
Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout If Congress Passes 9/11 Bill - signa11
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-warns-ofeconomic-fallout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html
======
jimrandomh
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.

~~~
uuoc
>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
> somewhat conspiracy theorist viewpoint

...that is held by many professors of journalism at universities around the
world.

~~~
studentrob
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
> 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). ;)

~~~
studentrob
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.

~~~
thevibesman
> 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.

------
dukoid
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.

~~~
TheLogothete
So the only ally of the US in the middle east left is Israel? That would be
world war 3, for sure.

~~~
dukoid
Why do the US need an ally in the middle east? Allies should share values.

~~~
quanticle
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.

~~~
throwawaz6729
>Countries don't have values

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).

~~~
TheLogothete
Values don't play any role in politics[1]. It's just the way it is. Whether
this is good or bad is debatable and depends on the circumstance.

[1]Except in the rarest of occasions. edit: they also serve as a means to
pretend and extort, too, but that's besides the point.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
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.

~~~
TheLogothete
No, that's the real version of politics. It's realpolitik.

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

There is no other way in politics. Never has been, never will be.

~~~
onetimePete
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.

------
hga
_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.

~~~
arca_vorago
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.

~~~
peteretep

        > Im guessing they are speaking about US assets in SA
    

You didn't read the article carefully enough then:

    
    
        > > Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750
        > > billion in treasury securities and other assets in
        > > the United States before they could be in danger of
        > > being frozen by American courts
    

While I've no love lost for the Saudis, this doesn't seem an unreasonable
position. If the US passed a law that might make me liable for virtually
unlimited damages, you can be sure I'd be looking at moving my assets
elsewhere.

~~~
Amezarak
I can't find that text of the proposed amendment, but based on the description
in the NY Times, there doesn't seem to be any explicit mention of Saudi
Arabia, just an additional stipulation under which foreign governments can be
sued in American courts, the stipulation being something along the lines of
"if a foreign government was involved with an attack on American soil killing
American citizens, their immunity does not apply."

This is the existing law: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-
bill/3553](https://www.congress.gov/bill/94th-congress/senate-bill/3553)

There are already several instances where the immunity already does not apply.
For example:

> _Stipulates that a foreign state is not immune from the jurisdiction of U.S.
> courts if: (1) the state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by
> implication; (2) the action is based upon specified commercially related
> activities; (3) the action is based upon rights in specified property,
> connected with commercial activity, taken in violation of international law;
> (4) the issue is rights in U.S. property acquired by succession or gift or
> rights in immovable U.S. property; or (5) money damages are sought against a
> foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of
> property, occurring in the U.S. and caused by the tortious act or omission
> of the foreign state or its official or employee acting within the scope of
> his office or employment._

So, I think this is a pretty small and reasonable change, to which Saudi
Arabia is reacting so extremely because, as "everyone knows" and as likely
revealed in the unreleased portions of the 9/11 report, the Saudi royal family
and/or people in the Saudi government were, in fact, involved in the events of
9/11.

The Saudis, of course, _have_ to give a somewhat-reasonable sounding
diplomatic explanation of why they would be "forced" to take their assets out
of the country - that's how the game is played. Since we know that there are
_already_ holes in the immunity that could potentially leave the Saudis open
to "unlimited damages" (I don't see any indication the damages are unlimited),
we have to conclude the Saudis believe they will, in fact, be found culpable
in this instance. Now, you can choose to believe that the Saudis believe that
because they believe the US court system is just grossly unfair, or because
some of the royal family or the government actually were involved, and they're
afraid they would be correctly found culpable. I find the latter more likely,
given the information we already have, personally.

It goes without saying the Foreign Minister is going to provide a reasonable-
seeming cover: that's his job. Selling off 750 billion and destabilizing your
own economy is not a rational action. Every billionaire is at the risk of his
assets being frozen and seized if he committed a crime. So is every
corporation. So, really, are foreign governments, regardless of whether they
were complicit in an act of terrorism, given the immunity is not absolute.
Nobody else is threatening to take their ball and go home. So why, then, would
SA be threatening to do this? Because it makes for a substantial political
threat to the US to pressure the US government to not hold them accountable.

In the end, I suspect it's really about a loss of face for the royal family,
because realistically, even if sued and found complicit, it would be
_incredible_ if they were forced to give up a few billion, let alone hundreds
of billions.

~~~
jakebaker
Text of the bill:

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-
bill/204...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-
bill/2040/text)

------
wozniacki
Here's the recent 60 Minutes piece on the White House's potential
declassification of the "28 pages" [1] of the 9/11 Commission Report [2].

[http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages](http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/28-pages)

[ Warning : Auto play video ]

    
    
      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.
    

[1] 28 Pages

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-
report...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-911-classified-report-steve-
kroft/)

[ Warning : Auto play video ]

[2] 9/11 Commission Report

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report)

------
chvid
Thanks New York Times.

All of a sudden Trump's foreign policy is clear and reasonable compared to the
current administration's.

~~~
riyadparvez
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.

~~~
atmosx
> But SA is not an ally, it's a back-stabber.

I can assure that whatever SA is doing is under explicit or implicitly
allowed/permitted maybe even planned by the US long time ago.

It's like being pissed with the 6-year old kid for acting like an idiot when
you should really blame the parent for giving him fireworks.

Maybe the US/NATO interests in the area are not the ones you think?! Just
saying.

~~~
jessaustin
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.

------
xienze
> 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.

So it sounds like a win-win situation.

------
runarb
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.

This did becom so popular that we still have something called an Eurodollar:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurodollar)

------
brooklyndude
Does anyone think that may backfire? Wow, talk about dumber than a box of
burnt hair.

We're Saudi Arabia, we rule you American's. Piss us off, and we'll, crush you
like "a fly."

Oh boy. Can't wait to see Trumps twit on this one. :-)

Iran is not perfect, LOTs of major issues there, but think they would be the
one for sure we should be betting on.

------
chris_wot
Yeah, they will dump $750 billion into a reasonably free market. That will
work!

There are other things that would concern me before I would worry about Saudi
Arabia essentially crippling itself...

------
y04nn
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.

~~~
dogma1138
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.

------
jackfoxy
In the age of WikiLeaks and Snowden, how do 28 pages of a Congressional report
stay sealed for 14 years?

------
leroy_masochist
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.

------
ChuckMcM
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.

------
csense
If Obama's so dead-set against this bill, why doesn't he simply say he'll veto
it if Congress passes it?

~~~
HillaryBriss
Political optics.

The Saudi Arabia fan club in the US is pretty small. Most American voters are
either apathetic or antipathetic about Saudi Arabia.

Suppose Congress passes this bill and American voters say, "Great. That's fine
with me. Let's sue these Saudi Arabian funders of terrorism."

And now Obama vetoes it. How's that going to make him look to American voters?
"I wonder why he did that? Looks pretty suspicious to me ..."

Plus, how's that going to reflect on the Democratic presidential candidates?

~~~
nacs
> How's that going to make him look to American voters

Would he care what the American voters think of him towards the end of his
last and final term?

~~~
HillaryBriss
Strictly speaking I guess you're right.

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.

------
lossolo
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 $.

~~~
riyadparvez
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.

EDIT: Why the downvote?

~~~
adventured
I didn't downvote you, however this:

> 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.

------
noobie
Isn't their currency linked to the US dollar? That would make it a suicide
attack. No one is that..Oh wait..

------
outside1234
Great! Bring on the fallout - I would gladly pay higher interest rates than
have blood money from Saudi Arabia.

------
pknerd
> 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?

------
dismal2
Any ideas why this would be happening now? Just an excuse for the Saudis to
sell their treasuries and fix their deficit?

~~~
Kinnard
It seems there's more at play than that.

------
chinathrow
Public extortion on a nation state level. Welcome to 2016 - we haven't learned
a thing.

~~~
Maarten88
There is the International Court of Justice to handle cases like these, but US
has never recognized it, I think.

Probably because other countries might have similar complaints about illegal
US behaviour.

------
njharman
This is blackmail. I hope my government has sense to not set president by
submitting to UT.

------
wahsd
Sounds like we need to seize those assets that the terrorists are threatening
to sell.

------
vadym909
Nothing better to get bill passed by the US than a threat. What were they
thinking?

~~~
nacs
> Nothing better to get bill passed by the US than a threat.

Money is always a very large factor in politics like it or not and SA's $750
billion is a sizable amount/threat.

------
catwithribbon
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.

~~~
dukoid
You may also want to fix the corresponding Wikipedia article then:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_apartheid#Saudi_Arabia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_apartheid#Saudi_Arabia)

~~~
tomp
> 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).

~~~
CydeWeys
> 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.

~~~
Spivak
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.

~~~
stickfigure
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.

------
strooper
“The only way they could punish us is by punishing themselves,” Mr. Truman
said.

The perfect solution to this situation!

------
sidcool
There's cost to having bad company. Somehow I feel it will be brushed under a
rug inside Dick Cheney's home.

------
maxaf
How did this riveting political discussion make it all the way to the front
page? It seems to be abjectly off topic for HN.

~~~
adventured
> It seems to be abjectly off topic for HN.

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.

