The poor giving to the rich.

[Delphic Oracle]

What makes you believe any of that money was ever destined to help "the impoverished".

You all are equating the money with some sort of funds that come from or would otherwise end up benefitting the people in the country.

Actually, lifting the sanctions will almost certainly do more for the impoverished citizens of Sudan because that source of money actually does improve citizens lives.

Money in the government's hands wasn't going to help them anyways.

This other money, the money we're sitting on until they pay us with money that doesn't do their citizens any good, yeah that money could be doing their citizens some good.

What a bunch of masturbatory piffle.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Planet Money A new Chapter for Sudan

Sudan is strapped for cash. The country's finance minister told reporters that it needs 5 billion dollars for the budget to "prevent economic collapse." And while the IMF has supplied policy support, neither the IMF nor the World Bank can supply funds for Sudan because it is still on the U.S. list of countries that are deemed sponsors of terrorism . Being on this list blocks a country from receiving financing or debt relief from these groups.

Bashir's billions and the banks that helped him: Sudan fights to recover stolen funds

A new government and civilian campaigners are determined to fight western banks who helped Sudan's former government embezzle billions

So where are we here? I'm a jerk because I won't join the pity party over reimbursement to the families of people that were killed in a terrorist attack.

Have we decided yet if anyone cared about Darfur before any of this? How about Bashir's billions that are probably in some Western banks and aren't being returned now for someone's greedy reason?

What if the money was to come out of this pile of cash? Would that make it OK?

When he appeared in court last month, facing corruption charges brought after the end of his 30 years in power, Sudan’s former ruler Omar al-Bashir was faced with stacks of cash piled in front of him - some of the hundreds of millions of dollars seized from his home.

Is it OK for the bad guy to pay the debt? Can it come out of the Saudi money? Or does it have to be paid by the US taxpayer for it to be OK?

I don't suppose many of you understand my point.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It would be simpler to just kill 17 Sudanese people and consider the matter closed, I don't know why people want to bring money into it.

 

[lionking]

Planet Money A new Chapter for Sudan

Bashir's billions and the banks that helped him: Sudan fights to recover stolen funds

So where are we here? I'm a jerk because I won't join the pity party over reimbursement to the families of people that were killed in a terrorist attack.

Have we decided yet if anyone cared about Darfur before any of this? How about Bashir's billions that are probably in some Western banks and aren't being returned now for someone's greedy reason?

What if the money was to come out of this pile of cash? Would that make it OK?

Is it OK for the bad guy to pay the debt? Can it come out of the Saudi money? Or does it have to be paid by the US taxpayer for it to be OK?

I don't suppose many of you understand my point.

Not by any definition is this a debt. It is reparation imposed by one side to remove sanctions imposed by the same side.

I wonder what the reaction would be if, say, the Arab world imposed sanctions on the US (they still have much of the easily extracted oil) and would only remove said sanctions if the US paid a massive fine? Would that be fair enough given the crimes the US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is the money not going to the victims and families of the victims of the USS Cole? American prerequisite: settle the court case with the families.

NYT:

Sudan Says It Agrees to Compensate Families of U.S.S. Cole Bombing...

Sudan’s interim government said on Thursday that it had reached a financial settlement with families of the victims of the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, an effort to persuade the United States to remove Sudan from a list of state sponsors of terrorism....

Relatives of victims and surviving sailors accused Sudan of having supported Al Qaeda, and sought to hold the country liable through American courts. Sudan’s interim government said in a statement announcing the settlement on Thursday that it “is not responsible for this act or any other acts of terrorism.” It said Sudan is offering the compensation “only in order to meet the prerequisites set by the American Administration for removing the name of the Sudan from the list of states sponsors of international terrorism, so that relations with the United States of America and the rest of the world could be normalized.”

One of those not admitting guilt/no contest pleas or something like it.

In 2017, the Trump administration lifted longstanding sanctions against Sudan, saying Khartoum had made progress on counterterrorism efforts and expanded access to humanitarian aid in war-torn regions.

American officials have pressed Sudan for reparations in recent months, the state department said, saying compensation for the victims of terrorism remained a priority if the United States was to remove Sudan from the list....

Sudan is still in the process of negotiating a settlement with families of those killed in the bombings of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The nearly simultaneous attacks in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam killed 224 people and wounded thousands.

This isn't money being paid to the US government.

Do you consider a court settlement "imposed by one side"? Are the families considered "the rich" here?

 

[Planigale]

Survivors of the victims won a $315 million judgment against Sudan that was thrown out on technical grounds. Sudan is paying much less than it could have been compelled to pay. The U.S. is protecting the interests of its citizens, not collecting the money for itself. A nation exists separately from its government. A dead person's estate still owes his debts and can still be sued.

Yes, US citizens sued over the deaths of US government employees in a US court before judges who are political appointees of the US government a country that prejudicially had been labelled as a 'terrorist nation' by the same government who appoints the judges. With evidence provided by the intelligence agency of the US government. A country that because of sanctions is unable to be legally represented in court. I am not sure that in anyone's view this was a free and fair trial. This is a case that could only happen because the US overrode the norms of international law, which is why more directly liable actors such as yemen or saudi were not sued. This is a case of we will sue who we can not that we will sue those responsible.

Whilst there may be evidence of Sudan involvement with al-Qaeda prior to 1996, al-Qaeda was thrown out of Sudan in 1996 and went to Afghanistan. If planning happened in any country for the USS Cole attack in 2000 it would be Afghanistan or Yemen. There is no direct evidence of Sudan's involvement in the actual attack on the USS Cole. The liability is solely that persons in Sudan and perhaps the dictator of Sudan prior to 1996 allegedly provided aid to al-Qaeda, years later independently of and Sudanese element al-Qaeda in another country using citizens of that country attacked the US. Even the evidence against Sudan for actions in the early 1990's has been poorly tested. The decision to declare Sudan a terrorist state is an internal political decision of the US government, and once sanctions were in place then Sudan was unable to contest the evidence in court.

 

[lionking]

Countries do a lot of things when a gun is at their head. Look at history.

 

[Planigale]

Is the money not going to the victims and families of the victims of the USS Cole? American prerequisite: settle the court case with the families.

But the object of sanctions is not to enforce civil court proceedings. If Sudan is no longer a terrorist nation, then the sanctions should be lifted. Damages could be recovered by the normal process as they are in any other similar case. Everyone agrees that the sanctions are keeping the Sudanese people the poorest in the world, I have no doubt that people are dying in Sudan as consequence of the sanctions. Probably far more than died on the USS Cole.

NYT:One of those not admitting guilt/no contest pleas or something like it.


This isn't money being paid to the US government.

Do you consider a court settlement "imposed by one side"? Are the families considered "the rich" here?

See my post above. This is absolutely a settlement imposed by the US side. In no way can a court case where one side cannot defend itself be regarded as free or fair.

 

[Planigale]

Countries do a lot of things when a gun is at their head. Look at history.

I have no doubt that Sudan has no choice but to agree.

I have no doubt that it is politically unacceptable to the US government (Trump) in the run up to the elections to be seen as letting off terrorists and not getting money for their citizens.

I agree in the world of real politics this is what happens. I still feel this is morally wrong.

Is there any discussion about this in the US media? Has anyone raised the issue about taking money from the poorest people in the world? In some countries there would be discussions about donating the money to a charity to support the people of Sudan by e.g. paying for scholarships to Sudanese students to study in the US or support vaccine campaigns etc. I realise that much of the money will actually go to wealthy Washington lawyers and not the victims families.

 

[Planigale]

Not by any definition is this a debt. It is reparation imposed by one side to remove sanctions imposed by the same side.

I wonder what the reaction would be if, say, the Arab world imposed sanctions on the US (they still have much of the easily extracted oil) and would only remove said sanctions if the US paid a massive fine? Would that be fair enough given the crimes the US committed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I wonder if the US government would pay compensation for the 1998 attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, and the deaths or injuries of people. This fell foul of the US obsession with WMD, although "the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s." The US has refused to participate in testing to see if nerve gas was manufactured as alleged, which seems to me an admission that the US was wrong.

I wonder if a Sudanese court awarded damages against the US but the US was not allowed to participate if the US would pay up? Perhaps the two liabilities could be balanced up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

 

[The Atheist]

I'll let myself out now.

Nice!

Te fact that US appears to have signed a peace treaty (surrendered?) with the same Taliban they attacked to depose is just icing on the cake. Wasn't OBL **** in Pakistan, where he'd been for years? Did they attack Pakistan?

It would be simpler to just kill 17 Sudanese people and consider the matter closed, I don't know why people want to bring money into it.

Nah, I reckon USA has already killed more than 17 civilians with drone strikes. Count 'em up and let me know - I couldn't be bothered adding it all up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strikes_against_presumed_terrorist_targets

I wonder if a Sudanese court awarded damages against the US but the US was not allowed to participate if the US would pay up? Perhaps the two liabilities could be balanced up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

Haha! You're funny.

Even the ICC* has no jurisdiction over Americanos.

*Except for cricket matches.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Nice!

Te fact that US appears to have signed a peace treaty (surrendered?) with the same Taliban they attacked to depose is just icing on the cake. Wasn't OBL **** in Pakistan, where he'd been for years? Did they attack Pakistan?



Nah, I reckon USA has already killed more than 17 civilians with drone strikes. Count 'em up and let me know - I couldn't be bothered adding it all up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_strikes_against_presumed_terrorist_targets



Haha! You're funny.

Even the ICC* has no jurisdiction over Americanos.

*Except for cricket matches.

ICC?

Yeah, Sudan sent Bashir there.

Which, let me check, yup that means they've got a better track record than we do of sending ex-rulers who violate human rights to face justice.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Also, y'know, just for score-keeping, where are we on our feelings about all the weddings, funerals and hospitals we've kept accidentally bombing over the years?

Taxpayers here ok being on the hook for all those grieving families the other way?

All the governments who's airspace the munitions were allowed to pass through?

The manufacturers?

The banks who handle their financing?

Because just trying to search for what cases exist going the other way, there's a whole lot more headlines describing a range of casework out there against such entities in the Arab world by families of fallen military and contractor personnel from the U.S.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Even without representation, Sudan still got this SCOTUS ruling.

Reuters: U.S. top court backs Sudan over American sailors in USS Cole bombing case

the justices overturned a lower court’s decision that had allowed the sailors to collect the damages from certain banks that held Sudanese assets.

A lower court had levied damages by default because Sudan did not defend itself against allegations that it had given support to the Islamist militant group....

Writing for the court’s majority, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said that other countries’ foreign ministers must be reached where they normally work, “not a far flung outpost that the minister may at most occasionally visit.”

Yes, the initial ruling was a default ruling, but not that Sudan was prevented from representation, rather, that representation was significantly inconvenient.

Reuters: After U.S. talks, Sudan sees path to lifting sanctions soon

Abdalla Hamdok, an economist, was appointed in August as leader of a transition government, vowing to stabilize the country and repair an economy battered by years of U.S. sanctions and government mismanagement during Omar al-Bashir’s 30-year rule.

So Sudan has been a rogue state for 30 years, supporting terrorism, and with a dictator who siphoned billions from from the country's resources.

Now they have a new president and according to most in this thread, the US should simply drop the whole matter. That's OK, the UN Sec Gen agreed:

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed support at the Sudan event, held on the sidelines of the General Assembly, for Hamdok’s efforts. He called for the immediate removal of “Sudan’s designation as a terrorist-supporting state and lifting all economic sanctions and mobilizing massive financial support for development to make the current political gains durable.”

The US agreed but wanted something signifying the new government meant the country had truly changed.

A senior U.S. official said in August that Washington would test the commitment of Sudan’s new transitional government to human rights, freedom of speech and humanitarian access before it agrees to remove the country from a list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Surprisingly, the terrorist state designation was before 9-11 and before Bush:

Sudan was designated a state sponsor of terrorism in 1993 under then-U.S. President Bill Clinton, cutting it off from financial markets and strangling its economy, over allegations that Bashir’s Islamist government was supporting terrorism, notably attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.

Given all this, the US was not all bad guy:

Washington lifted a 20-year trade embargo against Sudan in 2017 and was in the process of discussions on removing it from the U.S. list when the military stepped in on April 11 to depose Bashir.

The Trump administration suspended talks on normalizing relations with Sudan and demanded that the military hand power to a civilian government.

IOW we helped Sudan oust Bashir. Gawd, given how many times this sucky government did the opposite, supporting dictators and ousting democratically elected government, for once it appears we did something right.

I don't know who the hold out was here in the US government or whose opinion this was:

A senior European diplomat said the U.S. government considered that the new government had to assume the responsibilities of the previous administration.

“I don’t think the Americans are ready yet. They still think that today’s Sudan must pay for the crimes of yesterday’s Sudan when it comes to legal cases out there related to the terrorist attacks in Nairobi or Dar es Salaam,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“It’s very hard on the Sudanese, so the key is finding a formula to resolve this,” the diplomat said. “If we can unlock that, then it will open the door for the whole (transitional) process.”

If people in the thread want to gripe about this situation, then at least do so with a little knowledge about the history of the situation instead of some black and white: rich people bad, poor people victims.
In the bigger picture here, Sudan is making a token payment and in return should reap billions in financial aid.

I think countries should be held responsible for terrorism supported by their governments, even subsequent governments. That includes the US being responsible for all of the terrorism we sponsored. I'm in total agreement with that. We're not there yet.

 

[smartcooky]

1. Sudan kicked al-Qaeda and Bin Laden out 1996

2. The bombing of the USS Cole was four years later in 2000

3. It was planned by a Saudi on behalf of al-Qaeda

4. It was carried out by Yemenis in Yemen

How is Sudan involved again?

Why is this "fine" not being levied on Yemen and Saudi Arabia?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1. Sudan kicked al-Qaeda and Bin Laden out 1996

2. The bombing of the USS Cole was four years later in 2000

3. It was planned by a Saudi on behalf of al-Qaeda

4. It was carried out by Yemenis in Yemen

How is Sudan involved again?

Why is this "fine" not being levied on Yemen and Saudi Arabia?

Got a link so I can read more about that version? I'm just asking for the facts over the knee-jerk response.

From Vox which surprisingly says Trump was on their side despite it being Trump siding with the payment before they'll take Sudan off the terrorist list:

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/18075314/supreme-court-uss-cole-lawsuit-terrorist-sudan

“Sudan’s material support … including continuous flow of funding, money, weapons, logistical support, diplomatic passports and religious blessing, was crucial in enabling the attack on the USS Cole,” lawyers for the families said in court papers outlining their case.

Despite Sudan not appearing the records say evidence was presented.

Then there is this:

Assistant Solicitor General Erica Ross, the Justice Department’s lawyer for the Supreme Court hearing, made it pretty clear why America is backing Sudan and not US victims of a heinous terrorist attack: The US wants lawsuits against it from other countries “brought into our courts only under the same circumstances that we ask abroad,” she told the justices....

So the Trump administration is siding with a repressive government in order to protect itself from future legal trouble. That’s by no means a moral stance, but it is a very self-interested one. And the US has legitimate worries here.

Like I said, let's understand the facts, let's not just post knee-jerk responses.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

A country deposed a ruler who was ripping them off and playing with criminals and are seeing him pay for his crimes.

Now they have to pay for what they've done.

When's our turn?! Oh please oh please oh please oh please *dances around*

 

[The Atheist]

Also, y'know, just for score-keeping, where are we on our feelings about all the weddings, funerals and hospitals we've kept accidentally bombing over the years?

Not to mention the cowardly murder of two Reuters reporters and ten other innocents in 2007.

 

[smartcooky]

Got a link so I can read more about that version? I'm just asking for the facts over the knee-jerk response.

I'm just clarifying what I understand Planigale's OP points were.

If these things are not true, that that's fair enough, but when I research this online, I see a lot of court rulings that Sudan was responsible, but I don't see much in the way of evidence being presented.

However, evidence of Yemeni and Saudi involvement is rife

The attacks took place in Aden, which is in Yemen

The suicide bombers were Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa, both Yemenis.

The terrorists charged with the bombing were...

Fahd al-Quso - Born 12 November 1974, Aden, Yemen
Jamal al-Badawi - Born 1969 Mukayras District, Yemen
Maamoun Msouh - Saudi National
Fahad al-Qasa - Saudi National
Ali Mohamed Saleh - Yemeni

The chief architect of the bombing was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national of Yemeni descent.

 

[Planigale]

I'm just clarifying what I understand Planigale's OP points were.

If these things are not true, that that's fair enough, but when I research this online, I see a lot of court rulings that Sudan was responsible, but I don't see much in the way of evidence being presented.

However, evidence of Yemeni and Saudi involvement is rife

The attacks took place in Aden, which is in Yemen

The suicide bombers were Ibrahim al-Thawr and Abdullah al-Misawa, both Yemenis.

The terrorists charged with the bombing were...

Fahd al-Quso - Born 12 November 1974, Aden, Yemen
Jamal al-Badawi - Born 1969 Mukayras District, Yemen
Maamoun Msouh - Saudi National
Fahad al-Qasa - Saudi National
Ali Mohamed Saleh - Yemeni

The chief architect of the bombing was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi national of Yemeni descent.

It is worth considering one strand of evidence for Sudan being a terrorist state. It was alleged it was manufacturing nerve gas that it was supplying to Iraq (or possibly al-Qaeda). The US bombed the pharmaceutical factory that supplied 50% of Sudan's drugs because they thought this was supplying nerve gas to Iraq. No one else (and apparently not even the US government) subsequently thought the factory made anything but drugs. The US government subsequently invaded Iraq in pursuit of the WMD that its intelligence services believed were present including the nerve gas made in Sudan.

Well we know the outcome of that, and just how accurate the intelligence assessments were.

So when the US intelligence services provide 'evidence' (not material evidence but 'expert' opinion) to US courts that Sudan provided support to al-Qaeda some may think that what the intelligence services are doing is telling the courts what the executive wants them to hear.

Essentially a civil court is being used to make a judgement on what is in essence a crime. There are however none of the protections that would normally ensue in a criminal case, legal representation for the accused, proof beyond reasonable doubt etc.


That the US government appealed against the first court case that awarded damages against Sudan (and not surprisingly the political appointees who are judges supported those who appoint and promote them and backed the US government), shows that even the US thinks the process is judicially dubious.

The issue is that the US has a law that allows 'terrorist states' to be sued by victims of terrorism. Iran is having to pay damages for 9/11 even though no one thinks 9/11 had anything to do with Iran. Sudan is paying out for USS Cole even though it had nothing to do with the attack in Yemen, years after it had cut ties with al-Qaeda. Countries with more direct liability e.g. Yemen have immunity in US law so cannot be sued.

At the end of the day I realise that in the run up to the election it is politically unacceptable to Trump to let off Sudan, they have to cough something up. I just hope that there is an understanding that the US will be making up for it in aid subsequently.