Law allows citizens to sue Saudi's.....How this effect 911 investigation?

Discussion in '9/11' started by 911Defender, Oct 31, 2016.

  1. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Obama vetoed the bill for obvious reasons.....but, will it open a door to a new investigation if claims go to court?

    From........ABC news:
    American interests around the world could face serious damage as a result of a new law that empowers U.S. citizens to sue any country with a role in terrorism committed on American soil, legal experts say.
    The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) gives families and survivors of the September 11 attacks an avenue to pursue justice in American courts against Saudi Arabia, for what they believe is its connection to the terrorist attack.
    Legal experts told ABC News that JASTA, which Congress passed today over President Barack Obama’s veto, opens the U.S. to lawsuits in foreign courts brought by other countries’ citizens, threatens American interests abroad and risks rupturing diplomatic relations.
    What Does the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act Do?

    The law allows U.S. citizens to sue any country they allege acted in a way connected to terror acts committed in the U.S. JASTA does this by removing a legal barrier known as sovereign immunity, an ancient legal doctrine that evolved over time to shield foreign countries from being answerable in another country’s courts.
    JASTA was born after families of 9/11 victims intensely lobbied for the right to sue the Saudi government. But its effect is much broader and could result in U.S. citizen-led lawsuits against any country, said Curtis Bradley, a law professor at Duke University who co-directs the school’s Center for International and Comparative Law.

    "It doesn’t require that the foreign country did anything in the United States, it’s not limited to just nations known to normally be associated with terrorism,” Bradley said. “Potentially any nation could be sued.”
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The short answer is NO. The first lawsuit since JASTA was enacted was filed.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/478193-first-9-11-lawsuit-vs-saudis.html

    The federal complaint cites the 9/11 Commission Report for the most part in support. That opens up nothing about the OCT except that it may inevitably lead to the question of why the Bush White House covered up for the Saudis for 14 years by classifying those 28 pages. Of note, there are also over 80,000 pages of classified documents from their PENTBOM investigation related to the Saudi financing that the FBI has been hiding for years and were mandated to release to a judge via judicial order.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-000-secret-files-on-the-saudis-and-9-11.html

    The US government relies heavily on the OCT to maintain its perpetual war agenda and keep fattening the coffers of the MIC (Military Industrial Complex). What that means is that it will use everything at its disposal to keep the OCT myth intact. Not one 9/11 lawsuit by any family member to my knowledge reached the discovery phase of the legal process. Virtually all of them were either dismissed or settled.
     
  3. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,615
    Likes Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In this case, the Obama veto was appropriate. How this will square with the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act remains to be seen.

    If it allows widespread discovery processes, something new might show up regarding 911, but I doubt they will let that get too far out of control.
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The veto was an unconstitutional act just as is the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. Any government that conspires against the United States is an enemy and the Constitution requires the US government (all its actors via the Oath of Office) to protect this nation against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Anything short of that is treason, as defined by Article III Section 3:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html
     
  5. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "

    What if, one of the families do not agree to "just settle". Would it not be in the interest of Truthfor911.org to support anyone who is willing or has filed suit to go as far as needed to expose the OCT?
     
  6. 911Defender

    911Defender New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2016
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My understanding is that Obama's law degree is in Constitutional law. How would he not know that. And why was that not challenged by anyone on those grounds? It seems to me that Republicans spend all their time attempting to discredit the man, rather than negotiate with him.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lawsuits are costly affairs. For an unrelated entity that has an interest in a lawsuit, support would require either providing expert witness testimony and/or filing amicus curiae brief(s). In the case I provided the link to, the complaint relies heavily on the 9/11 Commission Report, which is rejected by most entities that reject the OCT. So in that particular case, it would be contrary to their beliefs to support that lawsuit. Support would have to be provided only for lawsuits that do not support the OCT. So far there is no such lawsuit to my knowledge.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether that's true or not, there are many, many examples of Obama operating outside the Constitution so it's obvious to me that Obama's alleged background is irrelevant.

    The entire US government (all 3 branches) operates outside the Constitution when necessary to its agenda and within the Constitution when it's convenient to its agenda. Don't expect legitimate constitutional challenges from any branch.
     
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,615
    Likes Received:
    2,330
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not being a lawyer, my guess would be that the purpose of the FSIA did not envision events such as 911. Rather it meant to protect against lawsuits for "innocent" actions.

    I have mixed emotions about this simply because IMO Saudi's role was certainly minimal. Guilty to some degree, but nothing compared to Israel's guilt.
     
  10. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    3,645
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'm having trouble understanding how the Saudis became so influential in American politics to the point of attempting to or actually buying presidential influence. I know money talks but weren't they Saudis like the ME version of the Beverly Hillbillies? Abdhullah was out shootin' at some food and up through the ground came a bubblin' crude. But how did they get so politically savvy in such a short time?
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,165
    Likes Received:
    1,118
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's possible it had rational intent, however if it applies to enemy governments as well, it is clearly unconstitutional. From my understanding, it makes no distinction.

    If you're a little bit guilty, you're guilty. There is nothing innocent about complicity to murder thousands and destroy property.
     

Share This Page