Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill That Would Allow Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia

[Majestic12]

The bigger question is... Why do Americans always feel the need to sue people? The idea to sue Saudi Arabia is flat out ridiculous.

[ranzino]

Will confgess overrule Obama in sight of the consequences ? Or ar they all so blind on the capitol hill ?

[Phlegethon]

Then youd have to allow the ones sued to sue others and so on and so forth. Its a never ending line of suing

That's the murrican way

[Deleted]

I guess they need SA so badly as an ally it's ok to overlook some minor issues with them, like sponsoring terrorism so people can fly some planes in buildings.

[ranzino]

I guess they need SA so badly as an ally it's ok to overlook some minor issues with them, like sponsoring terrorism so people can fly some planes in buildings.

Nice guess, but US has ALSO to cover its own ass here, not that of SA.

[Deleted]

Nice guess, but US has ALSO to cover its own ass here, not that of SA.

You mean they could be afraid that it wil show some level of involvement from the US government in covering up that they knew this from the start?

[ranzino]

You mean they could be afraid that it wil show some level of involvement from the US government in covering up that they knew this from the start?

Not that path, but everybody and their grandma could sue USA too. You simple cannot sue SA in US, but forbid the same procedure elsewhere with USA as defendant. If congress is wise, they let SA go to cover their own asses; for US has a long streak of involvement in foreign affairs and not everybody abroad is happy about that.
if congress overrules Obama in this case, you can run straight to The Hague (or your friendly court next town) and sue US for whatever cruelty they did in their last ~ 250 years.
"And all the lawyers rejoic'd, rejoi'cd, rejoic'd.." ( imagine "Zadok the Priest" here )

[DeltrusDisc]

yeah, if they overturn the veto, this opens up the US getting sued from other countries too. Diplomatic immunity is a 2 way street

This exactly. I'm so sick of this BS. It's not at all a safe piece of legislation.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

At least for once people admit the US does a lot of things wrong outside their own borders.

I'd say most countries do, or have. Its just fun and hip to make fun of the US.

[Felnoire]

Well if congress puts this bill through, I'll be watching the news waiting for the headlines of all the countries suing the US. Destruction of property, life.. the destruction of tea alone will be worth the wait. Nope, nothing against America, but this is a Pandora's box of nuttiness and as much as you might want to hate on Obama you might want to thank him for seeing this is one bullet best dodged.

[Kasierith]

You mean they could be afraid that it wil show some level of involvement from the US government in covering up that they knew this from the start?

The US has purposefully stayed clear of international legal disputes and organizations such as the ICC for the explicit purpose that, above anything else, the policy of the US in international politics is firmly maintaining its sovereignty. It would be draw dropping for a bill like this to pass, something that sacrifices American sovereignty for petty personal gain, because ultimately litigation is a two way street. You are either part of a legal process or not, and if the US becomes partners with SA for the purposes of filing legal damages, the reverse is true as well.

[Destump]

I'd say most countries do, or have. Its just fun and hip to make fun of the US.

I think it has got more to do with playing the world police without being asked/wanted.

[Deleted]

I'd say most countries do, or have. Its just fun and hip to make fun of the US.

Sure. It's all a hipster thing.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Sure. It's all a hipster thing.

Yup. It is. Which country do you hail from? I'm sure its got plenty of skeletons.

- - - Updated - - -

I think it has got more to do with playing the world police without being asked/wanted.

Yeah, except when the US is "supposed" to...

[Deleted]

Yup. It is. Which country do you hail from? I'm sure its got plenty of skeletons.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, except when the US is "supposed" to...

It's not about having skeletons. It's about having more skeletons than anyone else.

[Berengil]

These kinds of threads pretty much put on display the people who have the hardest time with logic, facts, and critical thinking... heck sometimes I even question their ability to think on a basal level.

As pointed out, this would open the floodgates for people to sue the US for damages. We don't want to set that precedent.

Batman, I have your posts flagged in my profile settings because usually I agree and you don't seem to have your head up you-know-where.

But I ask you this: If someone in some nowhere sh-thole gets a judgement against the US, who is going to try to collect? Seriously, someone says " you owe us 50 million bucks now." US says " get rekt. Come and get it if you want to try."

Seize US assets in some other country? GL to them when the retaliatory seizures of theirs start. Or if it's some place we don't care what they think, then have fun dealing with the drones.

I know it's a burr under the saddle for some people,but you seem to be a more realistic liberal, like I consider myself. Who is going to be stupid enough to poke the US that way and then have a rabid US public demanding retaliation. Demanding it, btw, from politicians who'd like to get re-elected one day.

Yes, it's a dangerous law. Yes I mostly agree with Obama's reasoning. None of this changes the facts:

1) It has veto-proof support in Congress.

2) Public opinion is behind it.

3) If the US public sees someone retaliating against us for the law, the cries for blood ( metaphorical and literal) will be enormous.

It comes to this: as much as many people outside the US don't like it, there two sets of rules. Those they follow, and those the US follows. Mostly they coincide, but not always. The long shadow of the 1940s is still on us.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

It's not about having skeletons. It's about having more skeletons than anyone else.

Again, whats your birthplace?

[Chrysia]

Batman, I have your posts flagged in my profile settings because usually I agree and you don't seem to have your head up you-know-where.

But I ask you this: If someone in some nowhere sh-thole gets a judgement against the US, who is going to try to collect? Seriously, someone says " you owe us 50 million bucks now." US says " get rekt. Come and get it if you want to try."

Seize US assets in some other country? GL to them when the retaliatory seizures of theirs start. Or if it's some place we don't care what they think, then have fun dealing with the drones.

I know it's a burr under the saddle for some people,but you seem to be a more realistic liberal, like I consider myself. Who is going to be stupid enough to poke the US that way and then have a rabid US public demanding retaliation. Demanding it, btw, from politicians who'd like to get re-elected one day.

Yes, it's a dangerous law. Yes I mostly agree with Obama's reasoning. None of this changes the facts:

1) It has veto-proof support in Congress.

2) Public opinion is behind it.

3) If the US public sees someone retaliating against us for the law, the cries for blood ( metaphorical and literal) will be enormous.

It comes to this: as much as many people outside the US don't like it, there two sets of rules. Those they follow, and those the US follows. Mostly they coincide, but not always. The long shadow of the 1940s is still on us.

It's not about any given individual nation poking us in response to this being passed. There's a lot of nations out there we've fucked with over the years, but there's just one us. Even our allies won't support us in the event we let this shit happen.

[bloodmoth13]

Then youd have to allow the ones sued to sue others and so on and so forth. Its a never ending line of suing

ughghgh sounds like too much effort, screw justice, takes too long!

[Chrysia]

ughghgh sounds like too much effort, screw justice, takes too long!

A lawsuit blaming a nation for the action of individual citizens is not about justice.