4 ms·

Is there any way this doesn't become a kangaroo court? My initial reaction is that no government will lend this legitimacy by appearing in court, and instead co

by hirsin 10y ago

Is there any way this doesn't become a kangaroo court? My initial reaction is that no government will lend this legitimacy by appearing in court, and instead confiscate property in-kind while also pulling investments out of the US. I'd be interested in any analysis published on this, if anyone has found some. I have not unfortunately.

joezydeco 10y ago
Slate did a pretty decent overview of the implications: "Under typical principles of fairness, JASTA is a just and necessary bill. Under basic norms of international law, however, it is a disaster. A primary justification for foreign sovereign immunity is comity: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions; in return, other countries don’t judge America’s. JASTA would jettison this principle for a different proposition: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions, unless they’re really, really bad. Yes, the bill specifically targets terrorist aid and enablement, but Obama and the State Department are nervous that other countries could retaliate by passing even broader waivers of sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits against American service members, diplomats, and government officials in their own courts. (And it may go without saying that some of these courts—like, say, Saudi Arabia’s—do not comply with American standards of due process.)" http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_victim_bill_is_controversial_over_sovereign_immunity.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_vict... Meanwhile 28 of the 97 senators that voted for the veto override have now signed a letter warning of the unintended consequences of JASTA. The mind boggles. http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5ffc-4204-a4f1-8072c104d9c2/Bipartisan%20Senate%20JASTA%20Letter%20092816.pdf http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5f...
- hirsin 10y ago
  Yes, that's about the deepest analysis I've been able to find beyond "gosh this is bad" (that much is evident and is not analysis), and given how much I like Amicus it's no surprise this is from Slate. I'm really looking for writing on concrete likely outcomes rather than conjecture, but that's hard to find. It seems the immediate result, given the law can only target domestic holdings, will be governments withdrawing as much as they can from US investments.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    I imagine, under possible threat of interest being withheld or redemption not occurring, Saudi Arabia will try to dump as many Treasury bonds as it can and look to eliminate the petro dollar... sounds like thrashing the US dollar could happen and soon (before any lawsuits go through).
- rayiner 10y ago
  The letter is about mitigating the unintended consequences. You make it seem like they regret their vote.
dnadler 10y ago
My understanding is that this is a straight-up bad law. It provides no realistic benefits and may actually harm US security interests. This passed because no congressman wanted to appear to stand against 9/11 families during election season.
pbarnes_1 10y ago
It's a terrible law passed only because it's related to 9/11, and votes are all about optics.
- PietdeVries 10y ago
  And it makes you wonder - 9/11 caused roughly 3.000 deaths. How many casualties have been made by US troops outside the US borders for "the good cause"? 10x times? 100x times more? Perhaps even a 1000 times more people died following the 9/11 attacks? And now you have given each and every one of those victims and their relatives a good reason to sue the US over their injuries...
  - krapp 10y ago
    >And now you have given each and every one of those victims and their relatives a good reason to sue the US over their injuries... Good. I hope they bleed the US dry. Maybe we would act more like a civilized country if the world was able to exact meaningful consequences for our actions.

by hirsin 10y ago

joezydeco 10y ago

Slate did a pretty decent overview of the implications: "Under typical principles of fairness, JASTA is a just and necessary bill. Under basic norms of international law, however, it is a disaster. A primary justification for foreign sovereign immunity is comity: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions; in return, other countries don’t judge America’s. JASTA would jettison this principle for a different proposition: America doesn’t judge foreign countries’ internal decisions, unless they’re really, really bad. Yes, the bill specifically targets terrorist aid and enablement, but Obama and the State Department are nervous that other countries could retaliate by passing even broader waivers of sovereign immunity, allowing lawsuits against American service members, diplomats, and government officials in their own courts. (And it may go without saying that some of these courts—like, say, Saudi Arabia’s—do not comply with American standards of due process.)" http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_victim_bill_is_controversial_over_sovereign_immunity.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_vict... Meanwhile 28 of the 97 senators that voted for the veto override have now signed a letter warning of the unintended consequences of JASTA. The mind boggles. http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5ffc-4204-a4f1-8072c104d9c2/Bipartisan%20Senate%20JASTA%20Letter%20092816.pdf http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5f...

hirsin 10y ago
Yes, that's about the deepest analysis I've been able to find beyond "gosh this is bad" (that much is evident and is not analysis), and given how much I like Amicus it's no surprise this is from Slate. I'm really looking for writing on concrete likely outcomes rather than conjecture, but that's hard to find. It seems the immediate result, given the law can only target domestic holdings, will be governments withdrawing as much as they can from US investments.
- jrs235 10y ago
  I imagine, under possible threat of interest being withheld or redemption not occurring, Saudi Arabia will try to dump as many Treasury bonds as it can and look to eliminate the petro dollar... sounds like thrashing the US dollar could happen and soon (before any lawsuits go through).
rayiner 10y ago
The letter is about mitigating the unintended consequences. You make it seem like they regret their vote.

dnadler 10y ago

My understanding is that this is a straight-up bad law. It provides no realistic benefits and may actually harm US security interests. This passed because no congressman wanted to appear to stand against 9/11 families during election season.

pbarnes_1 10y ago

It's a terrible law passed only because it's related to 9/11, and votes are all about optics.

PietdeVries 10y ago
And it makes you wonder - 9/11 caused roughly 3.000 deaths. How many casualties have been made by US troops outside the US borders for "the good cause"? 10x times? 100x times more? Perhaps even a 1000 times more people died following the 9/11 attacks? And now you have given each and every one of those victims and their relatives a good reason to sue the US over their injuries...
- krapp 10y ago
  >And now you have given each and every one of those victims and their relatives a good reason to sue the US over their injuries... Good. I hope they bleed the US dry. Maybe we would act more like a civilized country if the world was able to exact meaningful consequences for our actions.