Should the people of Iraq be able to sue America?

As you've probably already heard, congress has passed a bill allowing some victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia. President Obama vetoed the bill on the premises that it would essentially open up a can of worms, allowing for law suits on many new levels suing for damages that at least loosely are linked to damages caused by war and terrorism. On September 28, congress overturned Obama's veto with an almost unanimous vote and passing it into law.

But exactly how closely related are the definitions of war and terrorism? And where are the boundaries set of what someone can sue for when it comes to these kinds of issues? For example, It turns out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the U.S. spent years there dropping bombs and occupying the country. There are literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries that innocent civilians have suffered in the process.

Iraq is one example, but there are many others where a blurry line exists somewhere between the ideas of false flags, terrorism and war.. Within each there are usually innocents being killed or injured. Should the victims of these types of incidents be able to sue for these things years or even decades later, after the truths are revealed?

If so, how much time can pass before it's too late to sue and where exactly are the lines drawn between something that can or cannot be sued for? Is this idea something that only works in State sponcered terrorism? If that is the case, would it be possible in the future to change some definitions to include some of the historical acts of The U.S. to actually be state sponcered terrorism? Things such as the false flags are already common knowledge now, could they in the future be considered as terrorist acts?

President Obama may be correct in his objection of this bill, and it's effects could be far reaching in the future. I'm wondering what kinds of courts would be involved in this process, and would the judgements even be effective?.. Or, is there a possibilitiy of new laws and terms being defined with this type of thing?

I know that this is a lot of questions for one post, but it seems to me that the bill may actually turn out to be exactly what Obama says it will if it turns out to have any teeth..

What say you ATS?

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.

a reply to: Quauhtli

War in this century is all terrorism.

All the terrorism in the world today has been paid for by western interests as much as eastern, and therefore the distinction between war and terrorism is moot, since most of the same players are paying for both, creating bogeymen for decades, in order that wars now can be financed with backing from the blinded.

Frankly speaking, I think the Iraqi people, particularly the families of those who never fired a shot, never joined a militia, never even thought of joining ISIS and so on, should be able to sue, because not only have they suffered as a result of western foreign policy choices, established over decades, but they also suffered at the hands of western proxies, the bogeymen themselves.

Have at it, I say. While they are at it, they should consider suing the British Government, and every single contractor company involved with the War On Terror, and every government that dropped bombs, every government who offered training to "revolutionaries" (read: terrorists funded, trained and equipped by CIA and British Military Intelligence assets) and the whole mess of financiers that organised the cash flow necessary for western interests to prosecute any kind of armed activity in nations whose governments were not actually posing any threat to aggressors in that war, what so ever.

Obama has not and does not care one bit about America getting sued and as far as I'm concerned, this was only passed, so a bunch of politicians can look good on election day. Many seats are up this year and they can tell the voters "Hey! Look how patriotic I am" "Vote for me!".
Even if people win their suits, they have a snowball's chance of actually collecting.

a reply to: jjkenobi

The US has placed contractors and private firms in the region, who are being paid for their services. I hardly think rebuilding efforts count for a great deal when the end result is that America makes money from war.

I think it remains to be seen. If the US starts going after other interests in the region, I could see how they could retaliate by spawning off their own suits in response.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I agree on some levels. If for instance this idea clarifies the boundaries of collateral damage as something that can be sued for as opposed to just a sad side effect of war. It could have positive effects along some lines..

But thinking of Saudi Arabia who has many resources that the U.S. takes advantage of.. I would think that on some level, we would pay for by twice, and out of tax payers pockets any monetary judgements that were awarded to the victims..

a reply to: Quauhtli

I absolutely agree with Obama on this one. It's an emotional issue and I think that's why so many in Congress support this bill - because their constituents are all wrapped up in the emotion, too. They want to hold someone accountable for the attack. But those responsible for this attack are dead. There's simply no way to hold them any more accountable.

9/11 Victim Compensation From 2001 - 2003, 9/11 families received billions of dollars (tax-free) in compensation (approx. $2 million - $7 million for each death claim and $500 to $8.6 million for each of the personal injury claims). Collecting more money isn't going to bring their loved ones back or make them feel any better.

9/11 Victim Aid and Compensation Facts

Additionally, whose laws do we use? The US or SA? And how do we force another country to agree to be sued and follow our laws in OUR courts of law? It's a huge mess! After all the time, money and energy spent to make this a law, I really don't see how anyone will be able to take advantage of it. And it will most likely piss off our allies.

Saudis Could Pull Billions from US Economy and Hinder Access to Mideast Bases Following 9/11 Lawsuits

Congress is being very short-sighted and self-interested in this - They're making their individual jobs (votes) more important than our country's safety and economy.

Obama vetoed JASTA last week, saying it would erode the doctrine of sovereign immunity and expose the US to lawsuits around the world.

He argued the bill could lead to other governments acting “reciprocally” by allowing their own courts to exercise jurisdiction over the US, including over deadly US drone strikes.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told reporters in June that the US has the most to lose if JASTA is enacted.

no, but they could sue bush, obama, halliburton, Academi, blackwater, etc....

a reply to: Quauhtli

Quite.

I think it is important to note, that all damage done to non-combatant targets, either by the armed forces of the west, or by their allies, or by the bogeymen they paid to create, should be counted in any summation of the total effect to the nation of Iraq, of the War on Terror. Every death, every missing limb, every lost eye, every single depleted uranium related illness, every last scratch, scrape, graze and blemish, upon both land and flesh, should be accounted for.

I think what Obama is scared of, would be all the countries he has used drones to drop bombs on.

Remeber the 2012 election, the White House said, Obama oks every drone strike. Obama says who's to die and what's getting blown up.

Here's the funny part to me

Republicans use a national lens to say it's ok.
Democrats use a combination of Obama a democrat, so him bombing people is ok and Obama is black, it would be racist to say anything against him

It's another example of how PC kills people

originally posted by: dashen
no, but they could sue bush, obama, halliburton, Academi, blackwater, etc....

I don't know why they would sue Obama for something that happened before he was even elected, but I totally think Bush and Cheney could and should be held accountable.

I'm going with NO. Countries shouldn't be able to "sue" eachother at all. Lawyers have done a fine enough job screwing up the law within nations- can you imagine what they'd do with international lawsuits?
Just another step towards a one world "government" run by lawyers and politicians. Cringe.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yes!
So Congress knocks it out of the park.. Against the Presidents very real concerns.. Concerns that I agree with for the most part.. It's in the how's and why's that this bill will get implemented that is interesting to me..

Another thing I'm wondering is if this thing takes off and more definitions and terms are clarified on the WORLD stage, how would it effect the U.N.? Is it possible that it could bolster the U.N.'s power over nations and provide a new platform for the U.N. to work from.

a reply to: Quauhtli

I read somewhere also after US and their allies killed Gaddafi, Libya lost about 100billion of dollars worth of money and most likely allot of gold to, then there was Iraq whom lost nearly as much money like 800billions of dollars worth, after they killed Saddam and Iraqs death count were something like over million civilians death.

After they killed their leaders and destroyed their cities and towns, so many civilians lost their families and homes, how ever they could pay that back? What i have read further, these places are terrorist hot-spots now, like Libya and Iraq were training and recruit center for attack in Syria.

This dude Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari tells these things in quite detail and gives allot food for tough.
www.youtube.com...

He goes in more info about Saudis part and their deeds, i think it is very important to many westerns to learn these stuff, to understand the situation better.

a reply to: Quauhtli

Yes of-course as should so many countless other nations (from Vietnam to Chile) who have been attacked or had their governments overthrown via a CIA coup.

Many US leaders and Presidents should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

a reply to: jjkenobi

If someone destroys my house and builds me a shed, I don't call that rebuilding.

a reply to: Quauhtli

Fair is fair. Why not? And the Germans, the Japanese, The Mexicans, the French, the Vietnamese...even the North Koreans.

should the people of "insert country destroyed by the U.S. in the past nearly 3 decades" be able to sue the U.S.?

originally posted by: DAVID64
Obama has not and does not care one bit about America getting sued and as far as I'm concerned, this was only passed, so a bunch of politicians can look good on election day. Many seats are up this year and they can tell the voters "Hey! Look how patriotic I am" "Vote for me!".
Even if people win their suits, they have a snowball's chance of actually collecting.

Actually, they would have an excellent chance of collecting if the case were properly handled. As the lawyer for the Iraqi plaintiff, I would file suit in the Iraqi court, obtain a Commision from that court to serve the Ambassador, then after service immediately file a motion to refer to arbitration. When I won the billion dollar award in arbitration, after celebration I would then file suit in washington D.C. to enforce the arbitration award. Since the US has not entered into any treaties regarding the enforcement of foreign court judgments, collecting that way is problemmatic. but the US is a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards[, collecting that way is a piece of cake. As someone who practiced international law for years, in my opinion the new law is going to be a nightmare.In fact, it might be worthwhile to unretire, learn Farsi, and open an office in the green zone in Baghdad. It wouldn't be as dangerous as practicing law in Clay County, KY, and would be a lot more lucrative. The new law could be called "the International Lawyers' Full employment Act."