Can We Sue Germany for WWII?

[The Grand Nudger]

It would seem that any monetary awards would be unenforceable.  Who is going to make the Saudis pay?  

I also can't figure out what the political motivation for the bill was.  I can only think of two things:

1) Lobbying from defense contractors (like Lockheed Martin) who want to start a war to increase their profitability

2) Congress trying to appear compassionate and benevolent just before an election  

Wars are very profitable for defense contractors, and I think that defense industry lobbyists were behind the "47 senators" fiasco that happened a little while back.  But would they try to start a war this way?

As to-
1: Potential fiscal/legal liability dis-incentivizes war.  If Lockheed Martin wanted people to engage in wars left right and center (to boost their profits) then this would be a terrible way to go about it.  They'd want to do precisely the opposite, make war as liability free as possible - incentivize it.

2: I think it's more likely incompetence or fear of being seen opposing the bill, in the case of congress.

[Pat Mustard]

Also, there would be kind of a queue in suing Germany. The USA would be pretty much at the end of the line as far as damages go. Maybe second to last to Brazil.

Ireland would be lower down the list. We'd have a case for the mistaken bombing of Dublin, but that's it.

[mcolafson]

So apparently 9/11 victims can sue Saudi Arabia for the terrorist attacks now that the US Congress has overridden Obama's veto of the bill that would allow such lawsuits.  

My first question is, how would such a lawsuit be enforced?  Let's say you did sue Saudi Arabia (in a US court, which is what the bill allows you to do) and you were awarded $3.4 million in damages.  Who is going to force Saudi Arabia to pay up?   What if they say they're not going to pay?  Who is going to enforce that?  If they don't pay, are we going to bomb them, at which point they would sue us for wrongful military action?

Secondly, this opens up a Pandora's Box of lawsuits for all kinds of historical grievances.  Can we sue Germany for WWII?  Can Japan sue us for nuking them on the grounds that the nuke may not have been absolutely necessary?  Can countries that experience civilian deaths from errant US drone strikes sue us?  

This seems to create a lot of problems.  What do you think?

I suppose I will be accused again of country bashing, but

http://science.howstuffworks.com/agent-orange4.htm

"American and Vietnamese plaintiffs have filed numerous lawsuits in U.S. courts seeking compensation for exposure to Agent Orange. To protect itself from claims of wrongdoing, the U.S. government has used the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which dictates that a government can't be sued, even in cases of alleged negligence. "

U.S. government says Fuck you to Vietnamese people.


In their defense, chemical companies usually offer some of the following claims:

• The government ordered them to produce Agent Orange.
  
• Too much time has passed since its use for people to claim reparations.
  
• The connection is uncertain between Agent Orange and health problems.
  
• Vietnamese claims should be settled by the U.S. government.
  

"Fuck you," say American companies who made profit on suffering of foreign citizens.

[abaris]

"Fuck you," say American companies who made profit on suffering of foreign citizens.

When it first was deployed it was less heinous than it is now, since nobody knew what the consequences would be. The companies, in this case, really aren't as much to blame as the authorities actually using it for unintended purposes. Same as with the German Cyclon B, which wasn't developed to kill people but for pest control. The blame of the companies lies in not stepping in when their product was abused. But money talked back then as loudly as it talks now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My brother was on some of the Agent Orange flights. Me and him tend to not talk about that now.

[InquiringMind]

U.S. government says Fuck you to Vietnamese people.

And here's my question.  If damages are awarded from these lawsuits, who is going to force Saudi Arabia to pay the damages?  How will the lawsuits be enforced?  What's going to stop the Saudis from saying, "Go fuck yourselves, 9/11 victims.  We weren't responsible for that act of terrorism and we're not paying for it."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

U.S. government says Fuck you to Vietnamese people.

And here's my question.  If damages are awarded from these lawsuits, who is going to force Saudi Arabia to pay the damages?  How will the lawsuits be enforced?  What's going to stop the Saudis from saying, "Go fuck yourselves, 9/11 victims.  We weren't responsible for that act of terrorism and we're not paying for it."

The courts can order assets to be seized.

[InquiringMind]

And here's my question.  If damages are awarded from these lawsuits, who is going to force Saudi Arabia to pay the damages?  How will the lawsuits be enforced?  What's going to stop the Saudis from saying, "Go fuck yourselves, 9/11 victims.  We weren't responsible for that act of terrorism and we're not paying for it."

The courts can order assets to be seized.

But this will only work as much as the Saudis agree to let it work.  If a US court orders assets to be seized, and the Saudis say, "No, those assets are ours, and you can't have them," then what is the court going to do?  It really seems like this will only be effective as far as the Saudis are willing to go along with it.

[downbeatplumb]

So apparently 9/11 victims can sue Saudi Arabia for the terrorist attacks now that the US Congress has overridden Obama's veto of the bill that would allow such lawsuits.  

My first question is, how would such a lawsuit be enforced?  Let's say you did sue Saudi Arabia (in a US court, which is what the bill allows you to do) and you were awarded $3.4 million in damages.  Who is going to force Saudi Arabia to pay up?   What if they say they're not going to pay?  Who is going to enforce that?  If they don't pay, are we going to bomb them, at which point they would sue us for wrongful military action?

Secondly, this opens up a Pandora's Box of lawsuits for all kinds of historical grievances.  Can we sue Germany for WWII?  Can Japan sue us for nuking them on the grounds that the nuke may not have been absolutely necessary?  Can countries that experience civilian deaths from errant US drone strikes sue us?  

This seems to create a lot of problems.  What do you think?

They were called war reparations and the first world war ones caused the second world war indirectly.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Fuck you," say American companies who made profit on suffering of foreign citizens.

When it first was deployed it was less heinous than it is now, since nobody knew what the consequences would be. The companies, in this case, really aren't as much to blame as the authorities actually using it for unintended purposes. Same as with the German Cyclon B, which wasn't developed to kill people but for pest control. The blame of the companies lies in not stepping in when their product was abused. But money talked back then as loudly as it talks now.

Well, they used it for it's intended purpose.  It's a pesticide and defoliant.  The idea was to remove the canopy that was providing cover, and any food crops the enemy relied on. We'd been using those chemicals (and still do) agriculturally since the 50's, we hadn't made the link in our own country either in all that time.