NationStates Jolt Archive

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Sudan to pay nearly $8 million to the families of 17 sailors killed in the 2000 "terrorist" attack on the USS Cole.
...
"It is depressing to realize that a country organized on a religious basis with religious rule of law could and would execute its power for purposes which most countries would find intolerable and loathsome," Doumar wrote in his ruling.

"It is a further tragedy that the laws of the United States, in this instance, provide no remedy for the psychological and emotional losses suffered by the survivors."

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20070725%5cACQRTT200707252327RTTRADERUSEQUITY_2103.htm&
Sources: Nasdaq/NTT/Yahoo/OccNEWSinteresting,
I wonder if an African/LatinAmerican Judge can order the US gov to pay damages.

BTW I was under the impression the attack happened in Yemen, not Sudan :confused:

interesting,
I wonder if an African/LatinAmerican Judge can order the US gov to pay damages.

BTW I wa under the impression the attack happened in Yemen, not Sudan :confused:

lol

Riddle me this Batman:

What's the difference between this court order and a U.N. Resolution?

Answer: Sometimes the U.N. Resolution actually gets enforced.

Riddle me this Batman:

What's the difference between this court order and a U.N. Resolution?A UN Security Council resolution can be vetoed by Bush.
This Virginia "order" cannot be vetoed by Bush. I think

I think this is more symbolic than anything, no one expects it to actually be enforced.

Of course, given the state of humankind, I'm probably very wrong.

And the attack was in Yemen, but I think the bombers were Sudanese.

I think this is more symbolic than anything, no one expects it to actually be enforced.then why was Sudan expending money on Lawyers for months..

and why is this extremely poor African country expending more money (on Lawyers) appealing the "order".

Dont they need that money to feed starving children?

A UN Security Council resolution can be vetoed by Bush.
This Virginia "order" cannot be vetoed by Bush. I think
Well, for one you're wrong, but thats besides the point.

then why was Sudan expending money on Lawyers for months..

and why is this extremely poor African country expending more money (on Lawyers) appealing the "order".

Dont they need that money to feed starving children?
You're really reading too much into this. Nobody is going to enforce this.

A UN Security Council resolution can be vetoed by Bush.
This Virginia "order" cannot be vetoed by Bush. I think Well, for one you're wrong...Bush can veto a Judge?

is this Patriot act 3 ???

Bush can veto a Judge?

is this Patriot act 3 ???

Security council resolution...

Bush can veto a Judge?

is this Patriot act 3 ???

Bush does not veto UN Resolutions. The US Ambassador vetos UN Resolutions. :rolleyes:

then why was Sudan expending money on Lawyers for months..

and why is this extremely poor African country expending more money (on Lawyers) appealing the "order".

Dont they need that money to feed starving children?

Where in that article does it say anything about an appeal or that the Sudanese government did anything other than "insist they had no involvement with Al-Queda?" For all the article says, the Sudanese gov't could've been tried in absentia.

Bush does not veto UN Resolutions. The US Ambassador vetos UN Resolutions. :rolleyes:LOL, So the illegal invasion of Iraq was NOT the US Gov fault, It was the fault of the marines driving the Humpvees? :rolleyes:

how pathetic.

LOL, So the illegal invasion of Iraq was NOT the US Gov fault, It was the fault of the marines driving the Humpvees? :rolleyes:

how pathetic.

.......

Where in that article does it say anything about an appeal or that the Sudanese government did anything other than "insist they had no involvement with Al-Queda?" For all the article says, the Sudanese gov't could've been tried in absentia.NSG un-writen rule # 437: "Do not under-estimate the Occean."

Where in that article does it say anything about an appeal or that the Sudanese government did anything other than "insist they had no involvement with Al-Queda?" For all the article says, the Sudanese gov't could've been tried in absentia.one day you will be a NSG veteran,
Membership has privileges and responsibilities.
One nice privilege is beforehand knowledge.. like to know the posting pattern of the other veterans. (know your opponent --Sun Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War)--)

For example you would know.. that almost every statement I post has been researched for.

one day you will be a NSG veteran,
Membership has privileges and responsibilities.
One nice privilege knowledge.. is to know the post pattern of the other veterans.

for example you would know that almost every statement I post has been planed.. and researched for.

Though as a veteran you disappoint, as you fail to provide a link showing him that or even quote an article. It's easy, you know:

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnB868384.html
Sudan to appeal verdict in USS Cole bombing case
Thu 26 Jul 2007, 13:39 GMT
[-] Text [+]

KHARTOUM, July 26 (Reuters) - Sudan said on Thursday it would appeal a U.S. court verdict that ordered Khartoum to pay some $8 million to the families of U.S. sailors killed in the bombing of an American naval destroyer seven years ago in Yemen.

"We will appeal the ruling," Sudan's Justice Minister Mohammed Ali al-Mardi told Reuters.

He said his ministry would review the court verdict and ask Sudan's lawyers to challenge it.
The Sudanese government initially did not respond to the lawsuit, but then tried to have it dismissed. Lawyers for Sudan attended the two-day trial in March but only made an argument about damages and renewed its request to dismiss the case.

Mardi said the United States had no right to try another sovereign state.

"The ruling violates international law. We are a sovereign state and we cannot be tried in a U.S. court," the minister said.

LOL, So the illegal invasion of Iraq was NOT the US Gov fault, It was the fault of the marines driving the Humpvees? :rolleyes:

how pathetic.

Um ok. :confused:

one day you will be a NSG veteran,
Membership has privileges and responsibilities.
One nice privilege is beforehand knowledge.. like to know the posting pattern of the other veterans. (know your opponent --Sun Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War)--)

For example you would know.. that almost every statement I post has been researched for.

Doubtful!

one day you will be a NSG veteran,
Membership has privileges and responsibilities.
One nice privilege is beforehand knowledge.. like to know the posting pattern of the other veterans. (know your opponent --Sun Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War)--)

For example you would know.. that almost every statement I post has been researched for.

Gotcha, ignore Occeandrive3.

then why was Sudan expending money on Lawyers for months..

and why is this extremely poor African country expending more money (on Lawyers) appealing the "order".

Dont they need that money to feed starving children?

(RTTNews) - A Virginia federal court in the United States has ordered Sudan to pay $8m to the families of 17 marines killed by Islamic militants in a daring suicide attack on the USS Cole warship in Yemen in 2000. The families of the victims had initially sued Khartoum for $105m.

Judge Robert Doumar, who awarded the families compensation under the Death on the High Seas Act, which allows compensation for economic losses but not for mental suffering, said there was "enough evidence" to implicate Sudan and that it had helped al-Qaeda, the terrorist group blamed for the attack. However, The Sudanese government insists there is no link between it and al-Qaeda, a view corroborated by a recent US government report.

In his ruling Doumar said: "It is depressing to realize that a country organized on a religious basis with religious rule of law could and would execute its power for purposes which most countries would find intolerable and loathsome."
Please show me where in that article it states that Sudan spent money defending itself, or spent money appealing the ruling.

one day you will be a NSG veteran,
Membership has privileges and responsibilities.
One nice privilege is beforehand knowledge.. like to know the posting pattern of the other veterans. (know your opponent --Sun Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War)--)

For example you would know.. that almost every statement I post has been researched for.
:rolleyes:

EDIT: Thank you Gravlen for posting evidence to support the OP's claims, even though he couldn't be bothered to link to the correct article.

Woah, timewarp, bigtime! :eek:

Though as a veteran you disappoint..true true.

"You cant please everyone" I keep telling myself, it one of my mein-philoso-lines.. or "excuses" if you want to call it that way :D
.

as you fail to provide a link showing him that or even quote an article. It's easy, you know:

http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnB868384.htmlthx for the link.

one day you will be a NSG veteran,
Membership has privileges and responsibilities.
One nice privilege is beforehand knowledge.. like to know the posting pattern of the other veterans. (know your opponent --Sun Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War)--)

For example you would know.. that almost every statement I post has been researched for.

NSG un-writen rule # 437: "Do not under-estimate the Occean."

Occeandrive: Self Fap: The Movie

Occeandrive: Self Fap: The Movie

/thread

Occeandrive: Self Fap: The Movieas long as the marketing people does NOT Draw a giant picture of me next to a 17th century man with a giant erection. :D

http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/ld_homer_pagan_070717_ms.jpg

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=3385413&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

I'm going to start a thread proving that you're a turnip.you want to prove I am a (insert derogative term) ?

take a number dude. :D

true true.

"You cant please everyone" I keep telling myself, it one of my mein-philoso-lines.. or "excuses" if you want to call it that way :D
.

thx for the link.

Quit being elitist Oceandrive. And maybe you can put those lazy fingers to work providing links next time or I'm going to start a thread proving that you're a turnip.

Gotcha, ignore Occeandrive3.

That would be NSG unwritten rule #438.

I read OD just because it is entertainment. As is many others on this board. ;)

you want to prove I am a (insert derogative term) ?

take a number dude. :D

I don't have to really. Your elitist behavior does it for me.

I think this is more symbolic than anything, no one expects it to actually be enforced..

Didn't Libya pay something for the Lockerbie incident? Was it following a court order?

Didn't Libya pay something for the Lockerbie incident? Was it following a court order?

I think that was more to do with normalizing relations. There was nothing that the US could actually do to compel Libya to pay.

I think that was more to do with normalizing relations. There was nothing that the US could actually do to compel Libya to pay.

Well, not legally, but you know...there's always sanctions, some punitive bombings, back-channel diplomacy etc..

Security council resolution...

The US has Veto power in the UNSC. Bush can effectively Veto a resolution.

Well, not legally, but you know...there's always sanctions, some punitive bombings, back-channel diplomacy etc..yes, maybe they did that with Libya and others...

but they dont need to do that with Sudan..

All the US gov needs to do is: hijack the money/assets from some Sudanese Companies.. and give it to the Judge for his ruling.

Its probably illegal and/or immoral but that is not going to stop the US Gov.

yes, maybe they did that with Libya and others...

but they dont need to do that with Sudan..

Why not?

All the US gov needs to do is: hijack the money/assets from some Sudanese Companies.. and give it to the Judge for his ruling.

If there are Sudanese companies in America.

Its probably illegal and/or immoral but that is not going to stop the US Gov.

Actually, it is not actually illegal to nationalize said companies on your home turf. It just pisses off the nation that did it. Look at Iran. While you are at it, look at the Suez crisis.

If there are Sudanese companies in America.Some Sudanese Companies may have Money/assets in US hands


Actually, it is not actually illegal to nationalize said companies on your home turf. It just pisses off the nation that did it. Look at Iran. While you are at it, look at the Suez crisis.huh?

Some Sudanese Companies may have Money/assets in US hands


huh?

The Suez crisis occured when the President of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. The Brits did not like this and neither did the French nor the Israelis. The year was 1956.

With Iran, they nationalized the oil industry that was runned by Britain. Later on, we ousted their democraticly elected leader.

Sudanese assets in the US were frozen when Darfur started happening.


So, the 8 million is going to come from those frozen assets.

Sudanese assets in the US were frozen when Darfur started happening.


So, the 8 million is going to come from those frozen assets.wait..

so this money -frozen for Darfur- is not going to be used for Darfur refugees.. But instead the US gov is going to use it to pay US military families?

Bush does not veto UN Resolutions. The US Ambassador vetos UN Resolutions. :rolleyes:

:p

Something tells me they're not going to pay.

I think this is more symbolic than anything, no one expects it to actually be enforced.

Of course, given the state of humankind, I'm probably very wrong.

And the attack was in Yemen, but I think the bombers were Sudanese.

About the enforcing, this "order" could somehow be used at the UN Security Council, to support cuts in UN aid for Sudan, or to seize the bank assets in the US of some representative of the Sudanese government, or somehow to justify a large-scale military intervention in Darfur - now that they've found that there's water under Darfur, my guess is that Halliburton wants a big slice of that pie.

I wonder how can they tell that suicide bombers are of any country - I don't think that testing the DNA of human debris (because that's what you get after a suicide bomb attack) can tell you anything about the nationality of the original body, or that jihadists use to carry their passports with them when attacking a US ship.

Unless the US government has "reliable intelligence" about the nationality of the attackers... this really gives me a laugh: "reliable intelligence", like with Saddam's WMD etc.

Oh well.

wait..

so this money -frozen for Darfur- is not going to be used for Darfur refugees.. But instead the US gov is going to use it to pay US military families?

And the UN charter states to end all genocides.

Whats your point?

And the UN charter states to end all genocides.

Whats your point?

And the genocide convention should be forced into action as well.

Several points can be made here:

#1 Sovereignty issues.

Not in this case.

#2 If you sign up for the Army, I expect to be sent in harms way by the Gov.. I dont expect you to cry and sue (ask for millions in Court) when you get hurt.

The judge felt the evidence was sufficient and ruled according to US Law.

#3 Multiple jurisdiction issues: The USS Cole attack happened in Yemen Not in Sudan, and a Virginia Court has no jurisdiction in either of them

Hence why it was in Federal Court and why the Sudanese are appealing the decision.

wait..

so this money -frozen for Darfur- is not going to be used for Darfur refugees.. But instead the US gov is going to use it to pay US military families?
Whats your point?Several points can be made here:

# Sovereignty issues.

# If you sign up for the Army, I expect to be sent in harms way by the Gov.. I dont expect you to cry and sue (ask for millions in Court) when you get hurt.

# The USS Cole attack happened in Yemen, Not in Sudan.

# Virginia Judge has no jurisdiction over -any foreign citizens- for something that happened in Yemen.

# Virginia Judge has no jurisdiction over -any foreign citizens- for something that happened in Sudan.

# any Money seized for the Darfur tragedy, should go to the Darfur refugees.

[QUOTE=Occeandrive3;12920688# Virginia Judge has no jurisdiction in Yemen.

# Virginia Judge has no jurisdiction in Sudan.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the rest for now, and merely saying, this was not a virginia judge. This was a Federal District Judge in a Virginia district, big difference.

And as this was federal court, it has jurisdiction over all things occuring on federal property. And the USS Cole, like every Naval vessle, is one big old hunking steel pile of sovereign US territory, and the federal courts most certainly have jurisdiction over things occuring on sovereign US territory.

Ignoring the rest for now, and merely saying, this was not a virginia judge. This was a Federal District Judge in a Virginia district, big difference.

And as this was federal court, it has jurisdiction over all things occuring on federal property. And the USS Cole, like every Naval vessle, is one big old hunking steel pile of sovereign US territory, and the federal courts most certainly have jurisdiction over things occuring on sovereign US territory.

Hear Hear!

And as this was federal court, it has jurisdiction over all things occuring on federal property.LOL, What about a Tank or a Humpvee?

they are federal property too right?
So if an Insurgent trows a rock at the tank, We can try him for Vandalism of US federal Property. :cool:

Message to the World: Dont fuck with US, or else we will sue your ass all the way to Uranus. :D

Does that mean the US can invade a country and then sue them afterwards in court for damages?

If we invaded and the nation invaded surrendered, we can force them to pay the cost of the war.

Does that mean the US can invade a country and then sue them afterwards in court for damages?

LOL, What about a Tank or a Humpvee?

they a federal property too right?
So if an Insurgent trows a rock at the tank, We can try him for Vandalism of US federal Property. :D

Arguably yes, although I would counter argue that putting a tank in a warzone is consent to damage that the tank would suffer.

The USS Cole on the other hand was sitting in a friendly harbor during peacetime.

Arguably yes, although I would counter argue that putting a tank in a warzone is consent to damage that the tank would suffer.

The USS Cole on the other hand was sitting in a friendly harbor during peacetime.

The same peace Iraq is in now? Since Congress never declared war and thus 'ended peace'?

The same peace Iraq is in now? Since Congress never declared war and thus 'ended peace'?

For which one can say that there was not peace in the first place as the first Iraq war only had a cease fire signed and not a peace treaty.

For which one can say that there was not peace in the first place as the first Iraq war only had a cease fire signed and not a peace treaty.

yet the boat wasn't in Iraq, it was in Yemen, and attacked not by Iraqis but by Sudanese.

And considering the default status between nations is peace, we were certainly at peace with Yemen.

yet the boat wasn't in Iraq, it was in Yemen, and attacked not by Iraqis but by Sudanese.

And considering the default status between nations is peace, we were certainly at peace with Yemen.

You are right about that but I was arguing AP and his line about Iraq. Last time I checked, we never were at war with Yemen at all nor with Sudan for that matter.

Dont they need that money to feed starving children?

lets say they were going to pay out money. then lets say we decided they can keep it. do you really think it would go towards feeding starving children?

isn't that kind of like giving a drug addict some money and expecting them to spend that money on turning their life around?

interesting,
I wonder if an African/LatinAmerican Judge can order the US gov to pay damages.

BTW I was under the impression the attack happened in Yemen, not Sudan :confused:


yes, a court in another country can "order" the US to pay damages. im pretty sure it had been done before. whethere the defendant actually pays is another story.

do you really think it would go towards feeding starving children?I can only hope some of it will go, Its like whenever I donate for extremely poor countries, I do know that only a portion will make it to the starving people.


lets say they were going to pay outSudan Gov has already said they do NOT want to pay the US military families.


then lets say we decided they can keep it. the Military Families have already said "that Darfur money should be for US" and that US court is making it all very possible.

Arguably yes, although I would counter argue that putting a tank in a warzone is consent to damage that the tank would suffer.

The USS Cole on the other hand was sitting in a friendly harbor during peacetime.in "peace time" we should keep our Warships in our harbors.. not in the Middle East.

or at least keep them in international waters.

BTW the concept of "friendly Country" is totally worthless whenever you are talking about a Dictatorship.

in "peace time" we should keep our Warships in our harbors.. not in the Middle East.

or at least keep them in international waters.

BTW the concept of "friendly Country" is totally worthless whenever you are talking about a Dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen#Politics