Miscellaneous, distracted, various, and inimitable

[heironymouspasparagus]

You should see the new Mercedes electric car............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arQ8_PW-RiA

That's hilarious!!

BMW and VW are moving on this, too, apparently.  This is why Elon has put all of Tesla's patents out there for anyone to use - he is encouraging development of viable EV's by more than just one.  Evangelism at it's best.

[Red Arrow]

You should see the new Mercedes electric car............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arQ8_PW-RiA

Now for the big question.... Coppertop or Energizer?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Now for the big question.... Coppertop or Energizer?

Coppertop.  The pink bunny is lying!!



I worked at a place one time where we did a lot of battery testing and they were both very close - along with Ray-O-Vac, but coppertop had a tiny edge in power delivery and life....statistically insignificant, but a little.  Geeky, huh?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Now this....



https://gigapixel.panoramas.com/oklahomastate/football/20160917/

[heironymouspasparagus]

In other world news....

http://cityworldnews.com/native-american-amnesty/

[heironymouspasparagus]

Obama's first veto override!!  

I am firm believer in vetoes and overrides.  They are a couple of the core actions of our Republic.  This one should prove to be very interesting - the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act - link below.

We now are allowed to sue Saudi Arabia and try to prove them responsible for 9/11 on a personal basis.  And I see no mention of a statute of limitations, so presumably we could sue for the Beirut bombing that killed so many Marines!  Or any of many different actions occurring over the past... how many years?   We...well at least us Irish...could presumably go back and sue England for terrorism in their actions during the potato famine where the UK confiscated - stole - enough food out of Ireland in the worst couple of years of the famine to feed the entire population of Irish.  The ones that survived as well as all who died and emigrated!  Four times over!   If that isn't terrorism - intentional extermination by starvation, then what is??  I gotta find a lawyer...!!

But.  And there is always a but.  Now that the veil of sovereign immunity has been blasted out of existence, that most likely means at least some other countries will respond in kind.  We just gave them the keys to the kingdom.  Which means that now Palestinians can sue over the US role of support for Israel during the late 40's when we helped Israel come into being...and every event since.  

Iran can sue for the US CIA role in deposing the elected government and installing the Shah of Iran.  

Panama could sue over the US role in getting rid of their leader and putting in Manuel Noriega - that was George H W Bush when he was head of the CIA in the 70's.  Incidentally, George had to go back a few years later as President and "fire" Noriega from the position.  Wouldn't be surprised if a variety of people sued the US over the use of drones for the last few years, for the death of all those civilians.

Would using torture in violation of US and International law be considered terrorism?  Wonder how many ex Guantanamo residents are gonna hop on the bandwagon?

And what about all those descendants of the First Nations people??  Native Americans.  I got a feeling that the entire last 400 years could yield some things that could be considered terrorism.  And since they are, by definition, sovereign nations, well, what is to stop each individual from suing?

This was a stupid bill.  It IS a really BIG ole can of worms.  It is gonna get messy.   CIA Director John Brennan released a statement on Wednesday also opposing the bill, saying;

"The most damaging consequence would be for those U.S. Government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf of our country," he said in the statement. "The principle of sovereign immunity protects US officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity. If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States—and few institutions would be at greater risk than CIA."

Yeah....about that...I think he may be right.


Be sure to read the latest law of the land....!

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

[AquaMan]

Well, yeah, but Obama was against it. So, they had to override it. The people demanded it didn't they? I was most surprised it was a 97-1 vote in the Senate.

[Red Arrow]

Well, yeah, but Obama was against it. So, they had to override it. The people demanded it didn't they? I was most surprised it was a 97-1 vote in the Senate.

I thought there was more than 3 Democrats in the Senate.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, yeah, but Obama was against it. So, they had to override it. The people demanded it didn't they? I was most surprised it was a 97-1 vote in the Senate.

I am not surprised at all.  If I had been there, I would have voted override, too!  It had to be done to cover their butts.  As it stands, I am betting it doesn't really mean anything until the Senate takes some action on treaties...??  There is a policy of sovereign immunity that must be disassembled...and I have no clue how 'formal' the situation is, but there must be something more than just a handshake.  That would be a surprise - if there are not formal words.

One situation that I know is formal is our status of forces agreements - we have written arrangements, presumably that rise to the level of treaties - that keep our soldiers 'out of reach' of foreign governments.  If we really act on this, then those agreements will quite probably be abrogated, leaving our military personnel open to prosecution in the country they are stationed.  And given the history, particularly in Okinawa, of military rape and violence, we should be very cautious going forward.

Look for preemptive lawsuits from other countries!  I would be willing to bet that 9/11 survivors won't be the first to file.  I bet people from somewhere else will start filing suits in their countries first.   Not sure if this allows them to file here, but that would also be on my list of attempted things to do....

[erfalf]

I haven't been keeping up on this (thought it was quit superfulous but whatever). Is this not the second time he vetoed this legislation, or a similar iteration of it?

And another thing, how do we think we can effectively legislate our standing in another country? Do the trials take place here? This all just seemed so out there. I mean it's just been in the news about the Tribunal with Iran, which seemed to work as well as I assume you could hope considering the parties involved. Is that not the best tool for something like this?

[cannon_fodder]

Stupid idea. This bill is sold as targeting Saudi Arabia, but it really targets any country that supports "terrorism." It sets the precedent that the citizens of a nation get to define what terrorism is, decide which nations are guilty of supporting it, decide if that support led to an attack on US soil, and then take the assets of that nation.

Guess which country has the most assets in foreign nations. Go on. Guess.  I'll wait...

RIGHT! The USA. We have air bases, embassies, ports, enclaves, and all sorts of equipment all over the world. While the USA is the home of tons of sovereign investment from foreign countries (that is to say, nations who have excess cash invest it here), our government owns assets we consider vital to our national interest. Oh, and guess what... other countries aren't as careful about declaring the property of US companies or US individuals to be fair game and "nationalizing it" to satisfy what they see as a "debt." What's that Exxon? You want your oil platform back? Excuse me John Deere, but that factory has gone to pay your nations debts.

Now, guess which country goes around the world pissing people off more often than any other nation. Go on. Guess. I'll wait...

RIGHT! The USA. Since the end of WWII the US has averaged as many as 260,000 foreign nationals killed each and every year. We've invaded more countries since the end of WWII than anyone else. We carpet bombed major urban centers as recently as the 1970s. We still fire missiles from drones about 10 times a month that occasionally hit wedding parties. We have troops in as many as 130 countries. In many instances, even our allies consider the bad actions of a few of our troops to be terrorist activity. Certainly it would be possible to find a group of 9 out of 12 Okinawans to agree on that. And its their perspective that matters.

Now, I'm not saying we are a horrible country and that we don't do more than any other country to avoid collateral damage --- but that's a matter of perspective. I suppose the Vietnamese would probably say we never should have been there. Same with many Afghans and Iraqis. Certainly most Yemenies and Pakistanis would stand up and say they don't give a crap about how careful we are, we shouldn't be killing any of their citizens from 10,000 feet.

We also tend to support insurgent groups against countries we don't like. To us, the Kurds fighting in the middle east are rebels fighting for freedom. To the Syrians, the Turks, and even the Iraqis - they are terrorists trying to destroy their country.  Same with groups we support in Yemen. Or Afghanistan. And on and on an on. More often than not, I think the US argument is the right one. But that doesn't matter when its some foreign countries citizens deciding if they should take US assets and given them to one of their own.

And hey, what do we have to lose other than trillions in over seas assets? Oh, that's right, trillions in foreign investment in the United States. I'm sure Kind Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud will just hand over a check for a zillion dollars when a group of pissed off New Yorkers tells him to. Or, maybe they just divest and take their money elsewhere. And you don't think clever people will find other instances they can use to sue foreign countries in the US? Don't forget, diplomatic installations, military bases, territories, there are many places that count as US soil...

Will the US Courts be responsible and stop "truthers" from running amok? Probably. Will a Bahrain court be as careful? Doubtful. And the only assets we have there to lose are a major airforce base, the home of the Fifth Fleet, and Central Command. No big deal.  Oh, but they wouldn't do that to us. We are too important. Why should our own logic and laws apply to us? It probably won't, as long as we remain the most powerful country and there is no other option but...

There's a reason Bush said no and Obama said no. Oh well. Sovereign immunity has only worked for the US for 240 years.

Again, I think the US does a good job of being careful with our power. But under this precedent, its not going to matter what the US people say.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Panama

Libya

Egypt

Venzuela

Phillipines

Iraq

Iran

Palestine

Afghanistan

Nigeria

Congo

Japan

Vietnam

Laos

Cambodia

Germany  (remember the firestorm bombings of Dresden?  They do.)


Maybe we can start a pool predicting which country will sue us first!!??

[TulsaMoon]

The elections are coming!! The elections are coming!!

IMO that's the only reason this is such a (Trump voice) HUGE deal.

I have been doing a bit of reading, yes hard to believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, but don't we already have mostly the exact same thing on the books?

Title 28 USC 1605: General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state, and Sec. 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state   Tunnel through all of it and you find an amendment passed in 2008.

http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title28/part4/chapter97&edition=prelim

[AquaMan]

Apparently this is mostly for show in an election year. The original bill was pretty tough, but the one passed over the veto is not going to do what 911 families thought it would do. Thus 97-1 vote. It looks good but legally, like H pointed out, will be hard if not impossible to collect on. Each verdict won would require Congress to approve the seizure of assets, ours or theirs. Other countries of course will want our assets but have to balance off the support they receive from us. Both political parties and their candidates can claim victory but no one comes out ahead. Except maybe that a country may think twice and make more computations of benefit/loss before they support nefarious activities. You think we will?

On the other hand, the families of the Murrah building domestic terror bombing haven't received much help according to many of the survivor families. Nowhere near the payouts to 911 families. Go figure.

[patric]

Its the 29th of September and Lowes already has Christmas lights in stock.

But the selection now is really good.  If I could get away with putting them up in this weather...

/distraction