The Goat Pen

He went to UK. This might take awhile.

If the Saudi's were involved, then we've had a cover up since 9/11 - I remember Michael Moore making a big issue of it a few years ago

WTF has sovereign immunity got to do with officials in a country plotting a terrorist attack against us?

maybe the bill has some legitimate issues but Obama doing this is the kind of thing that outrages Americans - and Bush should be held accountable for looking the other way too

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The White House on Monday signaled President Obama would veto legislation to allow Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role officials played in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“Given the long list of concerns I have expressed ... it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

Earnest argued the legislation could jeopardize U.S. citizens overseas if other countries were to pass reciprocal laws that remove foreign immunity in their courts.

“It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.

“The whole notion of sovereign immunity is at stake.”

The legislation drew widespread attention after Saudi officials reportedly informed the Obama administration that they would sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if the bill became law, a threat that carries widespread economic consequences if the Saudis follow through.

Earnest appeared to strongly caution the Saudi government against taking such a step.

“A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States,” he said.

The fierce debate over the legislation has bubbled up at a precarious time for Obama, who is set to land in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday to meet with King Salman.

Earnest said he is not sure if Obama will raise the issue during a meeting in which the leaders are expected to discuss the Iran nuclear agreement and the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

"If this issue were to come up ... the potential consequences of rolling back this core principle of international law is how the president would explain our position to his counterparts," he said.

The nuclear agreement has already strained relations between Washington and Riyadh, and the 9/11 legislation could raise tensions even higher.

Saudi officials have for years denied their government had any role in the plotting of the attacks. The 9/11 Commission report said the Saudi government “as an institution” or its senior officials individually did not fund the attackers.

But there has long been speculation that lower-level officials may have been involved. And victims' families and lawmakers in both parties have pressed for the release of 28 pages of a 2002 report on the attacks that reportedly detail Saudi officials’ role in the plot.

Bush 43 and Cheney would be restricted to about 4 foreign countries they could safely visit if this legislation was enacted and foreign governments followed suit. Shit, any sitting president from 43 forward would be staring at possible legal issues with foreign governments considering what we do with drones and the like. Obama was protecting nearly every US political figure from the year 2000 forward by pushing back on this.

I'm not a fan of slippery slope arguments, but I think this one has some legs.

Thousands have died in relation to Saudi money financing terrorist attacks on Americans.

I think it would ring hollow to the families of 9/11 and dead service men to talk about how world leaders might be held accountable for their actions if we seek justice in some form against an Arab "ally".

These guys aren't thinking about the families of 9/11 victims. They (rightly or wrongly) are thinking about the past, current and future leadership of the country, go-forward relations with sovereign entities and (essentially) the US real estate and financial markets.

It appears they look at this issue much broader than just the families that want justice for all conspirators in 9/11.

Bklyn wrote:These guys aren't thinking about the families of 9/11 victims. They (rightly or wrongly) are thinking about the past, current and future leadership of the country, go-forward relations with sovereign entities and (essentially) the US real estate and financial markets.

It appears they look at this issue much broader than just the families that want justice for all conspirators in 9/11.

I would say that isn't broader, its narrow - its self interest.

if Saudi has marginal success in stopping its lower tier politicians and influence peddlers from financing terrorism, what is to stop it from doing so in the future? Divesting 750 billion in assets in a firesale would be a great motivator.

eCat wrote: if Saudi has marginal success in stopping its lower tier politicians and influence peddlers from financing terrorism, what is to stop it from doing so in the future? Divesting 750 billion in assets in a firesale would be a great motivator.

I'm sorry. I'm seriously slow today (my brother had his big fat jewish wedding this weekend and I'm still not back in a working mind). Explain this sentence, before I craft a response. I'm not sure if I'm reading it right.

Bklyn wrote:

eCat wrote: if Saudi has marginal success in stopping its lower tier politicians and influence peddlers from financing terrorism, what is to stop it from doing so in the future? Divesting 750 billion in assets in a firesale would be a great motivator.

I'm sorry. I'm seriously slow today (my brother had his big fat jewish wedding this weekend and I'm still not back in a working mind). Explain this sentence, before I craft a response. I'm not sure if I'm reading it right.

the whole issue here is the 28 page report that supposedly blames terrorist financing - at least in part for 9/11 on the Saudi's lower and mid tier politicians. I have assumed that the bi-partisan bill that Obama is threatening to veto is based on the information floating around that places financing from Saudi and could potentially hold them responsible in a civil suit or other claims - which is prompting Saudi to threaten to liquidate assets in an effort to protect themselves from litigation.

The threat of future litigation might serve as a deterrent to the Saudi's to look the other way when wealthy families in their kingdom have anti-American sympathies - and that in turn could save American lives.

I don't see how that litigation threat stops a lower level figure from financing terrorism. Any litigation proceeds would not be collected unless the assets were controlled by a US entity (bank, most likely). A lower tier government employee, to the extent he is enriched, would not have holdings in US entities. So, no monies could be recouped from that party. There would be no financial benefit to the families for the action. Plus, there would be no incentivization for the Sauds to work any more than they already are to curb the funding. The biggest impact, in my opinion, that would come from this is a shock to the equity markets, a drop in the real estate markets (particularly in the Tier 1 commercial markets) and more volatility in the overall capital markets...with no real benefit besides good headlines and maybe an expose that a associate director in the ministry of finance, and/or nat res, and/or planning helped funnel cash to Al Quaeda.

You'd get some good ass reporting from 60 Minutes and an excellent deep dive in NYT or The Atlantic. Other than that, I think we would all lose more and feel it more broadly across the US than anything in Saudi Arabia.

That's just the economic effects. The political ramifications would also be problematic, as far as future military resources in the Kingdom having to relocate. The tit-for-tat litigation risk for heads of state and other government officials that I mentioned before are real risks. It's a headache I can see clearly...and I'm sure I'm not thinking of everything.

Bklyn wrote:I don't see how that litigation threat stops a lower level figure from financing terrorism. Any litigation proceeds would not be collected unless the assets were controlled by a US entity (bank, most likely). A lower tier government employee, to the extent he is enriched, would not have holdings in US entities. So, no monies could be recouped from that party. There would be no financial benefit to the families for the action. Plus, there would be no incentivization for the Sauds to work any more than they already are to curb the funding. The biggest impact, in my opinion, that would come from this is a shock to the equity markets, a drop in the real estate markets (particularly in the Tier 1 commercial markets) and more volatility in the overall capital markets...with no real benefit besides good headlines and maybe an expose that a associate director in the ministry of finance, and/or nat res, and/or planning helped funnel cash to Al Quaeda.

You'd get some good ass reporting from 60 Minutes and an excellent deep dive in NYT or The Atlantic. Other than that, I think we would all lose more and feel it more broadly across the US than anything in Saudi Arabia.

That's just the economic effects. The political ramifications would also be problematic, as far as future military resources in the Kingdom having to relocate. The tit-for-tat litigation risk for heads of state and other government officials that I mentioned before are real risks. It's a headache I can see clearly...and I'm sure I'm not thinking of everything.

But in the bigger picture he represent the kingdom of Saudi Arabia therefore Saudi Assets could be seized or however international court allows for Saudi to be sued - so a terrorist act funded by a Saudi representative could be potentially very costly to them - which I would think would have them engaged to stay on top of whatever is happening.

Kinda like a Mosque paying attention to the quiet loner types who suddenly become zealots of the Koran if it means their assets are confiscated. I'm not saying that should happen - just saying if it did they'd be alot more viligant about terrorist recruiting going on under their nose.

...and you're willing to roll the dice on that, guaranteeing (most likely) a military expulsion from Saudi Arabia, 3/4 Trillion dollars in investment pulled from the economy and the possibility of having the US government and former President(s) liable for war crimes when they kill civilians at a cafe in Jalalabad during a drone strike?

When I weigh the risk/reward of it, it's an easy call for me. I hear your point, but I'd make the "veto" call every day, all day.

Saudi Arabia don't play by our rules. Suing them is meaningless. Who is going to make them pay?

They have plenty of assets here...

and that is why they would pull them before the first ruling was made. At that point, huge real estate developments in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles would be sold off. Half of these Greenwich and Stamford, CT Maserati drivers would see their assets under management drop precipitously overnight. Citibank would have an anchor tied to their stock price. And, again, that's just me going off the top of my head about what I know they own.

There would be no trace of Saudi money in any institution or real asset outside of private equity funds (which are locked up, so maybe distributions could be seized before sent to Riyadh...but I don't know of a precedent for that) in the US. It would be a foolish endeavor, with real economic shocks and not a single thing of value going to the families of the 9/11 victims other than "the whole truth" which could be (and will be, if anybody cares to watch whatever YouTube documentary is in circulation at any given moment) provided outside of some fool's errand litigation.

so it makes more sense to keep them incentivized to fund terrorists?

Turn it all into glass.

Not if they're frozen...

Personally, I think the bill is a well intentioned idea, but it is a fucking horrible idea.

Bklyn wrote:and that is why they would pull them before the first ruling was made. At that point, huge real estate developments in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles would be sold off. Half of these Greenwich and Stamford, CT Maserati drivers would see their assets under management drop precipitously overnight. Citibank would have an anchor tied to their stock price. And, again, that's just me going off the top of my head about what I know they own.

There would be no trace of Saudi money in any institution or real asset outside of private equity funds (which are locked up, so maybe distributions could be seized before sent to Riyadh...but I don't know of a precedent for that) in the US. It would be a foolish endeavor, with real economic shocks and not a single thing of value going to the families of the 9/11 victims other than "the whole truth" which could be (and will be, if anybody cares to watch whatever YouTube documentary is in circulation at any given moment) provided outside of some fool's errand litigation.

eCat wrote:so it makes more sense to keep them incentivized to fund terrorists?

Pretty much. Look, just face it, we murder thousands of people around the world every year. Always have. Our whole country is based on mass genocide. Nobody wipes out people better than we do, except maybe the Romans. And hell, in a very real sense, we are the Romans, certainly their direct descendants. I think alot of this 9/11 handwringing is just jealousy that somebody else made a bigger splash over some major ass-kicking than we've managed to accomplish in awhile. But plenty of people, both government and business, have done very well for a long time in terms of expanded power and profits (and will continue to) b/c of 9/11. Never will admit it, not in those terms, but there it is. Shit happens. We still rule the world for the most part. You just gotta take your hits and move on. All this ass hurt over 9/11, esp. 15 years after the fact, is unseemly. It just encourages future attacks when you keep letting them know how much the last one bothered you. Never let em see you sweat. Yeah, even after something like 9/11. Fuck, especially after something like 9/11. Obviously way too late for that now, but jesus, bringing up some cockamamie legislation now? Like Apollo Creed's manager told him about wanting a rematch with Rocky: Let it go. LET IT GOOOOOOO.....

I wish life's manager would tell you to let it go...

the sooner the better I always say