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

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Several outside economists are skeptical that the Saudis will follow through, saying that such a sell-off would be difficult to execute and would end up crippling the kingdom’s economy. But the threat is another sign of the escalating tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/16/w...allout-if-congress-passes-9-11-bill.html?_r=0
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Gee, one regime threatening another regime with economic sanctions if they don't do as they're told. In the private world I think that's called blackmail. I wonder where they got such a dastardly idea? :rolleyes
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
This is probably a stupid question, but what good would it do to hold Saudia Arabia responsible for 9/11 in our courts? What does that even mean?
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Not a stupid question, at all.

I'd think that, 60 years ago, it would be followed by a declaration of war. Today? Probably battalions of lawyers. It opens the door for any number of court cases, civil and criminal.



Here's another. Saudi Arabia sells off these "assets,"

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.
so what? Flippantly phrased, but a serious question. How big a threat is that, really?
 
Last edited:

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle
Absolute Sage
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
25,582
Reaction score
3,785
Location
New Hampshire
Website
madhousemanor.wordpress.com
so what? Flippantly phrased, but a serious question. How big a threat is that, really?

In the great scheme of things, selling assets isn't making the assets go away; it's just changing their owners.

It's about 4.5% of the US gross domestic product. Selling it means that the Saudis wouldn't own it any more (someone else would). But it would mean that the US couldn't freeze those assets, so whatever assets the Saudis had (in or from other countries) could still be used by the Saudis.

On the other hand, it's equivalent to 99.7% of the Saudi's gross domestic product, which they would be selling, presumably at fire-sale prices. They'd take a far bigger hit than we would.

What it means, though, is that the USA would no longer have a particular hammer with which to pound on Saudi Arabia. And, if somehow the "9/11 bill" passes and trials do take place, and judgments are rendered, and sustained, good luck on collecting them.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
I'm still unclear on what this means. I don't understand how our courts have any power against a foreign government. Is it for US citizens to be able to sue the Saudi government? Because I thought we can't even sue our own government unless the y agree to be sued. I feel very dense on this. In this context what would "holding them responsible" do for anyone?
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
clinton crams

bolding mine, because it's both fun and funny.
Although the bill made the front page of Saturday's New York Times and has been in the news for weeks, this morning on "This Week," Clinton told George Stephanopoulos she was not familiar with the details and would not take a position.

"I don't really know about that, George. I'll have to look into it," she said, when asked her position. "Obviously we've got to make anyone who participates in or supports terrorism pay a price. And we also have to be aware of any consequences that might affect Americans, either military or civilian or our nation."

When pressed further, Clinton explained she couldn't take a position because, "I haven’t studied it."

"Unlike some people, I actually do try to learn what’s at the core of any question before I offer an opinion, 'cause you know, it's not enough to say what's wrong. I think you've got a responsibility to say how you’re going to fix it," she said.

Following this interview, Merrill released the following statement on Twitter, saying Clinton backs the bill:

"Hillary Clinton supports the efforts by Senator Schumer and his colleagues in the Senate to secure the ability of 9/11 families and other victims of terrorist acts to hold accountable those responsible. As president she would work with Congress to this end."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-support-chuck-schumers-911-bill/story?id=38464146


hillary: super-quick study or merely super-quick at repositioning?
 

CassandraW

Banned
Flounced
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
24,012
Reaction score
6,476
Location
.
double-speak is easy when you have two faces.

ETA:

Trump sucks. (Just throwing that in there for balance.)
 
Last edited:

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
bolding mine, because it's both fun and funny.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-support-chuck-schumers-911-bill/story?id=38464146


hillary: super-quick study or merely super-quick at repositioning?

Well, if some version of this bill has been around since 2011 (!), then Clinton may have reviewed older versions already over the past five years and just needed a 'quick skim' for this one. I hear she's pretty smart.

http://votesmart.org/public-stateme...in-sponsoring-911-terror-attacks#.VxPOrTArJf0

ETA: I am being silly, BTW. This clearly does seem manipulative, like her handlers are handling it.
 
Last edited:

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Well, if some version of this bill has been around since 2011 (!), then Clinton may have reviewed older versions already over the past five years and just needed a 'quick skim' for this one. I hear she's pretty smart.

http://votesmart.org/public-stateme...in-sponsoring-911-terror-attacks#.VxPOrTArJf0

ETA: I am being silly, BTW. This clearly does seem manipulative, like her handlers are handling it.
I'm glad you put on that ETA. For just a moment it sounded like you had finally seen the light, and I was worried.
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
I'm glad you put on that ETA. For just a moment it sounded like you had finally seen the light, and I was worried.

:roll:

Actually, what I initially said is plausible. She IS very smart. And I've read she's one of the most hardworking politicians as far as being informed, routinely staying up late reading so she's sharp and ready for meetings in the morning. However, I doubt her first priority was to run and read the bill, then Tweet. Though perhaps she was told it's sort of a big deal in the NY Times now and she'd better comment on it.

Ack, now I don't know what I think!
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
double-speak is easy when you have two faces.

ETA:

Trump sucks. (Just throwing that in there for balance.)

Well, if some version of this bill has been around since 2011 (!), then Clinton may have reviewed older versions already over the past five years and just needed a 'quick skim' for this one. I hear she's pretty smart.

http://votesmart.org/public-stateme...in-sponsoring-911-terror-attacks#.VxPOrTArJf0

ETA: I am being silly, BTW. This clearly does seem manipulative, like her handlers are handling it.

In Hillary's defense, she had a full document on it, from back when she was SOS, but it was emailed to her and she deleted it.
 

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian
Staff member
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
16,940
Reaction score
5,324
Location
Near the gargoyles
Website
www.alessandrakelley.com
This is probably a stupid question, but what good would it do to hold Saudia Arabia responsible for 9/11 in our courts? What does that even mean?

Almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi citizens, which might surprise the people W. bush's crew riled up into enough rage against uninvolved Iraq to go to war with it -- a futile quagmire still grinding on.

I am no expert on the area, but I had the impression the Saudi government, which is hardly enlightened or beloved of its people, is in the habit of buying peace by allowing religious fundamentalists free reign and by pointing their acolytes *away* from the ruling caste.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,984
Reaction score
6,937
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
Almost all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi citizens, which might surprise the people W. bush's crew riled up into enough rage against uninvolved Iraq to go to war with it -- a futile quagmire still grinding on.

I am no expert on the area, but I had the impression the Saudi government, which is hardly enlightened or beloved of its people, is in the habit of buying peace by allowing religious fundamentalists free reign and by pointing their acolytes *away* from the ruling caste.

No, I do understand that. I'm just not clear how "finding them responsible" in our courts does anything more than symbolic. So if this would go through, if my spouse or child had died in the 9/11 attacks, I could do what? Go down to the courthouse and sue who? Who is going to show up to give evidence? It's not that I don't understand how people all over the world, not just its own citizens, could be upset with the Saudi government for all sorts of things, but finding them legally responsible for terrorist attacks seems a little like a whole lotta paper tantrum. I'm obviously missing something. It kind of feels like finding influenza legally responsible for why I feel like shit.
 
Last edited:

Haggis

Evil, undead Chihuahua
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
56,228
Reaction score
18,311
Location
A dark, evil place.
There are allegedly 28 pages redacted from the 9/11 Commission Report dealing with SA's involvement. It's been kept secret (supposedly) for the interests of energy and military and politics. Where there's smoke?

...there's a conspiracy theory?
 

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,114
Reaction score
8,867
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
[h=1]Obama to Veto Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia[/h] Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — The White House said on Monday that President Obama would veto legislation approved by Congress that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, escalating a bipartisan dispute with lawmakers over the measure.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Obama “does intend to veto this legislation,” and would work to persuade lawmakers in both parties to change course. If he cannot, the measure could lead to the first veto override of his presidency, as the legislation drew the backing of lopsided majorities in both the House and Senate.

“The president feels quite strongly about this,” Mr. Earnest said of the legislation, which Mr. Obama has said could dangerously undermine the United States’ interests globally, opening the country to a raft of lawsuits by private citizens overseas.

“The concept of sovereign immunity is one that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world,” Mr. Earnest said, referring to the rationale behind a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members, or even U.S. companies, into courts around the world.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/us/politics/obama-veto-saudi-arabia-9-11.html?_r=0
 

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 8, 2010
Messages
15,903
Reaction score
4,652
Location
In a house
Website
vincentmorrone.com
No, I do understand that. I'm just not clear how "finding them responsible" in our courts does anything more than symbolic. So if this would go through, if my spouse or child had died in the 9/11 attacks, I could do what? Go down to the courthouse and sue who? Who is going to show up to give evidence? It's not that I don't understand how people all over the world, not just its own citizens, could be upset with the Saudi government for all sorts of things, but finding them legally responsible for terrorist attacks seems a little like a whole lotta paper tantrum. I'm obviously missing something. It kind of feels like finding influenza legally responsible for why I feel like shit.

Isn't there a world court? I believe there was a lawsuit against Libya for example.

Plus, the families involved, if they feel Saudi Arabia is in any way complicit in what happened, may want the truth to come out if nothing else.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Sovereign immunity is the most blatantly un-egalitarian idea ever foisted on the citizenry by the political class, yet for some strange reason :)rolleyes) it enjoys tremendous and widespread support among the people, most notably with those members of the political class that most actively beat their chests about equality.

Chances Obama won't veto this to protect that concept? One in ten trillion. The willingness of a majority of both houses of congress to support this legislation simply shows how few of the currently-elected regime are capable of critical thinking, proof that given enough rope a few hundred politicians could actually manage to hang themselves and everyone like them.

Personally, I hope they can override his veto if he does so. I think the legal implications would be wonderful.
 
Last edited: