It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court rules Iran must pay almost $2bn

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling today about claims rising from the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed 241 Marines.

Looks like the Court says Iran must pay.

Obama is a little upset and has (allegedly) said this could lead to many lawsuits against U.S. interests.

The Court says that Congress had acted within its powers when it passed a law in 2012.

Always a conflict somewhere whether it's on a battlefield or a courtroom.



US Supreme Court rules Iran must pay almost $2bn to victims of 1983 terror attacks

BANK MARKAZI, AKA CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN v. PETERSON ET AL.


The US Supreme Court has ruled that Iran must pay nearly US$2 billion in compensation to relatives of the 241 Marines who died in a 1983 terrorist attack in Beirut, as well as victims of other attacks that courts have linked to Tehran.

On Wednesday, the court ruled that Congress had acted within its powers when it passed a law in 2012 that granted victims involved in the case the right to be paid for their losses out of frozen funds tied to Iran’s central bank.

The legislation stated that the bank’s assets within the US were to be turned over to the families of the victims.

Iran's central bank tried to stave off court orders at the time, complaining that US Congress was intruding into the business of federal courts when it passed the legislation, according to AP.


of *course* Iran denied responsibility for the attacks





posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Iran is going to pay alright. Just as soon as Syria is 'regime changed' and 'Libya-ized'.

US supreme court meddling in other countries internal affairs, thats a world wide joke.

Its the US Supreme Court, not the Iran Supreme Court.

Really? They don't have enough corruption to tackle at home?



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
The laughter directed at us from Iran just got a little bit louder.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly - I laughed just reading the title. Does anyone think the US Supreme Court's decision will carry ANY weight in Iran? Their treasury department goesn't give a f***, just imagine if Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or a hundred other countries we've pissed off "determined" that the U.S. owed them money.

This is the stupidest use of time and energy by our "justice system" representatives - do your damn jobs scumbags - they love to make it look like they're working so hard for us lol ok guys...



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
Does anyone think the US Supreme Court's decision will carry ANY weight in Iran?


Why would it have to? The judgement was against Iranian assets frozen inside the United States.




edit on 20-4-2016 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This ruling pertains to the Iranian money currently still held in US banks.

This is not so much about collecting from Iran as it is not giving them back what was theirs.

This is not really a game the US wants to play. May seem trivial when dealing with a country like Iran, but what happens when other countries say, "Hey wait a second. US material support cost us this many lives and this much money, so we will take it from US holdings in our country." The US has far more foreign assets to lose than any other individual nation.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: intrptr

Exactly - I laughed just reading the title. Does anyone think the US Supreme Court's decision will carry ANY weight in Iran? Their treasury department goesn't give a f***, just imagine if Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, or a hundred other countries we've pissed off "determined" that the U.S. owed them money.

This is the stupidest use of time and energy by our "justice system" representatives - do your damn jobs scumbags - they love to make it look like they're working so hard for us lol ok guys…

It is laughable remembering how much better members are informed on ATS.

More designed for Main street Americans, most of whom only know all the ongoing propaganda in the News Media about how evil Iran really is.

Good distraction away from the missing "28 pages" of 911 commission report and all the voting corruption in the New York Primary.

Yah, switch back to "Evil" iran.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

This is complete foolishness.

I wouldn't recognize this 'court' anymore than I would recognize any other foreign court. International law and foreign courts are no better than 'guidelines' and hold just as much clout.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Would this precedent not encourage the Japanese high court to rule that the US government owes TRILLIONS to the relatives and families of the victims of the nuclear attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

You see, the US government can sit around all day crying about the fact that one was "war" and the other "terrorism" (even though humans were murdered by government sanctioned attacks in both instances) but that pathetic lame excuse won't wash with anyone remotely interested in this case.

The hypocrisy displayed by the US government here towards delineating who and what constitutes compensation for the state-sanctioned murders of individuals is truly mind-blowing.

The SCOTUS may have just fallen on it's own sword.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Perhaps.

But The U.S. and Japan were involved in a declared war.

So I suppose victims of Pearl Harbor could sue Japan?

The Brits could sue Germany for air raid deaths too.

Big international lawsuits !!!!!!

Could bring down some governments !!




posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Fine to hold to account Iran for the death of those poor men in Lebanon but what if a court decides that the information Bush gave about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a deliberate lie and America is held responsible (with Blair of course) and brings in the UK etc etc what if Bush is made accountable and thereby the USA then we start with Iraq it will built and built and build. This could be the start of the slippery slope. I do look forward to it.

It does just seem like a cheap trick to get hold of Iran's wealth stored in the USA.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

gotcha
Sorry, I hadn't read that far, just "US Supreme Court has ruled that Iran must pay nearly US$2 billion in compensation"



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
People mocked it, but this is exactly why Saudi Arabia threatened to sell off its assets in America.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
People mocked it, but this is exactly why Saudi Arabia threatened to sell off its assets in America.


Then Americans can buy those.

Might be better?



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling today about claims rising from the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed 241 Marines.

Looks like the Court says Iran must pay.

Obama is a little upset and has (allegedly) said this could lead to many lawsuits against U.S. interests.

The Court says that Congress had acted within its powers when it passed a law in 2012.

Always a conflict somewhere whether it's on a battlefield or a courtroom.



US Supreme Court rules Iran must pay almost $2bn to victims of 1983 terror attacks

BANK MARKAZI, AKA CENTRAL BANK OF IRAN v. PETERSON ET AL.


The US Supreme Court has ruled that Iran must pay nearly US$2 billion in compensation to relatives of the 241 Marines who died in a 1983 terrorist attack in Beirut, as well as victims of other attacks that courts have linked to Tehran.

On Wednesday, the court ruled that Congress had acted within its powers when it passed a law in 2012 that granted victims involved in the case the right to be paid for their losses out of frozen funds tied to Iran’s central bank.

The legislation stated that the bank’s assets within the US were to be turned over to the families of the victims.

Iran's central bank tried to stave off court orders at the time, complaining that US Congress was intruding into the business of federal courts when it passed the legislation, according to AP.


of *course* Iran denied responsibility for the attacks



Ummmm....... Errrrrrr....... Isn't it a conflict of interest for a US court to assign damages to be paid by another country? Wouldn't the legal approach be to take the action to world court? I mean at least make one small and tiny bit of effort to appear legitimate.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/20.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Only problem is that many believe that it was a false flag coordinated with the help of or fully executed by the Mossad.

In August of 1982, the US Marines take part in the evacuation of 14,000 Palestinians.

Within two weeks after the departure of the Marines, Ariel Sharon oversees the genocide of the Sabra and Shantila refugee camps responsible for the murders of approximately 5,000 elderly men, women and children.


Many of the bodies found had been severely mutilated. Many boys had been castrated, some were scalped...[71]

Janet Lee Stevens, an American journalist, later wrote to her husband, Dr. Franklin Lamb, "I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an alley wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles."[72]

After word got out about the genocide, Marines intervened to stop the massacre in Sept of '82 and were ordered back into Lebanon.

Apparently this angered Israeli leadership, specifically Prime Minister Begin who was once the head of the Irgun terrorist organization.

They then green lit the attacks against the US Embassy in April of '83 and then a few months later against the marines in Oct of '83.

edit on 20-4-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


President Obama’s administration supported the families in the case, despite his outspoken opposition to legislation that could allow the relatives of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for alleged links to the tragedy.


He supports the families on this case but thinks the idea of suing Saudi over 9/11 would open the can of worms.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Problem.

1)How does a US court have any jurisdiction in Iran?

2)How do they enforce the suit?

3)Can other countries sue us if we can sue them?

4)Can't they just increase sanctions on them instead and deny travel visas until they pay the suit?



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FamCore
Does anyone think the US Supreme Court's decision will carry ANY weight in Iran?


Why would it have to? The judgement was against Iranian assets frozen inside the United States.





Ok then. That is fair game.



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
People mocked it, but this is exactly why Saudi Arabia threatened to sell off its assets in America.


Then Americans can buy those.

Might be better?


Certainly. In that case, it would probably be better to buy them when/if they're desperate to sell. Better prices (unless it's real estate, which could depress other real estate values in the area).



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join