Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Part of me wonders if the 9/11 folks even can use this to sue, under US law. Usually there's some shit about doing stuff before it was a crime getting a pass, or something along those lines (some junk about retroactivity and culpability? My head hurts far too much right now to remember details.), and I'm kinda' curious how/if that's going to get involved. It would be the hilarity nail in the farce cake if it only applied going forward.

E: Though I'm also now wondering about, like. Suing by proxy or something? Can't think of the words. But if we're going to open the door to international litigation, even if it's just for state sponsored terrorism, I'm pretty sure there's a delicious and absolutely fuckhuge pile of dosh waiting to get ripped out of our pockets over the contras, just as an obvious starting point. And didn't we funnel weapons or somethin' into what turned into the taliban? Giving how often the U.S. has suffered vs. indulged in terrorism or its funding, we're not going to come out of this ahead :V

[smjjames]

Also http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/senate-jasta-228841

I wonder if there are other avenues that the 9/11 families could use, like international court maybe? About the only reason we are allies with Saudi Arabia is because oil really....

Haven't looked in to the details but how exactly is this meant to work? If an American court rules the Saudi government needs to pay up & the Saudis decide an American court has no jurisdiction... ?

It may end up being that way, yeah. It's supposed to let US citizens sue another government and it can very well let other countries sue the US (might ISIS try doing that? It'd be a strange thing, that's for sure), but yea, I'm not sure how it would actually work.

[smjjames]

Part of me wonders if the 9/11 folks even can use this to sue, under US law. Usually there's some shit about doing stuff before it was a crime getting a pass, or something along those lines (some junk about retroactivity and culpability? My head hurts far too much right now to remember details.), and I'm kinda' curious how/if that's going to get involved. It would be the hilarity nail in the farce cake if it only applied going forward.

E: Though I'm also now wondering about, like. Suing by proxy or something? Can't think of the words. But if we're going to open the door to international litigation, even if it's just for state sponsored terrorism, I'm pretty sure there's a delicious and absolutely fuckhuge pile of dosh waiting to get ripped out of our pockets over the contras, just as an obvious starting point.

Even if it's going forward, that just means from this point on, we can be sued for anything that is ongoing or anything new. Like Gitmo maybe. Though trying to circumvent normal diplomatic channels would cause problems and frustrations of it's own.

Also, 'contras'?

And didn't we funnel weapons or somethin' into what turned into the taliban?

That was Cold War sheneinighans before they became a terrorist group.

As an aside, I wonder if it opens the door for other countries to sue other countries besides the US if this goes ahead.

Also, you know, isn't there supposed to be some kind of international court that countries are supposed to take their grievances to? Then again, it'd probably be as ineffective as the UN because people are going to argue over who is gonna judge cases.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/override-obama-veto-911-bill/index.html Both chambers of Congress overrode the veto.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/senate-clears-way-for-passage-of-spending-bill-228847 And looks like a government shutdown is avoided, at least until sometime in December, when they'll probably be out of session....

Can't they just freaking deal with it so that they don't have to keep kicking the can down the road every couple months?

[Frumple]

Probably not. That would mean starting to vaguely move towards a decently functioning government, and that's inimical to the republican political strategy so if they can keep things being shit on that front they're probably going to.

The contras were... stuff. Something(s) in the middle east, some stuff in south/central america. Biggest messes were probably during the reagan period, from what I can recall at the moment. Probably was using it (at least in part) as shorthand for all the shit we've stirred down south, which is bad craft, but my head has been waging internecine war with itself since I woke up so you're not getting any better out of me today, and by tomorrow I will probably have forgotten most of this happened. Maybe someone else'll be able to chime in.*

Though, uh. Cold War "shenanigans" are probably a good chunk of what we stand to get hit by. Regardless of what else was involved we fucked up a lot of folks lives with that stuff, and what survivors and descendants are hanging around probably deserve to see us in court notably more than these jasta folks deserve their go at it. Not that we haven't gotten into plenty of shit since.

*E: like that, yes. Thanks, baff.

[Baffler]

Also, 'contras'?

These fellas. Not a friendly bunch.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

So it looks like JASTA is going to become law....

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/override-obama-veto-911-bill/index.html

As usual I'm of two minds on this. For one, holy shit, we're essentially saying diplomatic immunity is no longer really a thing, at least civilly. (More like diplomatic criminal protection.) 9/11 families will get to sue Saudi Arabia and....the rest of the world will get to sue us? With all respect due to the 9/11 families, their losses are a drop of water in the bucket compared to the death toll from Obama's drone policy in Pakistan. Did anyone really think this through, or did we once again just knee jerk react to 9/11 because being honest is still considered political suicide. The shit passed 97-1 in the Senate. Only Harry Reid went on record against. Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine? Oh they abstained.

But on the other hand.....holy shit, we've just basically made ourselves accountable in some small way for our military actions overseas. If US private citizens can sue other governments, the door can swing both ways. The potential $ figure on clandestine military operations just went up. There can be depositions where names may have to be used. For the way things have been getting done, this is a pretty big inconvenience. Which for all our supposed military hawks in US government out there, I'm surprised we've not heard more about that reality. Again I ask....did anyone really think this through, besides Obama? I'm happy that we can be held accountable for shit like our drone policy, which is atrocious. But if our government still doesn't learn its lesson, that just means we're not only being morally reprehensible, we're also paying TWICE for the privilege to be so.

So, can the families of the workers at A 51 sue the government for toxic waste poisoning?

[mainiac]

...

[RedKing]

...

Best. Comment. Ever.

[Mephansteras]

...

Best. Comment. Ever.

I'm now imagining that "..." translates to "Best. Comment. Ever."

That should make for an amusing substitution.

[Frumple]

Just so long as it doesn't start a trend of reverse acronyms. I think I would have to find someone and hurt them if that happened.

[Max™]

Hug Until a Random Tuesday?

[mainiac]

...

[nenjin]

Bork has done it. He's rendered maniac a-political.

[Max™]

Yep, we're gonna need to RMA and get a new one, hey mainiac, are you still under warranty?

[AbstractTraitorHero]

Anonymous declared war upon the government on their YouTube channel yesterday.
Video