Miriam, in civil law you could only hold the US taxpayers responsible. If you
wanted to hold any of those individuals accountable you would have to talk
about international war crimes court in the Hague. I don't see that happening
in our lifetime.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:34 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: 9/11 Saudi Arabia Bill Opens US to Avalanche of
Lawsuits
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
