This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saudi Arabia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Saudi Arabia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Saudi ArabiaWikipedia:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaTemplate:WikiProject Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article would benefit from a short explanation of what the bill wants to change ffrom aa legal perspective. i.e In which areas was sovereign immunity planned to be tightened?. Are there some expert users on Wikipedia that would be able to add this?
As this is English Wikipedia, on a US (federal) bill many of the sources are going to be from what would be termed "Western" media sources. However, should views (and sources) from a wider perspective be included? I was thinking Al Jazeera might be a reasonable one if it's reported on this bill?
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As of September 28, 2016, the Senate has overruled Obama's veto of this bill 97-1. This does not automatically mean that it is federal law, as it still needs to pass through the House of Representatives again. Please do not edit this stating it is law until HoR have confirmed it. Mcs2050wiki (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
HoR has now confirmed, however it is not clear on what date this formally becomes law. Is it 28 September 2016 or 29 September 2016 or 1 January 2017. Perhaps the answer would be obvious to an expert - but it isn't to a casual user of Wikipedia like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.53.146 (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Once both houses have voted, it becomes law and since the act does not contain a date in which its provisions come into effect, it comes into immediate effect, i.e., Sept. 28.[3] However only torts following that date are included, except for terrorism related to the 9/11 attacks. TFD (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Prime Minister of Turkey, Binali Yildirim said, "The bill is a cover for the U.S. to seize Saudi funds, this has nothing to do with international law." Perhaps we should include a subtitle under the title "Criticism". -78.171.180.160 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since there are only a small number of cases that can be brought based on this case, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the page have a section about the status of the actual cases.
--207.188.207.18 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
