Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DesideriScuri -> Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 5:39:53 PM)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-approves-sept-11-legislation-despite-saudi-threats-163139605--politics.html

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

    Summary
      Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

      This bill amends the federal judicial code to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity by authorizing U.S. courts to hear cases involving claims against a foreign state for injuries, death, or damages that occur inside the United States as a result of a tort, including an act of terrorism, committed anywhere by a foreign state or official.

      It amends the federal criminal code to permit civil claims against a foreign state or official for injuries, death, or damages from an act of international terrorism. Additionally, the bill authorizes federal courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over and impose liability on a person who commits, or aids, abets, or conspires to commit, an act of international terrorism against a U.S. national.


How fucking ironic, eh? Something tells me Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. can claim US military actions in those countries were/are terrorism and put the US Government on trial for those actions. It's obvious that the government was behind a vast majority of the military's actions, so the US taxpayers are going to be liable, right?

Since the bill passed unanimously in the Senate, this is bipartisan bullshit.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 5:59:47 PM)

Interesting how the US, which opposes the ICC as an infringement of national sovereignty, is now wanting to have it's courts infringe on the sovereignty of other nations.



Termyn8or -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 6:22:25 PM)

And what does that tell you about the US government ?

T^T



sloguy02246 -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 6:33:54 PM)

Just more of the usual jingoistic bullshit we have come to expect from those trained dogs in DC any time there's an opportunity to wrap themselves in the flag and remind us of how patriotic they are - oh, and don't forget to vote for them so they can continue to defend our freedom by passing crap like this.



Termyn8or -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 6:46:06 PM)

What freedom ? Our lws are more oppresive than half of the countries in the world. If they find out a farmer is selling milk they go in with a SWAT team as if it was a meth lab, handcuff everyone and while you lay on the floor face down they ransack your house, take your computers and guns and any money they can find. I shit you not.

And defending us ? EVERY fucking attack on this country has been successful since WW1. Pearl Harbor and 911. But they claim to have stopped a few over the years after taking ALL of out privacy away, but those were entrapment when they found some mixed up kids and goaded them into doing it. Once the idiot they snared pushed the button to a fake bomb that they gave him and told him was real, he is counted as a stopped terrorist attack. They didn't stop the bombing of the Boston Marathon either. With all the snooping they have done since 2001, they though that pressure cookers were normal where they were ?

The couldn't defend us if they wanted to, and they do not want to. The worse shit gets the more their department can justify their budget. They pretty much get paid not to solve problems and they are doing a damngood job of it.

They can go fuck themselves.

T^T



MrRodgers -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 9:00:23 PM)

Well we don't live in a democratic, constitutional republic anymore. I am telling you and have been, that the US is on that slow march to the 4TH Reich. In fact Trump could be just the tool and demagogue to be turned, play ball and...just their guy.



tj444 -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 9:48:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Interesting how the US, which opposes the ICC as an infringement of national sovereignty, is now wanting to have it's courts infringe on the sovereignty of other nations.


Just wait and see if Trump is elected, he will show the world what "America first" really means.. [8|]



Dvr22999874 -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/17/2016 10:48:13 PM)

There is a Harry Turtledove book called 'Joe Steel' that you may find well worth reading. Fiction ? Sure. Scary ? Could well be,



MrRodgers -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 2:58:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Interesting how the US, which opposes the ICC as an infringement of national sovereignty, is now wanting to have it's courts infringe on the sovereignty of other nations.


Just wait and see if Trump is elected, he will show the world what "America first" really means.. [8|]

To use your word 'first' shall we count the areas Trump won't need to act on ?

First in.....

*war
*debt
*borrowing
*military spending
*unfunded liabilities
*% of imprisoned people
*per capita medical spending
*medical bankruptcies
*inequality of financial outcomes
*shortest life expectancy of the richest 17 industrialized countries




tweakabelle -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 3:12:43 AM)

I wonder whether this legislation will have the effect of enabling people like Rachel Corrie's family and the families of other US citizens killed by Israel the possibility of suing Israel in the US courts.



WhoreMods -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 4:44:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I wonder whether this legislation will have the effect of enabling people like Rachel Corrie's family and the families of other US citizens killed by Israel the possibility of suing Israel in the US courts.

Or the families of those who were blown up during the Troubles to sue Noraid and its stooges in the Senate?



Lucylastic -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 6:07:03 AM)

Hah



WhoreMods -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 6:17:52 AM)

Unlikely given that they had Powell, Cheney and both Bushes making excuses for them, yes.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 4:10:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I wonder whether this legislation will have the effect of enabling people like Rachel Corrie's family and the families of other US citizens killed by Israel the possibility of suing Israel in the US courts.


I was going to answer "No," but upon further reading, it seems, maybe they can.

Persons can only sue for acts of "international terrorism" if they occur within the US. If that was the entirety of the Act, her family would not be allowed to sue, as the act 1) might not qualify as international terrorism, and/or 2) didn't occur within the US.

However, the second circumstance might fit:
    quote:

    “(b) Responsibility Of Foreign States.—A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any case in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for physical injury to person or property or death occurring in the United States and caused by—

      “(1) an act of international terrorism in the United States; and

      “(2) a tortious act or acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, regardless where the tortious act or acts of the foreign state occurred.


If the bulldozer action qualifies as a tort, then it could open Israel up for litigation.

On the flip side of that, the family might not be able to sue because the Act specifically excludes "acts of war." The definition of "acts of war" are at the same link as "international terrorism" above.
    quote:

    (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
      (A) declared war;
      (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
      (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;


So, it's a definite maybe.



Termyn8or -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 7:36:26 PM)

They do not consider Palestine a country, so a declaration of war is impossible. I know the US tried it with "terrorism" but that is different.

It always is ain't it ?

T^T



BamaD -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 7:38:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well we don't live in a democratic, constitutional republic anymore. I am telling you and have been, that the US is on that slow march to the 4TH Reich. In fact Trump could be just the tool and demagogue to be turned, play ball and...just their guy.

And Hillary is more likely to be the instrument of our distruction.



Termyn8or -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/18/2016 7:38:36 PM)

"If the bulldozer action qualifies as a tort, then it could open Israel up for litigation. "

In this country, if you run over someone on a tricycle it is tort. And possibly aggravated vehicular assault. And once convicted of the crime, civil damages are easy to get.

T^T



thishereboi -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/19/2016 3:09:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

I wonder whether this legislation will have the effect of enabling people like Rachel Corrie's family and the families of other US citizens killed by Israel the possibility of suing Israel in the US courts.



It wasn't an act of terrorism and it wasn't in the US so I doubt it.



tweakabelle -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/19/2016 6:57:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

If the bulldozer action qualifies as a tort, then it could open Israel up for litigation.

On the flip side of that, the family might not be able to sue because the Act specifically excludes "acts of war." The definition of "acts of war" are at the same link as "international terrorism" above.
    quote:

    (4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
      (A) declared war;
      (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
      (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;


So, it's a definite maybe.


Thanks for going to the trouble of looking up the legislation.

If it comes down to whether the Rachel Corrie killing was an "act of war", her murder doesn't seem to me to fall within any of the definitions of an "act of war" quoted. The official IDF position is that the driver of the bulldozer was unaware of her presence and didn't see her as he drove his bulldozer over her. Leaving aside the tenuous merits of that defence legally, that position would seem to me to exclude all the conditions necessary for the "act of war" provisions to prevail. However I'm not a lawyer (thankfully!) and so can't say definitively one way or the other.

There have been several other incidents where US citizens have been killed by the IDF. One was shot on the Mari Marmara, which was attacked on the high seas by the IDF and nine people executed. As this happened in international waters, and, in the view of most independent lawyers whose advice I have seen, was of extremely dubious legality, it may be that the case against Israel here is even stronger than the Corrie execution.

Anyway it would be interesting to see it all tested legally and establishing whether this legislation is really serious about attacking State sponsors of terrorism, or is merely yet another case of Arab bashing, set up by AIPAC and its 'friends' in Congress.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (5/19/2016 2:10:22 PM)

]ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
They do not consider Palestine a country, so a declaration of war is impossible. I know the US tried it with "terrorism" but that is different.
It always is ain't it ?
T^T[/quote]

No Declaration of War is necessary, and it could fit within definition (c)....



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125