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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, the bilateral US-Afghan security treaty would bar filing in an Afghan court; in the US realm, you would have standing problems, the Baker bar, and sovereign immunity. If I recall -- and IANAL, let alone a nat-sec attorney -- there's some Fourth Circuit precedent that could justify stripping sovereign immunity from individual officials in jus cogens violations, but I don't think anyone else takes that seriously.
The bitter truth is that there's not much you can do in those circumstances. To paraphrase the Melian Dialogues, the strong do what they will and the weak take what they're given.
If that's the case, why wouldn't the ex-post-facto clause in the constitution (Article 1 Section 9) nevertheless protect anybody this bill is meant to open to liability?
Good question! Calder v Bull held that the ex post facto prohibition does not apply in the civil context, so this can apply retroactively. But you can see why in some legal philosophy quarters Calder is controversial.
That seems totally dopey. Isn't the point of ex post facto that if you make a legally-informed decision with understood consequences, those consequences shouldn't be able to change (because you might have made a different decision)? What was the court's logic for differentiating civil and criminal contexts?
The opinion in Calder v. Bull is a little opaque, but the academic work I've read on the subject explains that the differentiation was based on the definition of the term "ex post facto law." Calder v. Bull relied on how the term was defined by William Blackstone, an influential English jurist, as well as by various state constitutions.
Civil suits are torts, where there is not much specific, just guidelines for how torts are resolved. A tort is still a tort even if no specific law makes it actionable.
By analogy, burglary is illegal, with a statute of limitations. If the statute of limitations change, you can't say "don't prosecute me, when I robbed the guy the law said I would be clear if I hid for 7 years"
That was not my understanding of statute of limitations. Suppose I committed a burglary 10 years ago, and I am out of jeopardy because the statute of limitations has kicked in. Now legislation extends the statute of limitations to 50 years. I am again at risk of indictment? Or the new statute of limitations only binds to burglaries that happen after the law extending to 50 years is enacted?
>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.
> 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). ;)
For sure I do. I'm just trying to further theorize why many websites do not link externally. Short-sightedness is the best I can come up with.
Is it fair to say that most popular news websites tend to link more often to themselves than external sites? Recently I've noticed more are linking to primary sources, but it wasn't so common as recent as 2 years ago, in my recollection.
> I'm just trying to further theorize why many websites do not link externally. Short-sightedness is the best I can come up with.
Surely some sort of short-sightedness I think mostly related to the paper-printing philosophy presented by the ultimate-parent comment.
From an SEO angle, I'm guessing it has less to do with internal vs external links, but an attempt to generate more backlinks to the secondary source (boosting SEO of the secondary source) instead of providing an easier path to create backlinks to the primary source.
> Recently I've noticed more are linking to primary sources, but it wasn't so common as recent as 2 years ago, in my recollection.
I'm glad this does seem to be the trend recently for a lot of sites; I don't remember so clearly the state a few years ago.
> 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).
It's also typical of "new-school" news organizations and bloggers.
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.
Why is this gender apartheid regime our ally exactly? They finance the breeding ideology of terror worldwide and now flood the world with cheap oil aimed at destroying the American high tech green energy industry.
They sell it in the US dollars because everyone else sells everything in US dollars: yes, even Iran, Russia and North Korea. It's not a gesture of charity or good will on Saudi behalf.
Why, I totally would. I just maintain the position of U.S. dollar as international trade currency is largely due to its dependability and domestic market volume, rather than far reaching conspiracy of international bankers.
Saudi have zero say here. If they break relations and declare jihad on America tomorrow, they will still sell their oil in U.S. dollars.
I agree that dollar didn't become an international currency because the bankers had foreseen the advantages. Its largely an artifact of WW2 loan repayments and stability. But it would be naive to think that they haven't realized the advantage yet and are not actively trying to keep it that way. China is just now getting into this game but not making much headway.
Even now some of the oil to India (from Iran especially) is being payed in rupees (albeit priced in dollars).
According to Robert Gates' book Duty, it seems that the Saudi government has strong relationships with folks in both political parties. This appears to ensure that they get the kid glove treatment regardless of what happens. Gates describes a scenario where he was talking to the then-King in ~2006 and how the latter expected the US to just send troops wherever the kingdom needed them with no consideration for US lives; Gates describes this conversation as unforgettable and one that left him seething.
I know many saudi's that I like but the kingdom or government (whatever you want to call it) has turned a blind eye to terrorism. Anyone who has done a little research on 9/11 will realize they did play a key role one way or another.
The fact that they are threatening with such high stakes confirms the fear of what else may be discovered when looked into.
If you're interested, the documentary Bitter Lake goes into some of the history of the alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia, I would recommend seeing it if you'd like to know more about how the US managed to end up supporting Islamic fundamentalists:
What do you mean by "ally", exactly? The US helps perpetuate the status quo in Saudi Arabia because the alternative is a descent into utter chaos in that country and its surroundings that would cause a catastrophe for worldwide energy supplies.
eh, you stood firmly with saudi arabia and the region descent into chaos was not much accelerated or hindered by that?
I think saudi arabia as a ally just reflects the sympathy of a "autocratic"-democratic-voted-in-presidential model for its non-democratic equals.
Also i think Iran is to similar as a culture to the us-evangelicals, to be ever "a reliable ally". Messianic (and thus innovative?!), having a drug problem and a "unwieldy" youth - and subtle racism. Nobody likes a mirror, when you are not in shape.
> you stood firmly with saudi arabia and the region descent into chaos was not much accelerated or hindered by that?
I didn't do anything, since I am neither a member of the US government nor even a US citizen.
I hope it's clear that given the chaos ISIS is causing in a resource-poor country, if they were running rampant in Saudia Arabia the world would be in for a couple of orders of magnitude worse time.
Because we're the holders of the title of "Western friend" as started by the British before and around WWI.
A short, but wrong, answer is "Because of T.E. Lawrence and journalism". It's a slog ( I didn't actually even finish it ) but there is always "A Peace to End All Peace" ( ISBN-13: 978-0805088090 .
I grew up in oil business country, and one of my high school friends had a massive picture of his Dad shaking hands with, I think King Faisal in the living room.
>now flood the world with cheap oil aimed at destroying the American high tech green energy industry.
I'm not going to pretend to know the motivations of the Saudis, but if you held a resource which was seen as possibly becoming obsolete in the mid-term, would you not sell it for the prevailing price as soon as possible, rather than holding it until it became worthless? That's at least part of the issue they face.
Erm... you mean anti-gay fundamentalists like Obama? (From the article: "The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage... the administration has supported Saudi Arabia on other fronts, including providing the country with targeting intelligence and logistical support for its war in Yemen.")
Well, either the Obama administration is composed of puppets of anti-gay fundamentalists (puppets who lit the White House in rainbow colors upon the SCOTUS deciding that gay marriage bans were unconstitutional), or perhaps their relationship with Saudi Arabia is motivated by reasons other than supposedly shared religious fundamentalism, and in fact religious fundamentalism has nothing to do with this.
(Incidentally, the majority of wars, adjusted by the number of victims, as well as the majority of repressive actions against citizens by their own states throughout the last century were initiated by people whom you could more accurately describe as anti-religious fundamentalists than religious fundamentalists. It could be that religious fundamentalism, bad as it is, is not necessarily the main theme in every bad event in history, but just one of the many variations on the main theme.)
Obama in 2008 said that gay marriage should be a states' rights issue, and that he personally believed marriage is between one man and one woman. The fact that he and his administration later supported gay marriage just shows that they're canny politicians.
The first part might very well be from Obama the constitutional lawyer, meaning that it believes that the federal government has no place on defining what a marriage is and is not.
And the 2nd part might very well be from Obama himself, believing that "marriage" especially in the "traditional/religious" sense is a bond between a Man and a Woman doesn't mean you object to gay men, women, and transsexuals from being "married" in the legal sense of the way.
The Administration supported the fact that states are not allowed to ban gay marriage that in a sense actually matches what both "Obama's" said previously. And as long as gay couples can receive the same legal protection and benefits of any other "married" couple through any means I myself consider them to be equal in the eyes of the law and that anything beyond that is a fight for symbolism and semantics which while I do not object too I also do not actively support or take part in.
You mean he was honest before he was ever elected president and needed votes, and now that he can no longer be elected and in this sense has nothing to lose, came the dishonesty? Is it not imaginable that, being a canny politician, he was dishonest then and is more honest now?
Why either extreme? He chose the battles to fight then, and later realized that the battle needed to be fought in federal court after all. As well, supporting marriage equality doesn't have to entail agreeing with it. I have to support the right that bigots have to exercise their hate speech on television, but I do not have to agree with them, nor do I have to defend their position.
I think the real extreme is a guy flip flops on an issue and someone assumes it's all sincere. Much more extreme than arguing which was the time when he wasn't. I guess I'm jealous as I never found a politician or a movement I liked enough to see no fault in them, in fact I've never even got to vote for someone who didn't make me a bit sick, nor heard about a politician in any of the countries far, far away who'd give me such an opportunity as a voter had I been a citizen there.
Countries don't have values. Countries have interests. If the US had to wait until every country it dealt with lived up to the same level of democracy and civil rights that it reserves for its own citizens, we would have no allies outside of Europe.
This is correct in an extremely narrow sense, in the same narrow sense that "there is no such thing as a country." This is because countries are political abstractions, and do not exist as a physical entity, like say, a chair, or a pomegranate.
If we understand "country" to instead refer to the group of people who organize under that system, then you are completely mistaken that "countries don't have values."
You can see this for yourself right now. If it's not too cold, you could strip naked and take a walk in your town for an hour or two.
As you are almost in a country where this is against the local values, you will very likely be asked to dress, or even arrested.
But why?
You said "countries don't have values, countries have interests." So whose "interests" is it for a man (or woman I guess) not to be naked? Well, right, the people living there.
This is just one example of how you can easily see that there are certainly values that are represented by the population, municipality, country, etc.
it's kind of silly to argue that there are no such values. I've just given one example, but I could easily list dozens if you don't find it convincing (just ask me to).
I'm at a complete loss as to why you would write that, to me this is like reading "Politicians don't have any role in defining laws" or something - like, we must be using some completely different definitions for you to write that, it's not even disagreement, I clearly have no idea what you have in mind.
like, I literally don't understand why you would write that unless we're just really misreading each other due to wildly different definitions of what you're talking about. If your definition of value doesn't match the above, then what definition are you using?
That's the "In politics, everyone is a sociopath" version of politics.
It's true a lot of people think and live like this, but it would be interesting to see politics join the 21st century, instead of pretending that an ethical base that can be traced back to the Stone Age is something to celebrate.
Realpolitik is gone, when everyone got a nuke.
Even sociopaths have survival instincts - that's why no world war III so far. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and there democratic domesticated Versions (who never get to the big conquests, cause so many other snakes in that damned parliament want to be king instead of the king).
Whats really interesting is the planning horizon a government has when dealing with one another. A government with a low hanging planning horizon is due to be gambled again and again by governments with long term planning horizons.
Also unintended consequences, the Saudi government might end up in exile or with the heads on spikes, put there by the very own radical movement they inspired.
Oh, it's real, rather than fake? Whoever coined that word was trying too hard. It reminds one of "People's Republics" and fields of study the names of which include the word "science".
> The West certainly should help the ones that show the desire to improve. That's different from making the worst offenders the biggest allies though.
No shit. The ancient Athenians invented democracy but I believe the US has made exporting democracy all around the world a vocation. So many successes: Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Morocco.
As a European I would like to ask to stop exporting democracy for at least a decade, the world needs a break, really.
I'm an American, born and raised, and I'm frankly sick and tired that the xenophobic nonsense that the more vocal of us seeks to propagate has influenced foreign opinion of all Americans. I cannot tell you how embarrassed I've been, when on foreign soil, finding myself correcting (or worse sometimes, agreeing with) their notions of what life in America is like, because life in America is different for all of us. Homogenous isn't a word that would even occur to me to describe "the American way of life".
With that kind of sarcasm, you can hardly blame them. It's incendiary speech, and you do not speak for all Americans, so kindly stop using hateful and sarcastic language while sounding like you do speak for all of us. You're free to share your own brand of "'Merica" with whomever you please, but you do not speak on my behalf. Additionally, thinly veiled threats of violence, no matter how cloaked in sarcasm they may be, betray a lack of grace under pressure, and a deeper resentment than is unhealthy to be left ignored.
And GP: you don't speak for all of the EU (or of Europe) either. I'm sure you meant the former because most of the rest of Europe's populace doesn't seem to give two shits about us because they have their own problems back at home.
I was referring to the idea that American adventures abroad don't do much to 'export democracy' as evidenced by a handful of failures.
But that 'analysis' ignores the bulk of the last century where, in fact, American intervention did a great deal to export and defend Democracy in places like France, Spain, Italy, Germany and more recently places like Bosnia and our very costly presence protecting Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
I am no fan of the Bush Doctrine and the foreign policy blunders of the last twenty years but it is more than a little misleading to suggest the United States hasn't done anything to safeguard and spread democracy in the world.
I would love to ramp that role back since it is such an eye wateringly expensive policy to maintain and we could use that money for our own infrastructure and domestic projects like universal healthcare and fighting poverty -- but we're still tied up in those engagements and playing the Superpower Defender.
And xenophobia? Where did that come from?
I didn't mean for my comment to come off as hateful, just exasperated. I would love it if the US would stop sticking our nose in everyone's business. Reallocation of those resources would be wonderful. But I am a realist and I understand that you just can't stop posing a credible threat to potentially bad actors without risking peace or someone stepping up and bearing more of that cost.
Sarcasm isn't meant to help. That doesn't mean it has no place.
The fact is, a large number of the people and governments that criticize the US are propped up by the US financially, militarily, or both.
This doesn't invalidate either point or opinion, but it does reintroduce complexity where points are boiled down to one-liners, absolutes, and sound bites.
I've had the problem you describe when residing abroad, and it is frustrating, but I think you're off-target here. Parent comment seems pretty focused on the financing and accomplishments of various military activities. If you want to blame someone for encouraging false assumptions of homogeneity, Hollywood is a better target.
The EU is deteriorating a bit like 1939. I hope I'm wrong but radicalism and xenophobia is raising all over Europe and it's scary. I'm not talking for all Europeans nor I believe that the majority of Europeans cares about what happens in the US, Russia or China. But they should. We live in a globalised world and our actions have repercussions elsewhere. If US voters[1] favour a candidate that is less prone to warfare maybe, just MAYBE, the influx of refugees will stop. Same goes for Europeans leaders. Sadly I don't see that happening.
[1] The GOP candidate is a question mark regarding his external policy and we all saw how reckless H. Clinton is in Libya. I'm not sure if there's any chance for an external policy change for the better in the US right now.
Your comments regularly break the HN guidelines. If you keep doing this, we will ban your account, so please re-read them and abide by them. That means posting civilly and substantively, or not at all.
It's on the low end, less than Japan more than Brazil. The real issue is they don't share strategic interests largely by being on the other side of the planet.
EDIT: You seem to edit that part in, well if the US some how manages to strip any interests in the near east then yes they do not have that many strategic interests (outside of trade, research and industry).
However as far as values go the are more or less on the same page, the only difference it's considerably more easy to commit to your values when everyone around you plays by the same rules.
That said the US is probably the worse as far as it comes to actually living by their values of most western nations.
US, is fairly balanced in terms of oil trade. We don't share borders with the area. Direct trade is relatively speaking minimal as US to Israel ~1% of total US trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_pa... We don't even ship stuff though the area. That said, our foreign policy really does not seem to reflect this.
Values wise it's different cultures, languages, religious landscapes etc. Sure, nominally we are both liberal democracy's that value free markets. But, in practice things like immigration policy's demonstrate huge differences.
PS: That said we do have close ties and are Israel's largest import and export partner.
A war between Israel and the Arab nations is unavoidable without the US mediating through 3rd parties (like SA). This would be an extremely large and bloody war by itself, but it will inevitably lead to hotspots in other parts of the world, like China claiming Taiwan, settling disputes India. India would want to settle disputes with Pakistan. Russia would want to claim back some part of Eastern Europe. Turkey would want something else entirely. Obviously other counties have interests too. Vietnam? The Koreas? Thailand? Indonesia? All of them have something to prove.
Israel is probably fine negotiating with the Arab states on it's own.
It has a peace treaty with Jordan and Egypt, and various levels of official and unofficial relations with the Gulf states.
Iran is an issue, so is the Hezbollah controlled parts of Lebanon and Syria if Assad falls is also up for grabs but with all 3 the US can't mediate anyhow.
And piggy backing on this there is very little prospect for actual war between Israel and the Arab states, neither Jordan nor Egypt would go to war, there is no scenario in which Israel will some how will find it self in war with either Saudi Arabia nor the other gulf states that for the most part do not have much military presence and even less force projection.
So the only thing which is left is a proxy war between Israel and Iran, which isn't exactly something you can call bloody, excluding the "war of independence" Israel longest and bloodiest war was the 'Yom Kippur' war which lasted for 19 days.
If Syria falls to ISIS and or Hezbollah decides to stir things up again you might see a limited engagement in the north of Israel, which might lead to the re-establishment of a security buffer like the one during Israel's invasion into Lebanon (albeit most likely without the (South)Lebanese Army being allied with Israel this time), but there is simply no scenario in which this can escalate into anything than a meaningless regional conflict that would barely impact the daily life in Israel not to mention the world.
The middle east is a powder cake indeed but Israel has little to do with it, an all out war is considerably more likely to happen between SA and Iran than even between Iran and Israel not to mention between the "Arab States" and Israel.
The Arab states simply has no reason, will or ability to start a war with Israel, and Israel is not going to start a war on it's own.
If we stopped gently holding down Israels's rage at every shell that gets sent their way, I can certainly see Israel's own hard-lined leaders trying to slap down Palestinians and their outside support once and for all. Such a lopsided military offense would certainly draw support against Israel from other parts of the Arab world, and the rest is a snowball on a steep hill.
That's not a conjecture that's not even fantasy, that's a complete ignorance of the political situation.
Israel isn't being lead by hard-liners (when comparing them to US hard liners / right wing), the "Likud" is called a right wing party, mostly because back when it was established the Israeli left still had a hammer and a sickle in their logo.
Israel has no reason to bomb the Palestinians out of existence and while I doesn't want to give up territory for many reasons with security being a prime one, it also doesn't show intent no has a reason to go out for an all out war.
Offensive operations are not viewed well by the Israeli public, not to mention that even if they did went all out on the Palestinians no one in the Arab world would really care.
The Palestinian issue isn't and wasn't anything more than a front in the wider conflict between the Arab states and Israel, that conflict is long gone and faded.
If the Arabs cared about Palestinians they would not block the UN from treating them as refugees, they would not force them to live in camps for 70 years passing their situation to their children and instead of denying them every right they could easily have resettled them by now.
The US can get an alley in the middle east which respect freedom of religion, freedom of minorities, allows women to serve in its military, is pro-us and has oil any time it wants. All it has to do is recognize Kurdistan.
Yes it would piss of the Turkish dictator, but so what?
Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill....
Given how they're having to liquidate assets to sustain their low oil price policy, this is partly a hollow threat absent a reversal of it.
That's more or less on the point, more likely that the Saudi's need to liquidate those assets anyhow, it just gives them a way to save face.
It could also be quite likely that the US also just wants to "save face" by passing this bill and the timing is just right for both countries to get what they want/need.
Given the situation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the more or less lack implementation of the P5+1 nuclear treaty with Iran I would say that any fallout has less to do with this bill but with something else (that was also mentioned in this article) - potential restrictions on sale of arms to Saudi Arabia (which spent about 100bln this past decade on Arms from US and Canadian companies).
"Last week, two senators introduced a resolution that would put restrictions on American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which have expanded during the Obama administration."
If these 2 legislatures are part of the same bill (which isn't uncommon due to how hard it is to actually pass a bill in the US these days) that's more likely to be what actually poked the bear or well the more like the camel in this case.
Not that easy, their entire military is based on western arms, retooling and retraining your entire army isn't that easy, the retooling part is especially not cheap GL hacking your Russian guided bombs (if they agree to sell them to you) to work with US aircraft, sensors, and command and control tech etc, yes it's possible but it's not like well gosh we can't buy US cars any more, screw GM, MG here we come, you can't just switch over.
Also both China and Russia don't just export anything, in some cases it would be harder to buy from them than from many Western nations.
Yep, there is no lock-in like in the defense industry, mostly because you want to make sure who they can later "lock-on" too ;).
Oddly enough of the US some how stops selling guided munitions to Saudi Arabia, Israel is probably going to replace them.
Their weapons work with both NATO/Western and Russian systems, and Israel is reportedly already supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia mainly white-labeled drones through South Africa.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are "mortal enemies" on many levels, India is an option but it co-develops allot of its weapons with Israel.
Also don't confuse overt and covert politics in the Middle East.
There's allot of posturing and pretense on the surface but allot of cooperation under it.
Israel and Saudi Arabia are as close to allies as they can be in the current geopolitical landscape.
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.
> 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.
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."
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I'm not so sure. The Saudi low-oil-price policy has been ruinous for some American domestic oil companies. There intentions may be more long-founded than the current flurry of coverage intimates. They may have been preparing for this for the past 2-3 yrs.
It also comes at a time when the White House and intelligence officials
are reviewing whether to declassify one of the country's most sensitive
documents -- known as the "28 pages." They have to do with 9/11 and the
possible existence of a Saudi support network for the hijackers while
they were in the U.S.
For 13 years, the 28 pages have been locked away in a secret vault. Only
a small group of people have ever seen them. Tonight, you will hear from
some of the people who have read them and believe, along with the families
of 9/11 victims that they should be declassified.
People make the excuse that the West needs an ally in Middle East. Yes, it needs an ally in ME. But SA is not an ally, it's a back-stabber. They are exporting extremism all over the world (I didn't use the words terrorism because someone will come and start arguing there is no proof SA has funded terrorism and they have issued a diplomatic condemnation when a terrorist attack happened). The West has the diplomatic power over SA to force it to stop exporting its extreme ideology all over the world, it's late, the damage has been done, but further damage can be stopped. Not a single politician or all the altruist medias even call out SA, let alone do something about their back-stabbing.
Decades ago, my country was liberated from Pakistan on the value of secularism. Then SA started to fund madrassas, mosques filled with their extremist ideology and now we are heading back to being another Islamist country. As a third world country with majority of people living in poverty what can we do more when Saudis fund terrorism with their unlimited petro-dollars and the West being their ally.
Like many, I find the West has contributed to Islamic terrorism. But not in the way that the West has invaded other countries, but it has been allies with extremism-exporters like SA and let SA export extremism all over the world.
Saudi haven't been "given" any weapons, and they're rich enough that they could easily have purchased from parties other than USA.
You are right to imply that national interests that are commonly understood and discussed differ sharply from the personal interests of those agents charged with pursuing national interests.
The only thing I like about Trump that he calls out SA on terrorism. Other politicians and media are bought by SA money, they will never call out SA despite the extremism it breeds killing innocent people all over the world.
You do realize the so called Trump foreign policy is not based on any political reality but is a tailored marketing message mainly aimed at uneducated and fearing populace. It's quality is similar to the snakeoil commercials which sell instant weight loss - i.e. promises to solve your problem exactly like you want to. The downside is the marketing message is not based on no other reality or craft except that of getting the sale done. The presidential election is even better than a sale - there is no way to return the vote once the political reality after elections does not match with that which was promised.
I'm not taking a stance on the content of Trump's message (not in the US, not really my business). That said he is obviously a fantastic salesman.
> Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy.
Instead of a big selloff they can probably do what the soviets did. Move their assets to a foreign bank and then the foreign bank stor its assets in the US. Any assets in the us is then owned by the foreign bank, and can not be taken.
I don't know what the 9/11 Bill imply for SA, I'm not from USA or SA but when another country try to dictate your laws, I think that's totally inappropriate.
But, to be fair, that's what USA and IMF have been doing since the end if WWII.
That's also what every European country, and every other country with even the slights political weight does every day.
This isn't some how limited to the US or OPEC countries.
Will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
It looks like there may be enough support in Congress to make passage of the bill veto-proof.
If the Saudis follow through and dump $750bn of assets, it will basically be economic warfare. If anyone has any links to estimates of how much the yield on Treasurys would go up in that contingency, please share.
I wonder if they would actually follow through, because a natural response would be for the US to withdraw military support, which would be very bad indeed for the Saudis if done to a meaningful extent.
Interesting article along with the ongoing coverage of the push to declassify the 20 some pages of the 9/11 commission's report. I expect that Saudi Arabia has more to lose economically than the US does, but I also don't think that is the real issue here. Rather there are some really deep and intertwined politics in the middle east and Saudi Arabia is hip deep in them. I wonder what happens if the rest of the region sees the US as no longer willing to back the kingdom.
But, still, I think Obama cares that American voters vote for a Democrat in 2016 so that Obama's signature accomplishments and legacy are preserved.
I believe he also cares what Americans in general think for the sake of his long term reputation -- the usual presidential narcissism, "my great legacy" etc.
> If Obama's so dead-set against this bill, why doesn't he simply say he'll veto it if Congress passes it?
Saudi Arabia might not appreciate it if Congress passes the bill, even if Obama vetoes it. So trying to convince congress not to pass it in the first place might be a foreign relations move. Also, Obama might be worried they could override his veto (though I don't know how widely supported this bill is in Congress).
Finally! everyone knows they (Saudi Arabia) sponsor terrorists. US maybe finally will end with hypocrisy, you are against terrorism with zero toleration rule? or you are against it only when it's not against your interest. Democratic, western values are much more important in this case than couple of $.
What I find surprising is lack of awareness among people regarding SA. Stopping SA is a very effective strategy to mitigate terrorism. The politicians and media are brought by SA money. But why people in the West are not doing anything about this, they are not getting money from SA.
> What I find surprising is lack of awareness among people regarding SA
There is not a lack of awareness. It's widely known that 1) Saudi is not any sort of friend to the US 2) it exports Islamic extremism 3) nearly all of the hijackers were Saudi 4) the Saudi kingdom, to some extent or another, had an involvement in enabling 9/11 5) Saudi Arabia is extremely backwards and oppressive when it comes to human rights
I've yet to meet an American that didn't have some knowledge of one or all of those points.
> if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Saudis have right concerns. After all, how a dacoit can punish a thief?
Gender apartheid? Are men and women required to live in different suburbs to each other? Are they forbidden from marrying each other. At least read up on apartheid before throwing the term around in a context that makes no sense.
> The term gender apartheid refers to the economic and social sexual discrimination against individuals because of their gender or sex.
I hate these post-modern redefinitions of terms. By this definition, US is gender apartheid (men are subject to involuntary draft), as well as the UK and many other EU countries (men have to work longer to get pension).
That's as ridiculous as when some people equate rape with drunk sex or sexual harassment with catcalling. It really reduces the the victims of actual crimes (rape, harassment, and apartheid).
> That's as ridiculous as when some people equate rape with drunk sex or sexual harassment with catcalling. It really reduces the the victims of actual crimes (rape, harassment, and apartheid).
I don't think you have any clue how bad women have it in Saudi Arabia, or you wouldn't be denigrating them as "not actual victims".
Here's a hint: There are no prohibitions against statutory rape or marital rape. In other rape situations, the woman is more likely to face punishment for speaking about it than her rapist is. Women also cannot drive, vote, or travel freely in public alone, and must always be wearing clothing that covers them from head to toe lest they be harassed by religious police and scores of men.
If your argument is that we shouldn't be calling the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia "gender apartheid" because it isn't really all that bad, then you're just flat out wrong.
Women in Saudi Arabia live absolutely shitty lives at the hands of their male oppressors and the parent isn't disputing that. That doesn't make it apartheid.
The only purpose of trying to redefine apartheid to refer their situation is because it's a scary word that has more universally negative connotations.
"Women in Saudi Arabia are currently the victims of an ongoing genocide"
A genocide of their freedom and liberty as individuals.
We can do better than this kind of rhetoric -- it's already horrifying on its own, there's no point in trying to associate it with other terrible, unrelated acts in history.
What term would be more accurate than gender apartheid? It seems wholly fitting, even down to the literal translation of the word. I struggle to imagine a phrase more apt.
Actually there is a very smart and direct point, which is quickly relating to a large audience, not all of whom are versed on the finer points of international human rights violations, how badly a sect of people, however the dividing line is defined, are oppressed.
> If your argument is that we shouldn't be calling the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia "gender apartheid" because it isn't really all that bad, then you're just flat out wrong.
I don't think that anyone argues about shades of wrong here. The argument is about the word "apartheid" because it actually denotes something much more exact than "being a dick to some group of people".
Apartheid refers to the idea of 'separateness', the state treating a particular group differently in a significant number of ways purely because of some identifying characteristic.
Clearly, there are ways in which all states do this and for different reasons. Men having to work longer to get a pension is a historical relic, and one which most countries are moving away from.
The laws covering conscription in the US also date back to the early 1980s. Since there has been no involuntary draft since the 1970s, it has hardly had an effect on life for most Americans.
Compare this to Saudi Arabia where women continue to be severely punished for breaking laws that apply only to women, have much curtailed rights compared to men, and clearly have very 'separate' lives to men in Saudi Arabia. Whether you call it segregation, apartheid, or whatever you want - there is much greater gender inequality in Saudi Arabia than there is in most of the EU and USA.
Women in Saudia Arabia are subject to severe repression, in the same way that blacks suffered from severe repression in South Africa during the Apartheid era, and in a way that few people could genuinely complain in the USA or EU.
Yeah, I agree completely with you. SA is much worse than US (incomparable, really). That's exactly why I'm objecting to using the same term for both. Or rather, I think Wikipedia's definition is... fucked.
This "drunk sex = rape" thing is just BS though isn't it? From the same source as the propaganda about Christmas being banned or Obama being a secret Muslim. It's so obviously untrue it only acts as a shibboleth.
Your first link includes this description: "He would later describe that night as the drunkest he's ever been, and a neighbor from down the hall would describe his level of intoxication as a "shitshow." He was "slurring his words, stumbling over the others when he got up." That kind of drunk."
The girl involved was, by independant reports, about the same level. Both had vomited repeatedly(!) as a result of their level of intoxication.
This is far away from the bizarrely popular notion that any sexual activity after a couple of beers is considered rape.
If either of these people had ended up having sex with someone who was sober, then that person would clearly have been taking advantage of them in their compromised state. The only reason it's any kind of gray area is because both people appear to have been utterly out of it, and it seems the only reason that this particular case got picked up was because the college had a history of ignoring and downplaying sexual assults and rapes to such a degree they were getting sued over it.
The piece you link does not stake out radical territory. The core point is this:
Consenting to one type of sexual interaction does not mean you consent to everything else. Even assuming that the victim did voluntarily and knowingly remove her clothes, this in no way means she consented to a kiss, let alone full-blown sexual intercourse. Consent is an ongoing process. Even if she had initially consented to engage in sexual activity, any subsequent request to stop needed to be respected. Otherwise, that’s rape.
It nicely avoids the semantic fuzziness invoked by "drunk", which might mean different things to different people.
When social and political phenomena are examined more closely, they need classification and designation. Disliking a new term for an old or previously unexamined phenomenon seems curmudgeonly.
No, I disagree. I think it makes sense to use different terms for normal, reasonable, moral behavior (draft, drunken sex), and for objectionable, inexcusable behavior (apartheid, rape).
You have to sign up for "Selective Service" so that, if suddenly the US government did want to conscript all young men, they have a record of who's eligible. Only men are required (and are even allowed) to sign up for Selective Service.
As you can imagine, some politicians do everything they can to maintain the status quo, while others try to get the legislation banned by the Supreme Court.
can you talk abut why "if they did want to conscript all young men" it means that they are subject to involuntary draft currently? What I mean is that it would take a positive action to instate a draft, right?
Would it be harder legally to "want to conscript all people (men and women)"? What I mean is even though women are not registered for selective service, if you were to "enable" conscription couldn't you just also require that they register? If this is the case isn't it fair to say instead of "men are subject to involuntary draft" it is more accurate to say "men are one record-keeping action closer to an involuntary draft"?
If there's a bigger difference I'd like to understand that difference.
The 'apart' in apartheid refers to separation. Black people were forced to live in different areas to white people. Unless women are forced to live apart from men and in different areas it's not the same thing.
Women actually are separated from men in public areas in Saudi Arabia, so even with applying a strict nitpicky interpretation, the usage is accurate.
More generally, though, don't you realize how badly it comes off when we're talking about a truly terrible situation for millions of people, and the only contribution you can offer is some semantic nitpicking? Do you really think that is being helpful or productive? Pick your battles, man.
It's not a nitpicky interpretation. Apartheid was a specific system in South Africa where different groups were not allowed to live in the same areas or sleep under the same roof or marry among many other restrictions. I don't think you realise how badly it comes off to someone who lived through apartheid to see the term being applied so casually to something very different due to vague similarities. Just because it's a horrible situation doesn't mean it's apartheid. Apartheid died in the 90's and was actually named 'apartheid'. When I mention apartheid to someone the response shouldn't be 'which one?'
Down this path lay the destruction of meaning. Do you realize that you've just argued that anything can mean anything, definitions and objectivity no longer matter providing the circumstances are serious enough?
We're sitting here talking on a discussion board. The readership of this site in general is not in a position to do anything about the fucked up situation in Saudi Arabia. We are in a position to do something about people (arguably) misusing language in our own back yard.
Women have less rights than men there. But yeah the real problem is words being thrown around about a nation that still beheads people. That's the real problem and you're okay with emphasizing that problem more the fact that the other issues stated on say Wikipedia about Saudi.
It's not materially different until you consider the "crimes" that those people committed. In most normal places, that's usually something very severe such as murder which is one of the worst crimes a human individual can commit. Can you say the same of Saudi Arabia and its executions?
> But yeah the real problem is words being thrown around about a nation that still beheads people.
How are being beheaded or executed with lethal injection different? They are one of the few states that retain the right to kill their own people left today, among the US, Japan, Iran, Belarus, China, etc. Further, Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, not a nation. Its political system was installed by the occidentals after WWI.
For women, yes, they have less rights de jure, but de facto, we don't know that very well. After all, different people have different cultures, and if we do not respect that, where is the demos in democracy then?
In terms of fundamentalism, Saudi Arabia is practically ISIS, if ISIS made it and decided to buy off the West instead of fighting...flogging for bloggers, death penalty for adultery, Christianity, etc. If someone doesn't respect your culture but views it as an evil to be eradicated, at least within their borders, saying so seems perfectly democratic. In fact calling it like you see it, fact-based discussion are part of the essence of democracy.
People pointing fingers at the wrong folks for something like 9/11 for political purposes is more of a problem than offending a culture that doesn't respect our culture or basic human rights.
(Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11 does seem like opening a can of worms, and there sure are a lot of anti-Muslim bigots in this country. But whataboutism should have a limit. You can tolerate a religion and still say some things people do in its name are effed up and not consistent with democracy and human values)
Are you kidding? Women clearly have less rights than men. They can't drive, vote, or be seen in public without an abaya, a floor-length black nondescript robe.
Additionally restaurants, banks, and other places are segregated by sex.
"For women, yes, they have less rights de jure, but de facto, we don't know that very well. After all, different people have different cultures, and if we do not respect that, where is the demos in democracy then?"
What a bunch of bullshit. You respect a culture that enslaves, rapes, and murders its women out of pleasure? You think that's somehow a "culture" where women might be treated equally? Or are you just pandering to the idea of absolute cultural relativism as if there are no morals to be had in the world (some would call this trolling)?
Saudi Arabia is a disgusting "culture" and society. Defending their barbaric, primitive, idiotic practices is almost as equally disgusting.
I am an absolute cultural relativist, and I do think that there are no morals preset.
The culture of theirs is sure unbearable to you, and to me (I'd be beheaded for atheism before I could ever talk about women there), but its their problem. And when you utter the words barbaric, primitive, idiotic, be sure that you can logically answer the question: to whom?
And stop confusing the state with the people, and making blanket statements.
Great Scott. Pray tell, who are you and me? If it's "their" problem, do you mean the enslaved people? If you are a absolute cultural relativist, what are you even doing here, talking with people? You are alone, your own island. Witnessing a murder, you are totally indifferent? "That's not my cup of tea but as long as they murder someone I don't care much about, who am I to judge?" You scare me way more than ISIS does.
The U.S. is not a Democracy; it is a Federal Republic, so demos is not applicable to the U.S.
Yes, capital punishment is capital punishment, however, I don't know of a mentally-ill woman, or man put to death for a possible self-defense killing in the U.S., but I have not researched it fully. Murder is different than killing by law. The point is that Siti Zaenab Bt. Duhri Rupa, the Indonesian domestic helper who allegedly killed her employer's wife in Saudi Arabia had ZERO chance of a fair trial. The execution was carried out without informing the Indonesian government, or her family. I have worked in SE Asia and I have been to Qatar and Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and stories of domestic helpers being abused by employers there are typical, and numerous. I would wage the employer's wife abused her, and she may have had some mental illness, or at least it should have been made as a case considering the evidence, but NO, she being a woman, a foreign woman, stood no chance. I have turned down job offers in the countries I have mentioned, because I do think their cultures are not current with human rights as most nations at least profess them nowadays. For the record, I am against capital punishment, so I don't even want to debate the difference between lethal injection or beheading, but emotionally, having seen a broadcast of the beheading without knowing what I was watching at first, was shocking in the manner it was staged and carried out.
Thanks for pointing that out, and I'll have to look at it, but the death penalty is not for killing in self-defense; it is for murder. My point was that whether she was mentally ill or not, she was being abused, and acted in self-defense. The mental illness becomes a secondary factor to show self-defense crossed over to killing rather than avoidance or restraint.
I do not really think that execution is justified by its reason. So execution for atheism or execution for treason etc., all count the same: A political system killing the very people it is supposed to serve.
So long as enough people here are interested in the topic, there's almost no such thing as off topic. In my opinion, HN is the better for that. Even if it doesn't lead to a discussion central to HN, the diversity of discussion is critical. There are also very frequent cross-over impacts in the world of politics, that involve technology, security, encryption, tech companies, et al.
