|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Obama: ‘If we let Americans sue Saudis for 9/11, foreigners will begin suing US... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Yeah, something is completely wrong doing that.
When you do something, it's completely legal; then they change the laws and then it's illegal. Then a person who did legal things go to prison for doing something completely legal at the time they did it. Years ago. Marcellus: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.' Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
"Tis a unweeded garden that grows to seed."
Mitch, (the turtle) McConnell is one of the biggest asshats in the senate. It will take several gigs of data space to contain all the baffoonary he has been responsible for since his tenure. Then we have this bit from Paul Ryan concerning the Senates buyers remorse: quote: So let me get this straight Senator Ryan, you are basically saying you want to have your cake and eat it too? Bahhahhwaahwwaaaa! The senate has to eat crow now??? How hilarious."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, something is completely wrong doing that. When you do something, it's completely legal; then they change the laws and then it's illegal. Then a person who did legal things go to prison for doing something completely legal at the time they did it. Years ago. Marcellus: 'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.' Regarding this law in particular, what is the thing that used to be legal that it now makes illegal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Can a country like the US make retrospective laws to be enforced today? It was never legal to conspire to fly planes into buildings. What is at stake here is attaching civil liability to a loss of life/property and extending jurisdiction where it may not have existed previously. Not really an ex post facto thing. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Why pass those laws now if they don't change anything from before?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The laws allow actions that were not allowed in the past. It was not illegal to sue sovereign nations, it was simply not possible, there was no process or procedure to do that. The new law created a process to sue sovereign nations.
Truly stupid move.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Why pass those laws now if they don't change anything from before? I don't understand your response. In my post I mentioned two things that were changed by the law; jurisdiction and the attachment of a civil cause of action to something that was already illegal. So the law changes things. What the law does not do is make anything that was legal a new crime. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
My response was:
Why pass those laws now if they don't change anything from before? 1. They pass laws now where civilian action can now be taken against the Governments allegedly involved in actions 15 years ago. 2. Before these laws were passed, civilian action could not be taken. 3. Now they can. 15 years later. Those are retrospective laws. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You mean "retroactive", not "retrospective".
The ban on retroactive law is to stop the criminal prosecution, criminal not civil, of someone whose action was not criminal at the time of commission. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act is strictly a civil action, not criminal, and does not meet the legal definition of "retroactive law" as practiced the US.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
The laws allow actions that were not allowed in the past. It was not illegal to sue sovereign nations, it was simply not possible, there was no process or procedure to do that. The new law created a process to sue sovereign nations. Truly stupid move. I find it very hard to believe that there was no possibility to ever sue a sovereign nation in the US prior to this law. The right to sue a sovereign state is usually more limited than a private person, but they typically do not have total carte blanche immunity. The idea of the law was either to clarify the limits of state immunity or to further limit it, depending on your point of view. In most European jurisdictions sovereign states are expressly not immune from lawsuits arising due to acts or omissions which cause death or injury, or damage to property. However, there's usually a caveat that the culpable act, and not just the injury or death, has to have occurred on the territory of the state in which the lawsuit is taking place; so this wouldn't help sue the Saudi government for something they did overseas which led to injury and death in the US (assuming US legislation is at all similar).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
caffeine writes:
quote: Sovereign immunity is complex. Within the US, the federal government cannot be sued unless it consents to it such as under the Federal Tort Claims Act. And even then, it has been limited: The Feres doctrine limits the reach of the Federal Tort Claims Act with respect to the military. That is, a Servicemember cannot sue the government for injuries sustained during military service. But even that has exceptions: If a civilian would have been injured if they were in the same position, then there is a claim. That's why the Soldiers cannot sue the government for the lack of armored vehicles when we invaded Iraq. With regard to international law, sovereign immunity means countries can't sue each other except in very specific circumstances such as by entering into a contract. This new law adds an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 which expressly disallows foreign countries from being sued in the US. It was invoked in 2008 when people tried to sue Saudi Arabia for the terrorist attacks. It's also been invoked regarding the sex abuse scandals of the Catholic Church. So to your question: Yes, it was impossible to sue a sovereign nation in the US. Both US and international law prohibit it. Until now for this reason. And if we can do it on our end, what's to prevent Japan from suing us for the atomic bomb? Or Iraq for our invasion?Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Until now for this reason. And if we can do it on our end, what's to prevent Japan from suing us for the atomic bomb? Or Iraq for our invasion? Or individual Germans suing the current US Government for blowing their homes into smitherines in some suburb of Darmstadt. 74 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Like I said, this could finally be the solution to the US's traditional lack of providing foreign aid.
The solution though is really simple, the Congress need only add an "I'm rubber, you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" clause to the bill.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1024 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
So to your question: Yes, it was impossible to sue a sovereign nation in the US. Both US and international law prohibit it. What I know of US law is gleaned from TV, but it is clearly not the case that international law prohibits suing a sovereign nation, since it is permitted everywhere in Europe, as I pointed out in the last post, and it happens. The European Convention on State Immunity, the draft UN convention on the same and the UK State Immunity Act all contain a very similar list of exceptions to State Immunity - amongst which is injury or death to persons or property damage. A quick glance at the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act reveals that it also contains an almost identical list of exceptions. Foreign states are not immune from lawsuits in the US when:
quote: Note that the US law, unlike the European convention, does not require that the actionable act was committed on US soil, so it seems clear that US law already permitted the Saudi government to be sued if they were, indeed, liable for 9/11.
Until now for this reason. And if we can do it on our end, what's to prevent Japan from suing us for the atomic bomb? Or Iraq for our invasion? That question has been addressed following a series of lawsuits in Italy and Greece against the German state for activities committed during World War II. The International Court of Justice ruling on the case decided that actions committed by an armed force during wartime are clearly a separate case, or warfare would not be possible. I'll leave it to you to decide if that would be a good thing or not. Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024