Saudi Arabia Warns of Economic Fallout If Congress Passes 9/11 Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's a tad bit more complicated than that in real world.

@TheLogothete I agree. "It's complicated" doesn't really counter any of the arguments substantially though.

So Israel and the US don't share values now?

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.

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.

And only god knows what would happen in Africa.

You wouldn't believe the amount of power a currency can wield on the world when used for international commerce.

Sadam sold in Euro. Did not end well for him.

Iran just switched to Euro.

> 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.

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.

How do you think the house of Saud got its start in the first place?

Also Korea and Italy, Greece didn't work out so well initially but they are sorta fine now :P

If you don't like data protection, just call it data apartheid! That'll fix it.

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

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.

Isn't this already covered by the existing law then? Killing us citizens on American soil is a tortious act causing injury.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

x

"Men have to get drafted!!!" is one of those tells that indicate that a person using it does not have any actual good arguments.

> 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.

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.

Being a woman in Saudi Arabia today is worse than being a black man in apartheid South Africa. How is the phrase "gender apartheid" silly?

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?

The main difference between Saudi Arabia and other countries you mentioned is that Saudi Arabia executes people for atheism.

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.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-is...

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)

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.