
Congress rejects Obama veto, Saudi September 11 bill becomes law - ryanlol
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sept11-saudi-idUSKCN11Y2D1
======
mankash666
An example of suing a diplomat/state without foreign policy considerations: an
Indian diplomat was sued for underpaying her domestic help. In response, India
promptly sued spouses of American diplomats for tax evasion, illegal imports
and fraud.

Quoting from
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade_incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devyani_Khobragade_incident)

"Former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha called for the arrest of same-sex
companions of US diplomats, citing the Supreme Court of India's recent
upholding of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.[72][73] The Indian
government asked US consular officers posted in India to return all identity
cards.[7][6]

On December 17, 2013, Delhi Police removed security barricades on the road
outside the US Embassy in New Delhi, citing need for improvement of traffic
flow in that area.[74] India has demanded an unconditional apology from the US
government[74] and asked the details of the salaries of all domestic help,
gardeners and other staff employed by US consulates in India to check for
inconsistency or frauds.[74] India moved to block perks such as alcohol and
food imports at concessional rates, for embassy employees.[75] With new
restrictions, U.S. Embassy Vehicles will not be immune to traffic violations,
the restrictions also requires the embassy not to hold 'Commercial Activities'
in its premises.[76] Indian income tax and immigration authorities are
investigating allegations of work-permit, visa and income tax fraud at the
American Embassy School.[77][78][79]"

~~~
rayiner
TIL that India outlaws same sex relationships. Looks like they're in great
company:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-
are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/)

~~~
pyrale
> TIL that India outlaws same sex relationships.

It seems quite antiquated, but the US had similar laws as late as 2003.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#Lawrence_v._Texas_and_laws_regarding_same-
sex_sexual_activity)

~~~
PietdeVries
Adding to that with a simple quote: "When I was in the military they gave me a
medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Matlovich)

------
alistproducer2
I have the same feeling about this law as I have about Donald Trump. Even
though you know it's bad, there's a teensy-weensy part of you that likes the
fact that it's sticking it to Saudi Arabia and the political class that's
trying to defend Saudi Arabia even though it's pretty clear those shitbags are
pretty much behind 911.

Also there's a part of me that thinks maybe it would be a good thing if there
was more at stake when we blow up wedding parties with robotic death machines
and the like.

Buying the president's defense is a lot like buying Hillary's defense of
NAFTA. Maybe that plays well to policy wonks, but regular people aren't buying
it and don't appreciate politicians trying to tell us white is black in the
name of "American interests" or "national security."

~~~
PietdeVries
Good that you mention the blowing up of wedding parties by US drones - because
by the same law that allows Americans to sue the Saudi's, any victim can now
sue the US for damages because of these (often quite uncontrolled) drone
attacks.

And not only future drone attacks - also any victim of US armed forces since
2001, as the law goes back in time. So: you got hurt by an American in the
past 15 years? Feel free to sue the US...

~~~
alistproducer2
And why shouldn't families of innocent people killed by our robotic death
machines be exempt from having a day in court? Oh yeah, because our government
said we had good intentions when we blew up those children so it's all good.
What really matter is that we didn't _mean_ to kill those people, right?

------
eatbitseveryday
Forgive my ignorance, but how does an individual of one country sue another
country's government? In what court does this hold up, and how can the country
being sued be held to any decision made by such a court?

~~~
GeneralMayhem
This law allows Saudi Arabia to be sued in American (presumably federal)
courts. Enforcement is up to the terms of the law, but presumably can be taken
on any assets that the US courts can get their hands on - probably anything
held in the US, or at US banks.

There's not a great general answer, because normally the answer to your
question is "they can't." Setting aside the fact that in this case the Saudi
Arabian rulers are obviously horrible people who more or less deserve to have
horrible things happen to them, the problem with allowing this sort of thing
is that, from the outside, it looks like the United States unilaterally
seizing property of a sovereign state, which is something that international
law usually frowns upon. For that reason, foreign governments are normally
given immunity in American courts, because upholding the system of statehood
and encouraging other countries to recognize American sovereignty by
reciprocity is seen as more important than whatever sense of justice would be
gained.

~~~
Iv
Well I would argue that Argentina does set a precedent: a government decided
to default on some of its debts, but some of its creditors (the so-called
'vulture funds') attacked this decision in US court. The US court ruled in
favor of the creditors and allowed the seizing of Argentina's assets in
several banks.

A UN resolution vote to prevent those practices (and thus reaffirming the kind
of sovereignty you describe) was voted by a huge majority but rejected by the
US.

I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but USA was already rejecting the
notion of sovereignty when it comes to debt defaults, I think it is logical to
reject it too when it comes to terrorism.

~~~
HillRat
Good points, though those cases hinged on the argument that Argentina had, in
its bonds, expressly waived sovereign immunity and made New York the forum for
any legal action. Even so, the 2nd Circuit ruled against attempts to seize
Argentinian Central Bank assets, setting a reasonably high bar for future
attempts at recovery.

Personally, I'm with you -- I think the Argentina cases had somewhat delicate
international ramifications (traditionally, the assumption has been that
international investors take their chances, and that the market would punish
any country that defaulted), but even so, JASTA really does upend
international law in a new and troubling way.

~~~
Iv
I am really against the notion that waiving sovereignty is something that
elected leaders are allowed to do. It is too easy to design a deal that will
benefit one leader but open the country for pillaging under its successor.

------
pyrale
I could live with the idea that this law subscribes to a more universalist
view of politics and morale ; one in which individuals strive to share their
values and their new ideas with their neighbours. Such a concept was always
risky, but it also underlines the fundamental altruist nature of mankind.

However, when we look at the context of this decision, it is doubtful that
such is the case. On the opposite, this decision seems to be the result of a
particular strain of exceptionalism, where one nation should be able to judge
others' deeds, while at the same time claiming immunity for its own
misdemeanours.

This duality of standards, which would have us accept that foreign nations can
be judged when no introspection is possible, is very dangerous, because it
starves empathy and feeds nationalism ; it enables national outrage at actions
which are merely reciprocal. This is the kind of group mentality that made the
first world war happen.

------
hirsin
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
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_vict...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/19/_9_11_victim_bill_is_controversial_over_sovereign_immunity.html)

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/d8eee900-5f...](http://www.corker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d8eee900-5ffc-4204-a4f1-8072c104d9c2/Bipartisan%20Senate%20JASTA%20Letter%20092816.pdf)

~~~
hirsin
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
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).

------
aikah
> The vote was a blow to Obama as well as to Saudi Arabia, one of the United
> States' longest-standing allies in the Arab world, and some lawmakers who
> supported the override already plan to revisit the issue.

US doesn't have "allies", only interests.

~~~
convivialdingo
I would disagree, based on the language of the NATO treaty.

NATO article 5.

"Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an
attack against all Allies."

[http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm](http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm)

~~~
dogma1138
That doesn't changes the fact that for the most part the US doesn't have an
alliance, it has interests it want to protect or secure.

That said for the most part pretty much every other country is no different,
the only big difference is that because the US is de facto the biggest baddest
mofo around it doesn't need to take anything from anyone which means often
it's alliances are more "one sided" that what would traditionally be
considered an alliance.

------
merpnderp
Does anyone else think the only reason Obama did this is to help preserve US
influence in how Saudi Arabia prosecutes the Yemen war/disaster (with US
weapons and intelligence)?

