sources found evidence of money funneled to the terrorists via Saudi government agencies and possible Royal Family connections. Meetings were documented between the terrorists and the Saudi Ambassador among others. OBL being the son of a Saudi Billionaire and most terrorists of Saudi origins is too much of a coincidence
Finally 2 months ago, after 15 years, 28 pages of the Report became declassified and sure enough Saudi connection were on those pages. There are still many pages remaining classified
Why the US thinks having relations with Saudi Arabia is more important than embarrassing that government by having the truth known is a decision both administrations made. Politics make strange bedfellows. Governments befriend "bad guy" dictators because "they are our bad guy" and better than the other bad guy.
Putting a spotlight on the truth is what the lawsuit hopefully accomplishes. That's what I want to see, whatever the truth might be. I doubt the US would impound Saudi money if they lose the case. I just want to see the evidence and the ruling part of the public record.
The Clinton administration made a major mistake back in 1993 at the time of the first attempt to bomb the twin towers. They only prosecuted the domestic terrorists and made no attempt to delve into the foreign interests that aided the endeavor. And sure enough, those foreign interests didn't give up on their scheme and that cost us. Cost us big
So I don't want to see history repeat itself by turning a blind eye to the culprits that are involved for the sake of not opening a can of worms. Ignoring the folks who fund and give aid to terrorism is not the answer
Anyway, it's done. Thankfully. And both the House and The Senate voted approval in the biggest bi-partisan landslide in the past decade.
The House and The Senate finally did something together that made me very proud
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,745
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 29, 2016 15:20:27 GMT -5
Fair enough. I guess I just have more faith in the published report than in law firms seeking not so much to reveal the truth than to make millions for their clients, but if hidden facts are revealed in the process then so much the better. I'm certainly not going to defend the Saudis, as I would have cut ties with that country a long time ago -not over 9/11, but over their disastrous policies regarding religion and women's rights.
I'm still convinced that this decision opens the door to justified lawsuits from the victims of George W. Bush's unjust wars, though. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and in the case of Bush there's no need for any kind of investigation : the US attacked Iraq with no justification. There were no weapons of mass destruction in that country, just as critics of the war were loudly saying back then, and the "secret evidence" the American public was promised never materialized. GWB just wanted to be a war-time president, as those always get re-elected. How will the government react when an American court orders it to pay up? (Because if I were a plaintiff, I'd do it in an American court, of course... I doubt anyone would pay attention to a verdict from, say, Iran).
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 29, 2016 16:30:29 GMT -5
I agree with RR.. this is not going to end well. I don't really understand how it benefits anything to have facts come out in a court room.. said facts are out there, and no one cares.. how is having them stated in court going to change anything?
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 29, 2016 16:42:54 GMT -5
I agree with RR.. this is not going to end well. I don't really understand how it benefits anything to have facts come out in a court room.. said facts are out there, and no one cares.. how is having them stated in court going to change anything? Having the evidence presented in a court and declared admissible and standing up to the defense's attempts to contradict them, having a judge rule the case based on the evidence will make them incontrovertible facts. Think of it as any criminal trial. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are not deemed as facts that collectively proof a case until a judges ruling. And what the hell you mean no one cares? If no one cares how do you explain the landslide vote from both democrats and republicans both in the house and senate handing Obama his only over-ride on his veto.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 16:44:26 GMT -5
So would this law say open up the US to lawsuits from the families of all the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for its role in financing and developing the nuclear weapons deployed by the US Military killing countless civilians and destroying 2 cities? It would be a slam dunk case as the evidence of US involvement is there for all to see and while some may say their use was justified in a time of war, the fact they were used on civilian populations cannot be denied. If someone sues the US and the US refuses to pay, can nations then use the debt the US has to force settlement payments by putting that debt in default and closing off any new lines of credit until the penalties in such suits are paid causing a domestic financial crisis and devaluing our currency as a result? This is the kind of Pandora's Box questions that the lawsuit opens up. While I agree in principle that some kind of legal hammer to hold those responsible for 9/11 could be beneficial, I think the actual legislation in this case is short sighted and will (like many key moments in history) have a cascade of unintended consequences that its supporters didn't consider because they were only looking in the short term at what was under the microscope, not at the big picture of how it will all play out and what else in brigs to the table in the long term.
But what do I know about such things.
-M
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 29, 2016 16:49:52 GMT -5
I agree with RR.. this is not going to end well. I don't really understand how it benefits anything to have facts come out in a court room.. said facts are out there, and no one cares.. how is having them stated in court going to change anything? Having the evidence presented in a court and declared admissible and standing up to the defense's attempts to contradict them, having a judge rule the case based on the evidence will make them incontrovertible facts. Think of it as any criminal trial. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They are not deemed as facts that collectively proof a case until a judges ruling. And what the hell you mean no one cares? If no one cares how do you explain the landslide vote from both democrats and republicans both in the house and senate handing Obama his only over-ride on his veto. There's not such thing as an incontrovertible fact when it comes to this kinda thing. Just because a judge rules on something doesn't mean some other judge 10 years from not can overturn the ruling... it happens all the time. As far as the vote goes, I'm sure, like most things they vote on, no one actually thought it through, they just looked at the surface and thought it would be good PR. It's not going to be good when Vietnamese people start suing us for old land mines, or residents of Hiroshima sue us to pay for their cancer treatment, or some Somalian village demands to be rebuilt. This is a horrible precedent and not worth whatever it is (piece of mind, I guess?) we'll get out of people suing Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 29, 2016 16:54:31 GMT -5
So would this law say open up the US to lawsuits form the families of all the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for their role in financing and developing the nuclear weapons deployed by the US Military killing countless civilians and destroying 2 cities? It would be a slam dunk case as the evidence of US involvement is there for all to see and while some may say their use was justified in a time of war, the fact they were used on civilian populations cannot be denied. If someone sues the US and the US refuses to pay, can nations then use the debt the US has to force settlement payments by putting that debt in default and closing off any new lines of credit until the penalties in such suits are paid causing a domestic financial crisis and devaluing our currency as a result? This is the kind of Pandora's Box questions that the lawsuit opens up. While I agree in principle that some kind of legal hammer to hold those responsible for 9/11 could be beneficial, I think the actual legislation in this case is short sighted and will (like many key moments in history) have a cascade of unintended consequences that its supporters didn't consider because they were only looking in the short term at what was under the microscope, not at the big picture of how it will all play out and what else in brigs to the table in the long term. But what do I know about such things. -M I can't see into the future, but as I said I seriously doubt, even if the case against the Saudi's is upheld, that the U.S. would impound or confiscate their money to pay damages. If they covered up for Saudi Arabia all these years, they'll continue to do so. The government makes their own laws by shouting National Security.So I don't see that becoming a precedent But having the facts judged as true, in the public eye, in the world's eye, would be satisfying to me.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Sept 30, 2016 5:17:05 GMT -5
I've read today an article regarding a group of senators looking to add some amendments to the Saudi Lawsuit Legislation addressing the concern of future ramifications other posters on this thread have expressed.
We'll see how that goes
I'm OK with them passing the proposal first and then scrubbing through it. Otherwise it might have gotten bogged down on the fine points and nothing would have happened
This process is not unique at all. For instance, Obama's Healthcare legislation
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 8, 2016 9:54:30 GMT -5
I'm hoping that this latest Donald Trump embarrassment has a longer-lasting effect than just damaging his chances for the White House, such as being a wake-up call to those who claim to be "moderate" Republicans to investigate creating a third party that is able to be inclusive of those on the moderate side of the Democratic aisle.
|
|