Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/28/senate-obama-veto-september-11-bill-saudi-arabia
How exactly would this work anyway, how do you 'sue' an entire country?
Suing Saudi Arabia
- Thread starter Mr Fish
- Start date
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/28/senate-obama-veto-september-11-bill-saudi-arabia
How exactly would this work anyway, how do you 'sue' an entire country?
mithrap
Ring a ding-ding, baby
Oh, I did read that President Obama issued a veto just yesterday, I didn't know it could be overturned by the Senate (I'm not American).
When it comes to sue a country, I don't know exactly how it happens, but I know it's possible. In 1995, a guy named Stephen Flatow successfully sued Iran because they financed the terrorist group responsible for the killing of his daughter (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/12/nyregion/judgment-for-terrorism-is-248-million.html)
Apparently, it was a judge from the United States District Court who used the "Antiterrorism Act of 1996", which apparently allows American citizens to sue foreign governments for criminal acts committed outside the United States. However, the country has to be in a list of countries who officially sponsor terrorism, and apparently, the list was made of seven entities in 1996. Saudi Arabia was maybe added to the list since then, I don't know.
Fun story though, he asked for 250 millions, but Iran didn't pay up, so he kept investigating and found out that there was a skyscraper at the 5th avenue that paid rent to Iranian landlords, even though there was a blocus on them. Weird, right? Turns out, a bank disguised the flowing money between the rent and the landlords, and Stephen Flatow denounced them to the government. The bank, which was from my country (France), had to pay 9 billion dollars. Long story short: Do not fuck with grieving fathers who happen to be lawyers.
When it comes to sue a country, I don't know exactly how it happens, but I know it's possible. In 1995, a guy named Stephen Flatow successfully sued Iran because they financed the terrorist group responsible for the killing of his daughter (http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/12/nyregion/judgment-for-terrorism-is-248-million.html)
Apparently, it was a judge from the United States District Court who used the "Antiterrorism Act of 1996", which apparently allows American citizens to sue foreign governments for criminal acts committed outside the United States. However, the country has to be in a list of countries who officially sponsor terrorism, and apparently, the list was made of seven entities in 1996. Saudi Arabia was maybe added to the list since then, I don't know.
Fun story though, he asked for 250 millions, but Iran didn't pay up, so he kept investigating and found out that there was a skyscraper at the 5th avenue that paid rent to Iranian landlords, even though there was a blocus on them. Weird, right? Turns out, a bank disguised the flowing money between the rent and the landlords, and Stephen Flatow denounced them to the government. The bank, which was from my country (France), had to pay 9 billion dollars. Long story short: Do not fuck with grieving fathers who happen to be lawyers.
Last edited:
Suing "an entire country" doesn't mean you knock on 20 million doors, serving every citizen. You sue the current gvt there. It is then taken to court. If the court finds no responsability IN that current gvt, then the suit failed.
I'm more curious of - what governing body will have the sovereignty to overlook the lawsuit? Will it be under the UN or Hague?
I'm more curious of - what governing body will have the sovereignty to overlook the lawsuit? Will it be under the UN or Hague?
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent though? I mean, this would allow other countries to go ahead and sue USA for shit too, right? And I mean, let's say 9/11 victims/families sue them, what if they simply go "nah", what are they supposed to do then? Force them? How? And relations with the middle east is pretty shit as it is, won't this just stir up the pot even more?
Like, drone strikes have killed a lot of innocent people. Does that mean that the victims of such strikes should be allowed to sue USA? What if the US went "nah"? Would this allow western countries to bully around other countries' governments or would it be fair play for anyone?
Like, drone strikes have killed a lot of innocent people. Does that mean that the victims of such strikes should be allowed to sue USA? What if the US went "nah"? Would this allow western countries to bully around other countries' governments or would it be fair play for anyone?
Well, in some cultures (cough, American) suing is pretty common, and a precedent has allready been set, at least to some degree, such as famously suing coffee shops for their coffee being too hot (lampooned by Seinfeld, but setting a reality where we see a lot of weird/obvious warnings, like "coffee is very hot!")
Pakistani people could go ahead and sue the American gvt or the CIA or whomever they want, for for example drone strikes. They bring their lawyers, and CIA brings theirs. It'd probably cost a shit ton, the villagers would lose, and they would now be in debt.
Lawsuits against countries happen from time to time, I think the Norwegian gvt was sued by Canadian native-Americans, because of natural resource exploitation, or something like that, don't quote me on it, but it happens. Usually they'll just lose...
mithrap
Ring a ding-ding, baby
A bit out of the subject from me, but the infamous "too hot coffee" is actually a legit one. It gave the girl (Stella Liebeck, apparently) third degree burns over 6% of her body, which required skin grafts. And she actually only asked for 20K, which MacDonalds refused, and only then things got bigger (around 600K if I remember correctly, before medical bills etc.)
I know it's a real case, which was my point - by successfully suing a company for something that trivial, other companies had to safeguard themselves by putting up warnings. If you adequately warn someone beforehand, you have taken your share of the responsability, and you're less likely to end up having to pay for someone else's stupid mistake, "Boiling water is boiling, do not pour onto crotch"
Yeah, I've been corrected about it before, in that the coffee-case in particular was less than trivial - my point is that America has a sue-culture, where many other countries do not. A Norwegian wouldn't think to sue, simply because it's not something they'd typically do. If you suggested it, it would puzzle them, as in "what, could I really do that?" - it is litterally unfathomable - as suggesting to perform some otherwordly magic trick
But Americans are much more accustomed to suing. Sometimes it's too much, other times it forces a company to react where otherwise it wouldn't care (like you say, McDonalds knew their coffee was scalding hot for 10 years)
Incidentally, my grandmother always insists to the waitor the coffee be still boiling, so, if I were to argue about it, I'd say it's still the responsability of the customer not to pour coffee on themselves (even if it was accidental)
At least now the franchise adequately warns customers of the temperature of the coffee..
But Americans are much more accustomed to suing. Sometimes it's too much, other times it forces a company to react where otherwise it wouldn't care (like you say, McDonalds knew their coffee was scalding hot for 10 years)
Incidentally, my grandmother always insists to the waitor the coffee be still boiling, so, if I were to argue about it, I'd say it's still the responsability of the customer not to pour coffee on themselves (even if it was accidental)
At least now the franchise adequately warns customers of the temperature of the coffee..
Companies sue governments all the fucking time. Nothing novell about the idea. It's a reason why we Europs are so much against TTIP and CETA, as it basically fucks us right in the ass, companies would be allowed to sue governments, for example, over changes in laws that lowered their estimated margin or something. Similar cases happend already in South America with corrupt governments and US investors and companies who lost a lot of money, due to changes in pollution controll which forced certain mining companies to well ... stop poisoning groundwater with some really nasty shit that actually killed people. Sometimes I think, we really live in a strange time ... maybe the practise of tarring and feathering for shitty and sleezy business men should be implemented again? And the pillory for corrupt politicans if we are at it.