7 ms·

What does the bill actually, you know, do? The article has neither a link to its text nor an identifying number, and the name, "9/11 bill", is not a good enough

What does the bill actually, you know, do? The article has neither a link to its text nor an identifying number, and the name, "9/11 bill", is not a good enough search term to be able to easily find it. It's kind of absurd to try to discuss the bill, or political machinations surrounding it, without getting that basic information down first.

jakebaker 11y ago
It appears to be the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/204...
- jakebaker 11y ago
  Vice mentioned it in their article: https://news.vice.com/article/this-bill-would-allow-a-lawsuit-over-saudi-governments-alleged-role-in-911-to-proceed https://news.vice.com/article/this-bill-would-allow-a-lawsui...
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The vice article is way better than all the other coverage. As a bit of additional background context, the historical rule has been that foreign nations cannot be sued in each others' courts. In the US, that rule is subject to the whim of Congress, and Congress is allowed to create exceptions.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      > the historical rule has been that foreign nations cannot be sued in each others' courts You mean, most countries abide by this? Why is that? Is it possible this type of behavior is viewed as a gateway to sanctions at best, or stifled communications and war at worst? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the proposed law. I'm just curious what the consequences might be when one developed country (Saudi Arabia) inevitably rebuffs another country's (USA's) judgement of it. I mean, that's point of separate countries right? Sovereignty.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        It's a separation of powers idea, even in countries that don't have a formal separation of powers like in the U.S. In nearly every country, the President (or Prime Minister or King) is invested with foreign policy powers, so that the country can speak with one voice in international affairs. That power is undermined by domestic courts passing judgment on the actions of foreign sovereigns. Nations don't have to respect each other's court judgments. On the other hand, domestic courts can decide the disposition of assets within their jurisdiction. For a country like Saudi Arabia, that has a ton of U.S. assets, a U.S. court judgment can be a big risk even if it has no intention of recognizing the validity of that judgment.
      - rtpg 11y ago
        The idea is that if citizens could sue foreign countries, then those countries' assets in US jurisdiction could be seized. In the case of SA, there are the treasury bonds that they are talking about selling. Considering the all-encompasing dollar-based banking system, the US in particular would be very skilled at getting foreign nation assets in rulings. I think the reasoning behind it historically is about maintaining proper diplomatic relations. The executive is in charge of foreign relations, not the judicial system. There's probably some arguments about standing too, and jurisdiction. But I think it's mainly the diplomatic angle.
        studentrob 11y ago
        > The idea is that if citizens could sue foreign countries, then those countries' assets in US jurisdiction could be seized. Oh I see. So SA would want to sell off US assets before doors open in the US to seize those assets via lawsuits. That makes sense. I should've read the whole article before commenting. Thanks!! By the way your last paragraph is indented like a code block and kind of hard to read because of the side scrolling...
      - danmaz74 11y ago
        Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth funds hold many billions (I would guess hundreds of billions) dollars worth of US assets that US courts could seize for damage compensations.
    - Maarten88 11y ago
      There is the International Court of Justice, but US has never recognized its jurisdiction.
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      This is also true as a practical matter - there's no real mechanism for forcing officials of another country to provide information. Congress cannot change this. People in Saudi who are dissidents end up jailed. This is particularly acute about the Shia/Sunni axis. The Saudis may well have a legitimate complaint here - the result would possibly be a historical fiction made up for political gain. Interestingly, I would think that Congress commissioning a rigorous investigative nonfiction film - of the sort Errol Morris does - would be a better solution. "Frontline" already has a start on the subject. The hard part would be defending the design of that from accusations of it being propaganda.
wozniacki 11y ago
I wonder if this is being kept hush-hush by even certain quarters here in America, although others are equally trying to give it as much exposure as humanly possible, especially in this frenetic election cycle. This could add some context to the whole thing: (From my comment below, near the bottom, in this same discussion) Here's the recent 60 Minutes piece on the White House's potential declassification of the "28 pages" of the 9/11 Commission Report. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages [ Warning : Auto play video ]
HillRat 11y ago
It amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow the bringing of suits against foreign states for terrorist-related claims where the entirety of the alleged activity did not take place on American soil. Basically, KSA had gotten some civil cases tossed based on FSIA immunity, so this is a bill to remove that bar.
- jest3r1 11y ago
  It allows victims of 911 to sue the Saudi regime. It may also allow victims of US drone strikes, civilian casualties in Iraq etc. to sue the US government?
  - HillRat 11y ago
    Nope, wrong direction; the defendant has to be a non-US sovereign, and the conduct has to cause loss of life or property to a US resident or on US soil. On the other hand, it may open the door for suits against Israel by US-resident Palestinians.
    - tlrobinson 11y ago
      "in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil"
      - HillRat 11y ago
        If I read it right, the Act actually establishes a cause of action in any act of "international terrorism" in which "any national of the United States suffers injury in his or her person, property, or business." While there are at least half a dozen reasons a suit against Israel (in my hypothetical example) would fail, the Act is pretty expansive in where the acts can take place, and what kind of damage they do.
    - jest3r1 11y ago
      But doesn't it set a precedent? Say an innocent Afghan family gets hit by a US drone on their own home soil. Wouldn't their family want to sue the US government?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
uuoc 11y ago
>The article has neither a link to its text nor an identifying number, This is so very typical of "old-school" news organizations that do not "get" the internet, nor do they understand the power of connections (HTML links in this case). Of course, the lack of "getting it" is somewhat understandable given that these old-school orgs. are coming in to this "new-fangled" internet tech. with a mindset grounded in 100 years worth of creating paper for dissemination of information. Since paper ca not directly connect a reader to a base source, they never saw any reason to provide the information necessary for a reader to obtain the base sources for themselves. And they continue this practice onto the web, which from their mindset is just another "paper printing press" to disseminate information across. Additionally, there's the somewhat conspiracy theorist viewpoint that hiding the base source information is overtly purposeful on their part, because that way they can have a better effect in influencing opinion (because the only data you get is that which they deem you suitable to receive) and without any ability to get to the base sources, you are much less likely to form any independent opinions that might diverge from what they want you to believe.
- jMyles 11y ago
  > somewhat conspiracy theorist viewpoint ...that is held by many professors of journalism at universities around the world.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    There's also the whole SEO argument. We trained these websites to link internally as much as possible to increase their page rank and ad revenue. Technologists criticizing websites for not linking to external primary sources is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I won't say we take the whole blame or even most but we do have a hand in it.
    - thevibesman 11y ago
      > Technologists criticizing websites for not linking to external primary sources is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Unless you are a technologist that believes the best SEO is not gaming your internal links but being a good Web-citizen (i.e. providing external links to primary sources). ;)
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
That's what we get with a system of pretend journalists shooting for sensation with no information.

jakebaker 11y ago

It appears to be the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism act: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/204...

jakebaker 11y ago
Vice mentioned it in their article: https://news.vice.com/article/this-bill-would-allow-a-lawsuit-over-saudi-governments-alleged-role-in-911-to-proceed https://news.vice.com/article/this-bill-would-allow-a-lawsui...
- rayiner 11y ago
  The vice article is way better than all the other coverage. As a bit of additional background context, the historical rule has been that foreign nations cannot be sued in each others' courts. In the US, that rule is subject to the whim of Congress, and Congress is allowed to create exceptions.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    > the historical rule has been that foreign nations cannot be sued in each others' courts You mean, most countries abide by this? Why is that? Is it possible this type of behavior is viewed as a gateway to sanctions at best, or stifled communications and war at worst? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the proposed law. I'm just curious what the consequences might be when one developed country (Saudi Arabia) inevitably rebuffs another country's (USA's) judgement of it. I mean, that's point of separate countries right? Sovereignty.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      It's a separation of powers idea, even in countries that don't have a formal separation of powers like in the U.S. In nearly every country, the President (or Prime Minister or King) is invested with foreign policy powers, so that the country can speak with one voice in international affairs. That power is undermined by domestic courts passing judgment on the actions of foreign sovereigns. Nations don't have to respect each other's court judgments. On the other hand, domestic courts can decide the disposition of assets within their jurisdiction. For a country like Saudi Arabia, that has a ton of U.S. assets, a U.S. court judgment can be a big risk even if it has no intention of recognizing the validity of that judgment.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      The idea is that if citizens could sue foreign countries, then those countries' assets in US jurisdiction could be seized. In the case of SA, there are the treasury bonds that they are talking about selling. Considering the all-encompasing dollar-based banking system, the US in particular would be very skilled at getting foreign nation assets in rulings. I think the reasoning behind it historically is about maintaining proper diplomatic relations. The executive is in charge of foreign relations, not the judicial system. There's probably some arguments about standing too, and jurisdiction. But I think it's mainly the diplomatic angle.
      - studentrob 11y ago
        > The idea is that if citizens could sue foreign countries, then those countries' assets in US jurisdiction could be seized. Oh I see. So SA would want to sell off US assets before doors open in the US to seize those assets via lawsuits. That makes sense. I should've read the whole article before commenting. Thanks!! By the way your last paragraph is indented like a code block and kind of hard to read because of the side scrolling...
    - danmaz74 11y ago
      Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth funds hold many billions (I would guess hundreds of billions) dollars worth of US assets that US courts could seize for damage compensations.
  - Maarten88 11y ago
    There is the International Court of Justice, but US has never recognized its jurisdiction.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    This is also true as a practical matter - there's no real mechanism for forcing officials of another country to provide information. Congress cannot change this. People in Saudi who are dissidents end up jailed. This is particularly acute about the Shia/Sunni axis. The Saudis may well have a legitimate complaint here - the result would possibly be a historical fiction made up for political gain. Interestingly, I would think that Congress commissioning a rigorous investigative nonfiction film - of the sort Errol Morris does - would be a better solution. "Frontline" already has a start on the subject. The hard part would be defending the design of that from accusations of it being propaganda.

wozniacki 11y ago

I wonder if this is being kept hush-hush by even certain quarters here in America, although others are equally trying to give it as much exposure as humanly possible, especially in this frenetic election cycle. This could add some context to the whole thing: (From my comment below, near the bottom, in this same discussion) Here's the recent 60 Minutes piece on the White House's potential declassification of the "28 pages" of the 9/11 Commission Report. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages [ Warning : Auto play video ]

HillRat 11y ago

It amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow the bringing of suits against foreign states for terrorist-related claims where the entirety of the alleged activity did not take place on American soil. Basically, KSA had gotten some civil cases tossed based on FSIA immunity, so this is a bill to remove that bar.

jest3r1 11y ago
It allows victims of 911 to sue the Saudi regime. It may also allow victims of US drone strikes, civilian casualties in Iraq etc. to sue the US government?
- HillRat 11y ago
  Nope, wrong direction; the defendant has to be a non-US sovereign, and the conduct has to cause loss of life or property to a US resident or on US soil. On the other hand, it may open the door for suits against Israel by US-resident Palestinians.
  - tlrobinson 11y ago
    "in cases where nations are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill Americans on United States soil"
    - HillRat 11y ago
      If I read it right, the Act actually establishes a cause of action in any act of "international terrorism" in which "any national of the United States suffers injury in his or her person, property, or business." While there are at least half a dozen reasons a suit against Israel (in my hypothetical example) would fail, the Act is pretty expansive in where the acts can take place, and what kind of damage they do.
  - jest3r1 11y ago
    But doesn't it set a precedent? Say an innocent Afghan family gets hit by a US drone on their own home soil. Wouldn't their family want to sue the US government?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

uuoc 11y ago

>The article has neither a link to its text nor an identifying number, This is so very typical of "old-school" news organizations that do not "get" the internet, nor do they understand the power of connections (HTML links in this case). Of course, the lack of "getting it" is somewhat understandable given that these old-school orgs. are coming in to this "new-fangled" internet tech. with a mindset grounded in 100 years worth of creating paper for dissemination of information. Since paper ca not directly connect a reader to a base source, they never saw any reason to provide the information necessary for a reader to obtain the base sources for themselves. And they continue this practice onto the web, which from their mindset is just another "paper printing press" to disseminate information across. Additionally, there's the somewhat conspiracy theorist viewpoint that hiding the base source information is overtly purposeful on their part, because that way they can have a better effect in influencing opinion (because the only data you get is that which they deem you suitable to receive) and without any ability to get to the base sources, you are much less likely to form any independent opinions that might diverge from what they want you to believe.

jMyles 11y ago
> somewhat conspiracy theorist viewpoint ...that is held by many professors of journalism at universities around the world.
- studentrob 11y ago
  There's also the whole SEO argument. We trained these websites to link internally as much as possible to increase their page rank and ad revenue. Technologists criticizing websites for not linking to external primary sources is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. I won't say we take the whole blame or even most but we do have a hand in it.
  - thevibesman 11y ago
    > Technologists criticizing websites for not linking to external primary sources is a little bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Unless you are a technologist that believes the best SEO is not gaming your internal links but being a good Web-citizen (i.e. providing external links to primary sources). ;)

kevin_thibedeau 11y ago

That's what we get with a system of pretend journalists shooting for sensation with no information.