preacherman76 Posted September 30, 2016 #26 Share Posted September 30, 2016 Lets not even get into the 28 pages he refused to release for years exposing SA involvement in 9/11. Then when forced to, blacked out a large % of it. He, along with Bush and B Clinton have been owned by SA this entire time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted September 30, 2016 #27 Share Posted September 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, preacherman76 said: Hu? He didn't have any problem allowing people to sue Iran. Where was the concern for our officials there? Really???? Oh my goodness, its scary what people ignore while defending that dirt bag. The man literally created ISIS to fight the Syrian government. Well he actually just changed al CIA das name. Then funded, trained, and supplied them with American weapons. How else can you explain his anger towards Russia for fighting them? How else can you explain why our own military told him they refused to be Al CIA da's air force? The man wont even use the words Islamic terror. So you don't think turning Libya from a ME country with the highest standard of living in the region, into a literal nightmare with Al CIA das flag flying over government buildings, and well over 50,000 dead, without even a declaration of war, isn't a crime against humanity? I suggest you examine the lawsuit that was settled with Iran so that you might better understand why it and this situation are entirely different. Furthermore, there are several topic threads other than this one discussing some of the issues you've touched upon, so rather than derail this discussion, perhaps you should express your viewpoints there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted September 30, 2016 #28 Share Posted September 30, 2016 9 minutes ago, Clair said: I suggest you examine the lawsuit that was settled with Iran so that you might better understand why it and this situation are entirely different. Furthermore, there are several topic threads other than this one discussing some of the issues you've touched upon, so rather than derail this discussion, perhaps you should express your viewpoints there. I agree, it was totally different. On one hand you have Iran that had nothing to do with 9/11. Then you have SA who clearly did. The first 0bama doesn't care about, the other he's owned by. Yea cant say I blame you for dodging the second part. It would take a world class lawyer to defend that, and even they would fail miserably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted September 30, 2016 #29 Share Posted September 30, 2016 if the lawsuit were to happen i would not expect Saudis act any differently than Russia acts about the Boeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted October 1, 2016 #30 Share Posted October 1, 2016 Sounds like Clair is right. They are going to have to rewrite it. Here's a link with Mitch McConnell's speech on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-now-blaming-obama-for-embarrassing-override-of-his-veto_us_57edacd1e4b082aad9ba8595?section&The I do find hilarious that he blamed Obama for the veto even though they wrote the law. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted October 1, 2016 #31 Share Posted October 1, 2016 34 minutes ago, Gromdor said: Sounds like Clair is right. They are going to have to rewrite it. Here's a link with Mitch McConnell's speech on it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-now-blaming-obama-for-embarrassing-override-of-his-veto_us_57edacd1e4b082aad9ba8595?section&The I do find hilarious that he blamed Obama for the veto even though they wrote the law. I find it hilarious as well.They need to also turn the blame inward, as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the consequences of such legislation. The following excerpt from The Huffington Post article you posted sums up the problem perfectly: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act allows victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue the kingdom for its alleged, but unproven, support of the hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Opponents had argued that the bill was caving in to conspiracy theorists and that it would raise the specter of other nations hauling the United States into court for things it actually does — such as killing civilians in drone strikes. The White House called the override the “single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done” in decades. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zenith Posted October 2, 2016 #32 Share Posted October 2, 2016 On 2016-09-29 at 6:41 AM, preacherman76 said: The SA royalty. Who funded this attack. SA was involved big time with 9/11. No one cared when they gave people permission to sue Iran over 9/11, as mind blowing as that is. You folks are just mad cause common sense took priority over 0bamas protection of criminals and terrorists, finally. There's no proof of SA involvement and until there is (IF there is) that lawsuit would be a total waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 2, 2016 #33 Share Posted October 2, 2016 33 minutes ago, Zenith said: There's no proof of SA involvement and until there is (IF there is) that lawsuit would be a total waste of time. There must be something there otherwise why target Saudi Arabia? Nice how as soon as the bill passed... Saudi Arabia and Russia dropped oil out put forcing the price up? On 1 October 2016 at 7:26 AM, aztek said: if the lawsuit were to happen i would not expect Saudis act any differently than Russia acts about the Boeing So basically the relatives of the Malaysian Flight shot over Ukraine, can sue Russia. Good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 2, 2016 #34 Share Posted October 2, 2016 53 minutes ago, Zenith said: There's no proof of SA involvement and until there is (IF there is) that lawsuit would be a total waste of time. I'd say even if there is no proof, let them go ahead. Whomever sues will obviously lose the case, and lose a lot of money to lawyers and expenses. That should set precedent for others not to move forward with the same suit without good evidence. Let Darwinian selection punish the stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 2, 2016 #35 Share Posted October 2, 2016 3 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said: So basically the relatives of the Malaysian Flight shot over Ukraine, can sue Russia. Good! no they do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 2, 2016 #36 Share Posted October 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, aztek said: no they do not. Why don't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 2, 2016 #37 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Probably because this is a US Law, not an international law..... Neither of the Ukraine, or Russia are subject to US Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted October 2, 2016 #38 Share Posted October 2, 2016 19 hours ago, Clair said: I find it hilarious as well.They need to also turn the blame inward, as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the consequences of such legislation. The following excerpt from The Huffington Post article you posted sums up the problem perfectly: They should be able to sue us for drone strikes. Maybe we'd think twice about our reckless foreign policy of undeclared illegal wars 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claire. Posted October 2, 2016 #39 Share Posted October 2, 2016 10 minutes ago, preacherman76 said: They should be able to sue us for drone strikes. Maybe we'd think twice about our reckless foreign policy of undeclared illegal wars Yeah like a few lawsuits will stop us from doing what we want to do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted October 2, 2016 #40 Share Posted October 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said: Why don't they? We can only make laws that involve Americans in some way. That is the reach of our sovereignty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted October 2, 2016 #41 Share Posted October 2, 2016 9 hours ago, Silver_Lyre said: Why don't they? because you totally missed my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preacherman76 Posted October 2, 2016 #42 Share Posted October 2, 2016 6 hours ago, Clair said: Yeah like a few lawsuits will stop us from doing what we want to do. True. It would be good if there was some legal recourse though. God knows our Justice system has failed the people of this world dramatically by letting our criminal government run free. Especially all those murdered for nothing in Libya, and well, all over the ME. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 2, 2016 #43 Share Posted October 2, 2016 7 hours ago, Gromdor said: We can only make laws that involve Americans in some way. That is the reach of our sovereignty. Not sure, but my understanding is that American courts can be empowered to hear the cases of foreign nationals and even countries. Besides if an American was aboard FLT 17 then an American court could hear the case and any judgement would surely set a precedent to be followered in other courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unusual Tournament Posted October 2, 2016 #44 Share Posted October 2, 2016 4 hours ago, aztek said: because you totally missed my point. How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted October 2, 2016 #45 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 hour ago, Silver_Lyre said: Not sure, but my understanding is that American courts can be empowered to hear the cases of foreign nationals and even countries. Besides if an American was aboard FLT 17 then an American court could hear the case and any judgement would surely set a precedent to be followered in other courts. Possibly. It would depend a lot on the wording of the law. Questions such as this is why they are going to rewrite it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted October 6, 2016 #46 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Looks like an Iraqi lobby group is pushing to lawsuit against the US for the 2003 invasion based off this law: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/04/iraqi-group-seeking-sue-u-s-wake-911-bill/ There are also fears that Vietnam or Vietnamese citizens could sue American Vietnam vets because of this law: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/298597-could-saudi-override-lead-to-vietnam-vets-being-sued 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted October 7, 2016 #47 Share Posted October 7, 2016 12 hours ago, Gromdor said: Looks like an Iraqi lobby group is pushing to lawsuit against the US for the 2003 invasion based off this law: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/10/04/iraqi-group-seeking-sue-u-s-wake-911-bill/ There are also fears that Vietnam or Vietnamese citizens could sue American Vietnam vets because of this law: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/298597-could-saudi-override-lead-to-vietnam-vets-being-sued I've read in the past that some Iraqi courts have found George Bush guilty of being a War Criminal, so this doesn't surprise me much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gromdor Posted October 7, 2016 #48 Share Posted October 7, 2016 Just now, DieChecker said: I've read in the past that some Iraqi courts have found George Bush guilty of being a War Criminal, so this doesn't surprise me much. Yeah, he's another one that this law (as it stands) will leave vulnerable to lawsuits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted October 7, 2016 #49 Share Posted October 7, 2016 This one is the hairy one, don't forget the UK Executive Summary of the IRaq Inquiry ... Quote The UK’s relationship with the US 359. The UK’s relationship with the US was a determining factor in the Government’s decisions over Iraq. 360. It was the US Administration which decided in late 2001 to make dealing with the problem of Saddam Hussein’s regime the second priority, after the ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan, in the “Global War on Terror”. In that period, the US Administration turned against a strategy of continued containment of Iraq, which it was pursuing before the 9/11 attacks. 361. This was not, initially, the view of the UK Government. Its stated view at that time was that containment had been broadly effective, and that it could be adapted in order to remain sustainable. Containment continued to be the declared policy of the UK throughout the first half of 2002. 362. The declared objectives of the UK and the US towards Iraq up to the time of the invasion differed. The US was explicitly seeking to achieve a change of regime; the UK to achieve the disarmament of Iraq, as required by UN Security Council resolutions. 363. Most crucially, the US Administration committed itself to a timetable for military action which did not align with, and eventually overrode, the timetable and processes for inspections in Iraq which had been set by the UN Security Council. The UK wanted UNMOVIC and the IAEA to have time to complete their work, and wanted the support of the Security Council, and of the international community more widely, before any further steps were taken. This option was foreclosed by the US decision. Chilcot Report Google pdf links ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now