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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should the people of Iraq be able to sue America?

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Sure, why not? But the USA has already given billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq. I doubt any lawsuit will come close to what's already been given.


No, they take billions of dollars in oil money and give it to American contractors to rebuild Iraq.

But I would like to see law suits and charges laid on bush and Blair so they can both rot in prison as an example to other would be crusaders who don't follow the rules.




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
So at the 15th anniversary of 911 they give this harmless boon to the families.

What took them so long?


They never even commented on the phony 911 commission that didn’t even mention building 7 in its report

Can the families sue the commission?


Can they sue the FAA, NORAD, The Bush administration who amongst are the real culprits.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

Can the families sue the commission?


Can they sue the FAA, NORAD, The Bush administration who amongst are the real culprits.


I'm going to assume from your question that you are not in the US and have no understanding of our civil justice system. Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. I can, as long as I am willing to pay the court's filing fee, sue a potato chip for being ugly. But suing does nothing. It is just a piece of paper that gets stamped by a clerk and sits in a file (except in those jurisdictions that are paperless and use efile. Then, it's just a bunch of zeroes and ones that sits in a hard drive.) It sits there until someone acts further on it. If the clerk of the court issues a summons and it is served, the defendant(s) must respond, either with an answer or a motion to dismiss.And then it gets messy, with motions and discovery and summary judgment proceedings, and then, finally, a trial. Now, I can probably prove, using expert greasy salty snack expert witnesses, that the potato chip is ugly, but since chips are under no recognized legal duty to be pretty, the judge is probably going to dismiss my suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and I'm out my filing fee, deposition costs, expert witness fees and other court costs. And I probably get pounded by sanctions under the jurisdiction's version of the Federal Rule 11. So, yes, they can sue all those entities you mentioned, but to proceed they had better have both a lot of evidence and a legally cognizable claim.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Quauhtli

Should the people of Iraq be able to sue America™?

How about just suing the "Big Winner"? Why not sue Haliburton™ They and other killing machines are making all the bucks.. I bet these turds make more $$$ in "War™" than they do pushing the Heroin and that is a 'pretty penny' plus it kills more people than the 'war™'...



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I was just coming to post that.

My god, every day I think things can't get any more absurd ... and then they do.

Hail Eris!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Just read that thread! Yeah, "can of worms" sounds like, wait, was Obama referring to congress when he said that?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I'm going to sue the French for the revolution....we were rich and then we fled the peasants!! now I'm poor
.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I think they should sue and Judge Judy should preside.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: thinline

So scared he's trying to become the next UN secretary General.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Good question and I began googling for some input. If it was an 'illegal' war then yes, liability is applicable, imo. First , was the war illegal? I found this little tidbit that makes sense to me, although it still leaves question unanswered I suppose.


Vilnis Krumins

Written 7 Jun 2014 · Upvoted by Bill Stein, USAFA '94, 5 years Active Duty, 7 years USAFR, DoD TS/SSBI (current) over 20 yrs
Up until Sept. 14, 2001, only the Congress could legally start a "War" (pursuant to the War Powers Clause of the Constitution) but, on that date, Congress passed the AUMF which authorized the President to use military force against "terrorists" (i.e., anyone and everyone involved with 9/11 either directly or indirectly).

If you deem the "actions" in Afghanistan and Iraq as "Wars" then he acted illegally (because Congress did not declare "War" in either case); if you understand those actions as having been authorized by the AUMF then he's kosher.

BTW: I think the AUMF was the real reason he and his administration insisted Saddam was involved with 9/11.

s ource
Muddy water...Still, it seems somebody should be accountable….
What breaks my heart is that no one is held accountable for the depleted uranium that has been scattered and left behind, and has poisoned so many over there, including our people too, and future generations. Now that's a friggin' crime in my book.
edit on 30-9-2016 by waftist because: betterage



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join