4 ms·

If any of those assets are in the US, isnt that exactly what the proper use of emminent domain is for? That being said, Im guessing they are speaking about US a

If any of those assets are in the US, isnt that exactly what the proper use of emminent domain is for? That being said, Im guessing they are speaking about US assets in SA. At least 13 of the hijackers were from SA. The wahhabi sect of Islam is the most violent and intolerable. We need to put SA in their place, which really angers me when I realized just how cozy the Bushes and other oil oligarchs are to them, and cover for them constantly. Once again, overthrowing and installing regimes has backfired in the long game.

dukoid 11y ago
Overthrow? I think their gender apartheid regime should just be sanctioned the same way as South Africa was in the 80s.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  I dont disagree, but I was mostly referring to the installing of the house of Saud by the British in the first place. How apt you mention another place the Rhodesian Anglo Saxon dominance group did the same thing! I recently learned that some of the first concentration camps, far before the world wars, were setup by the Brits in SA and they put the Dutch in them... I digress though. What I was trying to say is that this pattern of overthrowing a place and installing a dictatorship friendly to our interests has repeatedly backfired eventually, so perhaps we should think of different strategies.
  - CPLX 11y ago
    > overthrowing a place and installing a dictatorship friendly to our interests has repeatedly backfired eventually, so perhaps we should think of different strategies While I fervently agree with you as a matter of principle, as a practical matter letting the people have their say in government and instigating a popular revolution to overthrow a dictator has backfired spectacularly too on many occasions. Geopolitics is hard.
raverbashing 11y ago
SA was never overthrown, I don't see what you mean
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  How do you think the house of Saud got its start in the first place?
  - eternalban 11y ago
    British Intelligence. We're still dealing with the fallout of the collapse of that empire. btw, since I've noted an apparent acceptance on HN of the official story of "Islamic terrorism", let me merely direct the thinking reader to investigate 14 centuries of history of this religion and correlate patterns of behavior. A good and informative data point is the so called "Great Game", and later (in 70s) the amazing syncro-ballet that over night turned Middle Eastern militant groups from following Marx, Lennin, Trotsky, Mao, and uncle Ho into fervent followers of the Prophet of Islam.
peteretep 11y ago
> overthrowing and installing regimes has backfired in > the long game Those freakin' Japanese with their moderately priced cars and those damn Germans with their data protection laws and fine industrial engineering, eh?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Also Korea and Italy, Greece didn't work out so well initially but they are sorta fine now :P
- elcapitan 11y ago
  If you don't like data protection, just call it data apartheid! That'll fix it.
peteretep 11y ago
> Im guessing they are speaking about US assets in SA You didn't read the article carefully enough then: > > Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 > > billion in treasury securities and other assets in > > the United States before they could be in danger of > > being frozen by American courts While I've no love lost for the Saudis, this doesn't seem an unreasonable position. If the US passed a law that might make me liable for virtually unlimited damages, you can be sure I'd be looking at moving my assets elsewhere.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  I can't find that text of the proposed amendment, but based on the description in the NY Times, there doesn't seem to be any explicit mention of Saudi Arabia, just an additional stipulation under which foreign governments can be sued in American courts, the stipulation being something along the lines of "if a foreign government was involved with an attack on American soil killing American citizens, their immunity does not apply." This is the existing law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/3553 https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/3553 There are already several instances where the immunity already does not apply. For example: > Stipulates that a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if: (1) the state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication; (2) the action is based upon specified commercially related activities; (3) the action is based upon rights in specified property, connected with commercial activity, taken in violation of international law; (4) the issue is rights in U.S. property acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable U.S. property; or (5) money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the U.S. and caused by the tortious act or omission of the foreign state or its official or employee acting within the scope of his office or employment. So, I think this is a pretty small and reasonable change, to which Saudi Arabia is reacting so extremely because, as "everyone knows" and as likely revealed in the unreleased portions of the 9/11 report, the Saudi royal family and/or people in the Saudi government were, in fact, involved in the events of 9/11. The Saudis, of course, have to give a somewhat-reasonable sounding diplomatic explanation of why they would be "forced" to take their assets out of the country - that's how the game is played. Since we know that there are already holes in the immunity that could potentially leave the Saudis open to "unlimited damages" (I don't see any indication the damages are unlimited), we have to conclude the Saudis believe they will, in fact, be found culpable in this instance. Now, you can choose to believe that the Saudis believe that because they believe the US court system is just grossly unfair, or because some of the royal family or the government actually were involved, and they're afraid they would be correctly found culpable. I find the latter more likely, given the information we already have, personally. It goes without saying the Foreign Minister is going to provide a reasonable-seeming cover: that's his job. Selling off 750 billion and destabilizing your own economy is not a rational action. Every billionaire is at the risk of his assets being frozen and seized if he committed a crime. So is every corporation. So, really, are foreign governments, regardless of whether they were complicit in an act of terrorism, given the immunity is not absolute. Nobody else is threatening to take their ball and go home. So why, then, would SA be threatening to do this? Because it makes for a substantial political threat to the US to pressure the US government to not hold them accountable. In the end, I suspect it's really about a loss of face for the royal family, because realistically, even if sued and found complicit, it would be incredible if they were forced to give up a few billion, let alone hundreds of billions.
seivan 11y ago
You didn't overthrow anything that would be stable. Their cult doesn't allow civility. You overplay what you Americans have your hand in as Germany and Japan did well. Other nations are striving to do better as well thanks to the US. You can't help people who won't help themselves.

dukoid 11y ago

Overthrow? I think their gender apartheid regime should just be sanctioned the same way as South Africa was in the 80s.

arca_vorago 11y ago
I dont disagree, but I was mostly referring to the installing of the house of Saud by the British in the first place. How apt you mention another place the Rhodesian Anglo Saxon dominance group did the same thing! I recently learned that some of the first concentration camps, far before the world wars, were setup by the Brits in SA and they put the Dutch in them... I digress though. What I was trying to say is that this pattern of overthrowing a place and installing a dictatorship friendly to our interests has repeatedly backfired eventually, so perhaps we should think of different strategies.
- CPLX 11y ago
  > overthrowing a place and installing a dictatorship friendly to our interests has repeatedly backfired eventually, so perhaps we should think of different strategies While I fervently agree with you as a matter of principle, as a practical matter letting the people have their say in government and instigating a popular revolution to overthrow a dictator has backfired spectacularly too on many occasions. Geopolitics is hard.

raverbashing 11y ago

SA was never overthrown, I don't see what you mean

arca_vorago 11y ago
How do you think the house of Saud got its start in the first place?
- eternalban 11y ago
  British Intelligence. We're still dealing with the fallout of the collapse of that empire. btw, since I've noted an apparent acceptance on HN of the official story of "Islamic terrorism", let me merely direct the thinking reader to investigate 14 centuries of history of this religion and correlate patterns of behavior. A good and informative data point is the so called "Great Game", and later (in 70s) the amazing syncro-ballet that over night turned Middle Eastern militant groups from following Marx, Lennin, Trotsky, Mao, and uncle Ho into fervent followers of the Prophet of Islam.

peteretep 11y ago

> overthrowing and installing regimes has backfired in > the long game Those freakin' Japanese with their moderately priced cars and those damn Germans with their data protection laws and fine industrial engineering, eh?

dogma1138 11y ago
Also Korea and Italy, Greece didn't work out so well initially but they are sorta fine now :P
elcapitan 11y ago
If you don't like data protection, just call it data apartheid! That'll fix it.

peteretep 11y ago

> Im guessing they are speaking about US assets in SA You didn't read the article carefully enough then: > > Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 > > billion in treasury securities and other assets in > > the United States before they could be in danger of > > being frozen by American courts While I've no love lost for the Saudis, this doesn't seem an unreasonable position. If the US passed a law that might make me liable for virtually unlimited damages, you can be sure I'd be looking at moving my assets elsewhere.

Amezarak 11y ago
I can't find that text of the proposed amendment, but based on the description in the NY Times, there doesn't seem to be any explicit mention of Saudi Arabia, just an additional stipulation under which foreign governments can be sued in American courts, the stipulation being something along the lines of "if a foreign government was involved with an attack on American soil killing American citizens, their immunity does not apply." This is the existing law: https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/3553 https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/3553 There are already several instances where the immunity already does not apply. For example: > Stipulates that a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts if: (1) the state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication; (2) the action is based upon specified commercially related activities; (3) the action is based upon rights in specified property, connected with commercial activity, taken in violation of international law; (4) the issue is rights in U.S. property acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable U.S. property; or (5) money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the U.S. and caused by the tortious act or omission of the foreign state or its official or employee acting within the scope of his office or employment. So, I think this is a pretty small and reasonable change, to which Saudi Arabia is reacting so extremely because, as "everyone knows" and as likely revealed in the unreleased portions of the 9/11 report, the Saudi royal family and/or people in the Saudi government were, in fact, involved in the events of 9/11. The Saudis, of course, have to give a somewhat-reasonable sounding diplomatic explanation of why they would be "forced" to take their assets out of the country - that's how the game is played. Since we know that there are already holes in the immunity that could potentially leave the Saudis open to "unlimited damages" (I don't see any indication the damages are unlimited), we have to conclude the Saudis believe they will, in fact, be found culpable in this instance. Now, you can choose to believe that the Saudis believe that because they believe the US court system is just grossly unfair, or because some of the royal family or the government actually were involved, and they're afraid they would be correctly found culpable. I find the latter more likely, given the information we already have, personally. It goes without saying the Foreign Minister is going to provide a reasonable-seeming cover: that's his job. Selling off 750 billion and destabilizing your own economy is not a rational action. Every billionaire is at the risk of his assets being frozen and seized if he committed a crime. So is every corporation. So, really, are foreign governments, regardless of whether they were complicit in an act of terrorism, given the immunity is not absolute. Nobody else is threatening to take their ball and go home. So why, then, would SA be threatening to do this? Because it makes for a substantial political threat to the US to pressure the US government to not hold them accountable. In the end, I suspect it's really about a loss of face for the royal family, because realistically, even if sued and found complicit, it would be incredible if they were forced to give up a few billion, let alone hundreds of billions.

seivan 11y ago

You didn't overthrow anything that would be stable. Their cult doesn't allow civility. You overplay what you Americans have your hand in as Germany and Japan did well. Other nations are striving to do better as well thanks to the US. You can't help people who won't help themselves.