This is incorrect. If an agent of the US government is sued individually their
qualified immunity would protect them from having to pay and liability even if
the plaintiff wins the case. This is why school teachers and cops who get sued
individually don't have to pay unless their actions are not within the scope of
their job. Also see my previous message in response to Alice about the
additional obstacle of executive privilege for Bush and Cheney. The supreme
court would have to clear that hurdle before any lawsuits against them could
move forward.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:59 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to Avalanche of
Lawsuits
If they were sued as individuals, then the individuals would pay. However, the
Ssaudi government has threatened that it would withdraw its investments in our
government if families were allowed to sue its citizens. That is one of the
reasons that Obama is going to veto the bill.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman Humel
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:53 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to Avalanche of
Lawsuits
Ah, but would those individuals be sued, or would the government coffers end up
paying the gazillions of dollars in damages? Would Cheney's personal fortune be
confiscated, or would it be your tax dollars and mine that would be siphoned
off to pay the damages?
On Sep 13, 2016, at 10:34 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
But, as the article pointed out, it might open the door to our war
criminals
being sued, you know, Bush and Cheney, for example. And that would force
some kind of reckoning. What about all those CIA people who tortured
others?
What about Obama's assassinations of people who might possibly be
terrorists
someday, but just happened to be out in the fields when the drones
stuck?
What about the fact that our government officials are responsible for
killing people in lands where we are not at war? Shouldn't someone hold
them
accountable?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:15 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to
Avalanche
of Lawsuits
OK, I can understand your feeling, I guess, but who do you think would
suffer from such lawsuits? I can guarantee you it will be us and not the
so-called ruling class of the super rich.
On Sep 13, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Well, personally, I think that it's fine if the US gets sued for
everything
he lists.
Miriam
Published on
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
by
The Boston Globe
9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to Avalanche of Lawsuits
by
Stephen Kinzer
Anti-drone demonstrators march in 2013. (Photo: Debra
Sweet/flickr/cc)
Last week, as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached,
members of
Congress gathered on the Capitol steps to pray, followed by a
rendition of
"God Bless America." Then, evidently energized, they went inside and
passed
a bill that would allow relatives of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi
Arabia for
its apparent support of the attackers. President Obama is likely to
veto it.
Emotion could lead Congress to override his veto. That would have a
shattering effect on American and global politics.
Americans love to sue. Our society is one of the world's most
litigious. We
have come to believe that almost anything can be adjudicated in
court. That
is lamentable at home, but applying the principle of tort liability
to
foreign policy is far more threatening. It opens the United States
to an
avalanche of lawsuits from victims of our actions around the world.
"First in line to sue the United States would be relatives of
Iraqis,
Afghans, Yemenis, and others who have been killed by American drone
attacks."
One sponsor of the newly passed bill, Representative Jerrold Nadler
of New
York, has dismissed this possibility. No one could sue the United
States for
damages, he reasoned, because "the United States does not engage in
international terrorist activity." He may honestly believe that, but
judges
in other countries might disagree.
First in line to sue the United States would be relatives of Iraqis,
Afghans, Yemenis, and others who have been killed by American drone
attacks.
In Pakistan alone, by one count, these attacks have killed 160
children.
Parents of every one of them would have a case in court. Victims of
"extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation methods" might
also be
able to persuade judges that their ordeals were the product of state
terrorism directed from Washington.
From there, the list is almost endless. Every country where US
intervention
has produced bloody results would become fertile ground for
lawsuits.
Guatemalans could sue for our long support of regimes in their
country that
carried out murder on a grand scale. So could families of
Salvadorans,
Chileans, Brazilians, and others who were tortured and killed by
US-trained
military units. Indonesians could claim that the hundreds of
thousands of
people slaughtered in 1965 were victims of a policy set in motion by
the
United States. A Cambodian or Laotian or Vietnamese who has lived
without
limbs as a result of American bombing, or been deformed by napalm or
Agent
Orange, would have a good case. Survivors of Mexicans killed by drug
dealers
using weapons bought in Arizona could claim that weak American gun
laws are
to blame, and demand compensation. Iran could sue the United States
for its
cyberattacks on Iranian computer systems. How about Brazil suing
because a
member of our Olympic team, Ryan Lochte, harmfully defamed Brazil by
fabricating stories about being attacked by police there?
This circus would run in both directions. If Americans can sue Saudi
Arabia
because its government supports terror groups, they can also sue
Pakistan.
Since the 9/11 attacks were directed from Afghanistan, it could also
be on
the target list. An American judge might even find Germany guilty of
negligence for failing to monitor the attackers while they were
living in
Hamburg.
"The fact that a foreign government may have aided and abetted
terrorism is
infuriating to the families if justice is not done," Senator Chuck
Schumer
of New York said last week. He is correct. Americans have a right to
be
furious with some foreign governments. People in other countries
have an
equal right to be furious with the United States. We best address
that fury
not with lawsuits, but by changing the way we approach the world.
C 2016 The Boston Globe
Stephen Kinzer
Stephen Kinzer is a former New York Times reporter and the author of
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
(2006) and
Reset Middle East: Old Friends and New Alliances: Saudi Arabia,
Israel,
Turkey,Iran (2011). www.stephenkinzer.com
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Defeating Dakota Access
. Into the Anthropocene
. Bernie Sanders
. Hillary Clinton
. Jill Stein
. Donald Trump
9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to Avalanche of Lawsuits
Published on
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
by The Boston Globe
9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to Avalanche of Lawsuits
by
Stephen Kinzer
. 5 Comments
.
. Anti-drone demonstrators march in 2013. (Photo: Debra
Sweet/flickr/cc)
. Last week, as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approached,
members of Congress gathered on the Capitol steps to pray, followed
by a
rendition of "God Bless America." Then, evidently energized, they
went
inside and passed a bill that would allow relatives of 9/11 victims
to sue
Saudi Arabia for its apparent support of the attackers. President
Obama is
likely to veto it. Emotion could lead Congress to override his veto.
That
would have a shattering effect on American and global politics.
. Americans love to sue. Our society is one of the world's most
litigious. We have come to believe that almost anything can be
adjudicated
in court. That is lamentable at home, but applying the principle of
tort
liability to foreign policy is far more threatening. It opens the
United
States to an avalanche of lawsuits from victims of our actions
around the
world.
. "First in line to sue the United States would be relatives of
Iraqis, Afghans, Yemenis, and others who have been killed by
American drone
attacks."
. One sponsor of the newly passed bill, Representative Jerrold
Nadler
of New York, has dismissed this possibility. No one could sue the
United
States for damages, he reasoned, because "the United States does not
engage
in international terrorist activity." He may honestly believe that,
but
judges in other countries might disagree.
First in line to sue the United States would be relatives of Iraqis,
Afghans, Yemenis, and others who have been killed by American drone
attacks.
In Pakistan alone, by one count, these attacks have killed 160
children.
Parents of every one of them would have a case in court. Victims of
"extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation methods" might
also be
able to persuade judges that their ordeals were the product of state
terrorism directed from Washington.
From there, the list is almost endless. Every country where US
intervention
has produced bloody results would become fertile ground for
lawsuits.
Guatemalans could sue for our long support of regimes in their
country that
carried out murder on a grand scale. So could families of
Salvadorans,
Chileans, Brazilians, and others who were tortured and killed by
US-trained
military units. Indonesians could claim that the hundreds of
thousands of
people slaughtered in 1965 were victims of a policy set in motion by
the
United States. A Cambodian or Laotian or Vietnamese who has lived
without
limbs as a result of American bombing, or been deformed by napalm or
Agent
Orange, would have a good case. Survivors of Mexicans killed by drug
dealers
using weapons bought in Arizona could claim that weak American gun
laws are
to blame, and demand compensation. Iran could sue the United States
for its
cyberattacks on Iranian computer systems. How about Brazil suing
because a
member of our Olympic team, Ryan Lochte, harmfully defamed Brazil by
fabricating stories about being attacked by police there?
This circus would run in both directions. If Americans can sue Saudi
Arabia
because its government supports terror groups, they can also sue
Pakistan.
Since the 9/11 attacks were directed from Afghanistan, it could also
be on
the target list. An American judge might even find Germany guilty of
negligence for failing to monitor the attackers while they were
living in
Hamburg.
"The fact that a foreign government may have aided and abetted
terrorism is
infuriating to the families if justice is not done," Senator Chuck
Schumer
of New York said last week. He is correct. Americans have a right to
be
furious with some foreign governments. People in other countries
have an
equal right to be furious with the United States. We best address
that fury
not with lawsuits, but by changing the way we approach the world.
C 2016 The Boston Globe
/author/stephen-kinzer
/author/stephen-kinzer/author/stephen-kinzer
Stephen Kinzer is a former New York Times reporter and the author of
Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq
(2006) and
Reset Middle East: Old Friends and New Alliances: Saudi Arabia,
Israel,
Turkey,Iran (2011). www.stephenkinzer.com
