• 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!

Terror Victims Win Supreme Court Judgment Against Iran

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
55,919
Reaction score
35,759
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a judgment allowing families of victims of the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and other terrorist attacks to collect nearly $2 billion in frozen Iranian funds.

The court on Wednesday ruled 6-2 in favor of more than 1,300 relatives of the 241 U.S. service members who died in the Beirut bombing and victims of other attacks that courts have linked to Iran.
Click to expand...
Thoughts are?
 
Good.

Did Iran have an attorney arguing otherwise?
 
JANFU said:
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Thoughts are?
Click to expand...

It begs the political question, why is the Obama Administration opposing a similar Congressional action regarding Saudi Arabia and 9/11 if he supported this action by Congress for the surviving families or Iranian terror?

From a legal standpoint, it sets a precedent that other countries can now use to seize assets of US citizens abroad for the purpose of recouping "victims" (although the US victims were in fact victims) of damages defined by another country of US foreign policy that those countries disagree with. We tend to forget from time to time that when we act unilaterally on an international stage that other countries have the sovereign power to do the same to us, leaving our citizens abroad at risk of reprisal.

All that said, I agree with the ruling.
 
What if the Japanese and the Cambodians decide to sue us?
 
PoS said:
What if the Japanese and the Cambodians decide to sue us?
Click to expand...

We'll nuke them....uh we'll refuse to comply.
 
PoS said:
What if the Japanese and the Cambodians decide to sue us?
Click to expand...

Then the Chinese, Koreans, etc sue the hell out of the Japanese.

If I recall the Cambodians were under the Khmer Rouge or at the least large chunks of the country where.

Not to mention both of those were wars, as opposed to the incidents in Beirut.
 
Beaudreaux said:
It begs the political question, why is the Obama Administration opposing a similar Congressional action regarding Saudi Arabia and 9/11 if he supported this action by Congress for the surviving families or Iranian terror?

From a legal standpoint, it sets a precedent that other countries can now use to seize assets of US citizens abroad for the purpose of recouping "victims" (although the US victims were in fact victims) of damages defined by another country of US foreign policy that those countries disagree with. We tend to forget from time to time that when we act unilaterally on an international stage that other countries have the sovereign power to do the same to us, leaving our citizens abroad at risk of reprisal.

All that said, I agree with the ruling.
Click to expand...

I think the answer is concern for what the economic consequences would be if Saudi Arabia makes good on their threat to dump $750 billion in assets and securities. Same reason why Republican leadership is killing the legislation that would allow it.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Then the Chinese, Koreans, etc sue the hell out of the Japanese.

.
Click to expand...
Pointless remark since the OP ruling was under a US court.
If I recall the Cambodians were under the Khmer Rouge or at the least large chunks of the country where.

Not to mention both of those were wars, as opposed to the incidents in Beirut
Click to expand...

Wrong. You need to read up on what Kissinger did. It is tantamount to a war crime.
 
PoS said:
Pointless remark since the OP ruling was under a US court.


Wrong. You need to read up on what Kissinger did. It is tantamount to a war crime.
Click to expand...

But if the Japanese sue the United States for the air raids and such---which, seeing as we were in a war, were completely justified---then the Chinese and Koreans are more than capable of suing the Japanese over their treatment of civilians.

Or hell, have the families of the POWS murdered by the Japanese sue them.

As for the Khmer Rouge, cry me a river. We should have bombed them even more than we did in the first place.
 
Tigerace117 said:
But if the Japanese sue the United States for the air raids and such---which, seeing as we were in a war, were completely justified---then the Chinese and Koreans are more than capable of suing the Japanese over their treatment of civilians.

Or hell, have the families of the POWS murdered by the Japanese sue them.

As for the Khmer Rouge, cry me a river. We should have bombed them even more than we did in the first place.
Click to expand...

Its clear you have no idea what youre talking about, which is pretty much the same with all your replies. We didnt bomb the Khmer Rouge, we bombed and caused the deaths of 100K civilians and started a war in Cambodia with no announcement whatsoever. Try reading up on the subject before you reply next time.
 
PoS said:
Its clear you have no idea what youre talking about, which is pretty much the same with all your replies. We didnt bomb the Khmer Rouge, we bombed and caused the deaths of 100K civilians and started a war in Cambodia with no announcement whatsoever. Try reading up on the subject before you reply next time.
Click to expand...

If your referring to Operation Menu, that was an attack on VC and NVA troops on the Ho Chi Minh trail in an effort to stop them from operating in Cambodia, with the assistance of the Khmer Rouge. It was also a legitimate target, seeing as the Ho Chi Minh trail ran through the region
 
What difference will this ruling make?

Will Iran now pay up?
 
Napoleon said:
I think the answer is concern for what the economic consequences would be if Saudi Arabia makes good on their threat to dump $750 billion in assets and securities. Same reason why Republican leadership is killing the legislation that would allow it.
Click to expand...

The truth is, it's basic International Relations. A country does what is in it's own best interest, and that includes evaluation of each relationship via a cost benefit analysis that evaluates whether the benefits of continued association with another country or foreign government outweigh any harm caused by that same country or government to the US from any tertiary events, like 9/11. It should be obvious, that when it comes to Saudi Arabia, the answer to that evaluation is that the continued relationship does (so far) outweigh any tertiary harm.
 
Mason66 said:
What difference will this ruling make?

Will Iran now pay up?
Click to expand...

The US froze billions in Iranian cash that was placed within the US by the bank in the OP story. The money is there already, available to be distributed by the US government to the survivors.

So, yes. They have already paid up, the survivors just haven't seen the cash yet, which is about to change.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The US froze billions in Iranian cash that was placed within the US by the bank in the OP story. The money is there already, available to be distributed by the US government to the survivors.

So, yes. They have already paid up, the survivors just haven't seen the cash yet, which is about to change.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that cash part of the deal recently made?

What is going to happen if the US goes back on it's part of the deal?
 
JANFU said:
The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia


Thoughts are?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I agree with the ruling. I need to think about it a while longer. There are serious implications here and just because it involves Iran doesn't mean we should be so free with sovereign immunity and reserving certain prerogatives on foreign policy to the President and Congress. The dissent was penned by Roberts and Sotomayor and I'm interested to see what tack they took.
 
Paleocon said:
Are these assets owned by Iran, or its citizens? If the latter, it seems like clear theft.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that they are bonds owned by several state controlled banks in Iran which would seemingly negate the issue of robbing from shareholders. But I'm not completely positive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom