Saudi Threatens ‘Dire Implications’ Over U.S. Law Allowing 9/11 Victims to Sue

I find this such a strange decision.

I'd be suing the US government if I could, they had a lot to do with the rise of Islamic terrorism/anti-west sentiments, and congress allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia seems like the ultimate distraction method. I'd love to see both nations sued by those who have been made victims in the power play for control of the global economy.

Allowing people to sue the 'bad guys' in the narrative (Saudi Arabia) placates citizens so they don't start looking at their own government's failures, and if hardcore patriots realise their government uses them as pawns then all hell will break loose.

It will be interesting, that's for sure.

originally posted by: seagull
Perhaps so, but a message has been sent. Probably useless, but one never knows. Some smart young lawyer could, indeed, dig something up--they do that sometimes.

They could dig up the Lindberg baby but all the Secretary of State has to do is issue a 'temporary' injunction on the lawsuit and the status quo is protected.

What they should be doing is getting on he Saudis case over their support of terrorists in Syria and ISIS.

15 years after the mass murder is only a sop from cheap bigoted politicians, it isn’t going to do a thing to bring out anything about 911 because that road is closed down by the very murderers from America who did it.

What are they gonna do? Fly planes into the twin towers and pentagon or spread Islamic extremism throughout the world? Oh wait! They already did that!

I don't KNOW what they're COMPLAINING about they offered all US forces participating in "Desert Shield" 30,000 each (15 million).
I think they don't like getting slapped for their Wahabist,mess.

a reply to: intrepid

The funds would be deducted from assets on US soil.

The saudis dont really want to push this issue. neither does OPEC. Its not like we cant use our own oil and make their lives a living hell. We pull out of the ME except for Israel and make their country a fortress. then stop Shipping from entering the gulf as well as aircraft. Till the Saudis see their error of their ways and cave in.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

well the assetts they own in American ..we can just freeze those companies monies since they are in our country. Good luck drawing the cash out then you saudi pricks LOL!

a reply to: yuppa

That's how they WOULD usually do it.

originally posted by: marg6043
This no been passed yet, is no going to happen, still we need to understand that Saudi Arabia along with many of their rich fellow nations pay billions of dollars to keep sending refugees to other nations but their own, even when the refugees are their won people.

What that tells, this is a political gesture from the congressman's in the nation that will end up going nowhere just a show.

I don't know what alternative reality newspaper you read but the law passed the Senate in May and the House in September. It was then vetoed by the Pres and now that veto has been overridden by both the Senate and House, so it is now the law. And it's going to be a nightmare.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: seagull
Perhaps so, but a message has been sent. Probably useless, but one never knows. Some smart young lawyer could, indeed, dig something up--they do that sometimes.

They could dig up the Lindberg baby but all the Secretary of State has to do is issue a 'temporary' injunction on the lawsuit and the status quo is protected.

The Secretary of State can't issue a temporary injunction. Only a Court of competent jurisdiction can do so, after notice, a hearing, and the posting of a cash bond sufficient to cover all losses. Take a look at FRCP 65.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That's quite likely the case, unfortunately. But exposure by that same smart young lawyer, young being the operative word, too young to realize just how dangerous those waters will be..., could maybe lead to changes in our relationship with the Kingdom--to hoped for anyway.

I know that the odds of this happening are long in the extreme.

Let's face it, everything is about money these days. Who is going to make money off of this?

originally posted by: F4guy
The Secretary of State can't issue a temporary injunction. Only a Court of competent jurisdiction can do so, after notice, a hearing, and the posting of a cash bond sufficient to cover all losses. Take a look at FRCP 65.

Sorry, the Attorney General can issue a temporary stay, the Secretary of State can have the entire lawsuit prolonged indefinitely:

SEC. 5. Stay of actions pending state negotiations.

(a) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act.
(b) Intervention.—The Attorney General may intervene in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, for the purpose of seeking a stay of the civil action, in whole or in part.
(c) Stay.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A court of the United States may stay a proceeding against a foreign state if the Secretary of State certifies that the United States is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.
(2) DURATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A stay under this section may be granted for not more than 180 days.
(B) EXTENSION.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may petition the court for an extension of the stay for additional 180-day periods.
(ii) RECERTIFICATION.—A court shall grant an extension under clause (i) if the Secretary of State recertifies that the United States remains engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.

a reply to: intrepid

Nobody is going to make money because this is nothing but a prank played on the families of the victims, the Saudis are not going to acknowledge a US law sue in their country, I will like to see the smart lawyers traveling to Saudi to settle the sues.

originally posted by: seagull
That's quite likely the case, unfortunately. But exposure by that same smart young lawyer, young being the operative word, too young to realize just how dangerous those waters will be..., could maybe lead to changes in our relationship with the Kingdom--to hoped for anyway.

I know that the odds of this happening are long in the extreme.

They could very well do that but the Federal Government can halt the lawsuit if they so desire as I posted above.

I will love to see the government of our nation going after Citibank and other financial groups, I guess people forgot that they are protected, hell we even gave them our tax dollars when they went needed to be bailout.

Financial institutions will never be held accountable at all.

Personal wealth, I am sure that the rich Saud family keep their money in the Emirates banks and this is just supposing that they will be found guilty of any wrong doing.

Nothing will happen.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: F4guy
The Secretary of State can't issue a temporary injunction. Only a Court of competent jurisdiction can do so, after notice, a hearing, and the posting of a cash bond sufficient to cover all losses. Take a look at FRCP 65.

Sorry, the Attorney General can issue a temporary stay, the Secretary of State can have the entire lawsuit prolonged indefinitely:

SEC. 5. Stay of actions pending state negotiations.

(a) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act.
(b) Intervention.—The Attorney General may intervene in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, for the purpose of seeking a stay of the civil action, in whole or in part.
(c) Stay.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A court of the United States may stay a proceeding against a foreign state if the Secretary of State certifies that the United States is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.
(2) DURATION.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A stay under this section may be granted for not more than 180 days.
(B) EXTENSION.—
(i) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may petition the court for an extension of the stay for additional 180-day periods.
(ii) RECERTIFICATION.—A court shall grant an extension under clause (i) if the Secretary of State recertifies that the United States remains engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.

That is not a temporary injunction and anyway, that section has been superceded by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

originally posted by: jimmyx
the only reason this got so many votes in congress to overturn Obama's veto, was because a lot of the voters in these congressmen's district are...well...stupid. they think that somehow if you bring a lawsuit against a country or a foreigner, they will pay up if they "lose the case"...are we now suppose to invade a country if they do not pay up?....the only thing people are going to get out of this is a big middle finger.....how naïve......and let's not forget, the multitudes of lawsuits that could be charged against America the country, and American individuals alike.....

the congressmen know however, if they voted this down, their constituents might kick them out of office for not being sympathetic to 9/11 victims.....conclusion?.....ignorant, naïve people.

If that is all true as you say, then why is SA so mad about it?...

I am glad this was passed.

The saudis can eat ass and die

I hope we go to war with them.

Enemy allies.