• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sept. 11 Widow Sues Saudi Arabia Following Congress Override

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,943
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=1]Sept. 11 Widow Sues Saudi Arabia Following Congress Override[/h]
DeSimone, who is suing for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress, is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The case is DeSimone v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 16-cv-1944, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (Washington).
Click to expand...


and if Saudi Arabia loses, can she make them pay?
 
it was a useless campaign stunt. if we thought SA attacked us back then, it should have been addressed back then. actually, it should have been addressed after the first embargo by replacing oil. this new policy will result in nothing other than lawsuits against the US.

if we really want to punish SA for producing most of the hijackers, the answer is the same as it was in the 1970s : replace the oil based transportation energy model, and then export the technology. then pull out of the region and let them handle their own problems.
 
Helix said:
it was a useless campaign stunt. if we thought SA attacked us back then, it should have been addressed back then. actually, it should have been addressed after the first embargo by replacing oil. this new policy will result in nothing other than lawsuits against the US.

if we really want to punish SA for producing most of the hijackers, the answer is the same as it was in the 1970s : replace the oil based transportation energy model, and then export the technology. then pull out of the region and let them handle their own problems.
Click to expand...
or produce our own oil in conjunction with the Canadians and Russians and subsidize it the same as the Saudis
 
EMNofSeattle said:
or produce our own oil in conjunction with the Canadians and Russians and subsidize it the same as the Saudis
Click to expand...

still leaves oil, which is a fungible commodity, in place as the primary transportation energy source. that means that we still have to deal with Saudi Arabia. replacing their major export with new technology would be a lot more effective than suing them, wouldn't you agree?
 
Helix said:
still leaves oil, which is a fungible commodity, in place as the primary transportation energy source. that means that we still have to deal with Saudi Arabia. replacing their major export with new technology would be a lot more effective than suing them, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

If a practical replacement that could be implemented in less then 30 years existed maybe. I am unaware of any technology at easy as good as oil that can be adopted fast enough
 
Helix said:
still leaves oil, which is a fungible commodity, in place as the primary transportation energy source. that means that we still have to deal with Saudi Arabia. replacing their major export with new technology would be a lot more effective than suing them, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...


As far as suing them, this is America where lawyers are the solution and where we idolize victimhood, once someone is a victim they are entitled to our county's unwavering support in any venture. Obama had a temporary lapse in judgement by forgetting this and vetoing
 
EMNofSeattle said:
If a practical replacement that could be implemented in less then 30 years existed maybe. I am unaware of any technology at easy as good as oil that can be adopted fast enough
Click to expand...

i'd announce a 30 year moonshot, and then fund it like the original moonshot. it would take a while, but a public announcement that a superpower was making replacing its oil based transportation energy model a top priority would do pretty bad things to oil futures.
 
MaggieD said:
As I understand it, the courts can attach their assets here in the United States which is why Saudi Arabia is threatening to liquidate the billions in investments they hold here.

Good, you may say...until you find that the billions are held in U.S. gvmt debt.
Click to expand...

China liquidated $600 billion of US Treasuries in the last yaer. I don't think SA owns that amount of Trieauries. The World pretended not to notice because if the USDollar crashes, it takes the rest of the World's Central with it, not because it is sound money.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
As far as suing them, this is America where lawyers are the solution and where we idolize victimhood, once someone is a victim they are entitled to our county's unwavering support in any venture. Obama had a temporary lapse in judgement by forgetting this and vetoing
Click to expand...

edit / missed the sarcasm. i hope.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
If a practical replacement that could be implemented in less then 30 years existed maybe. I am unaware of any technology at easy as good as oil that can be adopted fast enough
Click to expand...

Solar and wind can replace Petro. The USA has been controlled by Big Energy Corporations for a hundred years. Why do you think Saudi Arabia is one of our Goombahs? Amortize the true cost of environmental damage into the costs and liabilities of our current Petro policies and Renewables are reasonable and can save the Planet.
 
Helix said:
i'd announce a 30 year moonshot, and then fund it like the original moonshot. it would take a while, but a public announcement that a superpower was making replacing its oil based transportation energy model a top priority would do pretty bad things to oil futures.
Click to expand...

And destroy the retirement portfolios of a third of Americans in the process, you don't want to crash oil futures, imagine the monthly 401(k) plan notices going out saying everyone invested in oil companies (which is most people, especially those who choose conservative funds to invest for retirement at "low risk" ) just lost a third of their retirement you'd have a freaking revolution in the streets.

So in addition to the moonshot we'd have to prop up oil stocks by subsidy
 
_Sal said:
and does it mean countries can sue the States for damage done to them
Click to expand...

No it doesnt

Specifically, it authorizes federal court jurisdiction over a civil claim against a foreign state for physical injury to a person or property or death that occurs inside the United States as a result of: (1) an act of international terrorism, and (2) a tort committed anywhere by an official, agent, or employee of a foreign state acting within the scope of employment.

International terrorism does not include an act of war. Federal court jurisdiction does not extend to a tort claim based on an omission or an act that is merely negligent.
Click to expand...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040

It only gives US citizens the right to sue foreign countries, for acts committed on US soil and only in acts of international terrorism not acts of war
 
EMNofSeattle said:
And destroy the retirement portfolios of a third of Americans in the process, you don't want to crash oil futures, imagine the monthly 401(k) plan notices going out saying everyone invested in oil companies (which is most people, especially those who choose conservative funds to invest for retirement at "low risk" ) just lost a third of their retirement you'd have a freaking revolution in the streets.
Click to expand...

it's going to happen eventually anyway. what do you think will happen to your retirement if we're embroiled in a global struggle for a diminishing resource? i don't want my kids or grandkids fighting in that war because we were too shortsighted to see the inevitable coming and just crossed our fingers, hoping that the market would solve the problem before it became immensely profitable to do so. on the other hand, we could buckle down, replace the model, and then export the technology. that's what i support.

EMNofSeattle said:
So in addition to the moonshot we'd have to prop up oil stocks by subsidy
Click to expand...

no way. we make the moonshot a public / private partnership. if they want in on it, cool. if not, too bad. i truly doubt that we'll be using oil as a primary transportation fuel in one hundred years, so they need to save their own asses anyway. and if we are still using the same model in 2116, we're probably ****ed. imagine more countries with the population density of India, and everyone is driving Buicks. then think about what the pollution will be like.

it has to be something other than oil, and we need to be working at it as a top priority right now, profitable or not.
 
DaveFagan said:
Solar and wind can replace Petro. The USA has been controlled by Big Energy Corporations for a hundred years. Why do you think Saudi Arabia is one of our Goombahs? Amortize the true cost of environmental damage into the costs and liabilities of our current Petro policies and Renewables are reasonable and can save the Planet.
Click to expand...

Did you just say solar and wind can replace oil?
 
Crovax said:
No it doesnt



https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040

It only gives US citizens the right to sue foreign countries, for acts committed on US soil and only in acts of international terrorism not acts of war
Click to expand...

Again this question.

Why can't foreign governments sue the US right now if they wanted to?

Also what does this law say to give other countries the right to sue anybody?

This is a US law, it is not international.
 
Helix said:
it's going to happen eventually anyway. what do you think will happen to your retirement if we're embroiled in a global struggle for a diminishing resource? i don't want my kids or grandkids fighting in that war because we were too shortsighted to see the inevitable coming and just crossed our fingers, hoping that the market would solve the problem before it became immensely profitable to do so. on the other hand, we could buckle down, replace the model, and then export the technology. that's what i support.



no way. we make the moonshot a public / private partnership. if they want in on it, cool. if not, too bad. i truly doubt that we'll be using oil as a primary transportation fuel in one hundred years, so they need to save their own asses anyway. and if we are still using the same model in 2116, we're probably ****ed. imagine more countries with the population density of India, and everyone is driving Buicks. then think about what the pollution will be like.

it has to be something other than oil, and we need to be working at it as a top priority right now, profitable or not.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of oil regardless of the scare tactics you are using now. If I had a nickel for every oil deadline that's ever been imposed by Doomers I wouldn't need to work.

Long before we run out of oil it will simply become expensive and replacements / conservation will come organically, it already is really. Probably in a century oil will be out, we don't need to rush it, it is a plentiful resource, however f the govt wants to artificially end it they need to be willing to shoulder the burdens that will come with that. There's no way I agree to surrender my retirement with dignity so some egghead greenie can feel good about themselves. Ain't gonna happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom