• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Senate votes to override Obama's veto of 9/11 Saudi Arabia lawsuits

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wereroku

Member
How big is the House majority on this? How many would have to change their vote to undo the Supermajority there?

Voting against this bill is basically death for any closely contested house seat. That is probably the whole point of it. Dems voting against it opens commercials talking about how they are on the side of SA instead of US families.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
As others have explained, this opens the door for America to be brought to justice for doing things like killing innocents in drone strikes.

Although I don't understand what the consequences are, how does suing a foreign government work?

Couldn't tell you, there isn't much of an avenue to do that right now. That's why this is happening right now. Worst case is foreign relations turn into a kleptocracy.
 

Piecake

Member
Fucking shameful. Our politicians are a bunch of cowards. They have to know this bill is monumentally stupid, but are going along with this stupidity because of optics. That should tell you how low of an opinion that our politicians have of voters.
 
As others have explained, this opens the door for America to be brought to justice for doing things like killing innocents in drone strikes.

Although I don't understand what the consequences are, how does suing a foreign government work?

didn't Bush say that we must go after countries that harbor and sponsor terror?

well, SA is the king of exporting terror
 

whytemyke

Honorary Canadian.
It's a pretty smart political move by Congress. Think about it-- they're ultimately throwing something into the election that Trump has absolutely no problem running on, but it's forcing Hillary to choose between destroying diplomatic alliances publically or not being on the side of justice for 9/11. I'd be shocked if they actually want families to sue Saudi Arabia. They just want to make Hillary talk about it.

I'm actually pretty shocked that the GOP was able to pull such a solid piece of political bullshit off at this stage of the game.

I mean, it'll ultimately blow up in their face, since anyone who voted for it will just get wrecked by it when they run against Hillary in 4 years, but still. Pretty good as far as hail Mary's go.
 
Blame campaign ads on this. No one wants to see their face in an ad about them being against 9-11 victims especially if it's going to pass anyway. It's shortsighted, but this bill is not going to directly impact lawmakers, so why would they care.

People confused about how the veto override works should read some basic information about how the US government functions before they post.
 
Voting against this bill is basically death for any closely contested house seat. That is probably the whole point of it. Dems voting against it opens commercials talking about how they are on the side of SA instead of US families.
Right, I get that but House seats are typically safer than Senate seats and since the Senate majority is astronomical, I was curious if the House majority is barely 2/3rds and if a few congressmen with courage could salvage this.
 

Garlador

Member
Nope. He can't veto a veto-override. Gotta hope the House isn't full of fucking morons now.

Friendly reminder, people, to go out and vote for more than just presidential elections.

There is a whole 'nother branch of government you have a voice in.
 
So let me get this straight.

The Senate wanted to let people sue Saudi Arabia for allegedly backing the terrorists of 9/11.

But Obama veto'd that.

But now the Senate is gonna ignore Obama's veto?

The bigger "so let me get this straight" is:

Congress has sat on their ass for the last year and accomplished literally nothing of worth.

But can come together with overwhelming majority to let some assholes sue.
 
US has been kissing Saudi's ass for a while.. why tax them now?

We've been fucking with them for years, why crack down now?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It's a pretty smart political move by Congress. Think about it-- they're ultimately throwing something into the election that Trump has absolutely no problem running on, but it's forcing Hillary to choose between destroying diplomatic alliances publically or not being on the side of justice for 9/11. I'd be shocked if they actually want families to sue Saudi Arabia. They just want to make Hillary talk about it.

I'm actually pretty shocked that the GOP was able to pull such a solid piece of political bullshit off at this stage of the game.

I mean, it'll ultimately blow up in their face, since anyone who voted for it will just get wrecked by it when they run against Hillary in 4 years, but still. Pretty good as far as hail Mary's go.

Except it potentially opens the door for foreign nations to seize US assets in retaliation for literally anything if it passes. The precedent is chilling.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Friendly reminder, people, to go out and vote for more than just presidential elections.

There is a whole 'nother branch of government you have a voice in.

I agree with you but in this case what difference would it make? Democrats are supporting this en masse.
 
Friendly reminder, people, to go out and vote for more than just presidential elections.

There is a whole 'nother branch of government you have a voice in.

So I should vote for the Republican opponent of any Democrat running and the Democratic opponent of any Republican running???
 

Wereroku

Member
Right, I get that but House seats are typically safer than Senate seats and since the Senate majority is astronomical, I was curious if the House majority is barely 2/3rds and if a few congressmen with courage could salvage this.

The republicans already have 234 so they only need 45 Dems to join them. Voting against these families is going to be extremely poisonous so if the Dems stand up for what should be done they will lose more seats. This is pure political maneuvering teh Repubs don't give a fuck about the people.

Someone explain to me, how the fuck are US citizens going to sue another country across the ocean?

They aren't they are going to sue them in the US and seize their assets here. SA is unique in that the monarchy has assets in the US that can be recovered since they are technically the government of SA. Anyone trying this against the US will find it very difficult since the government handles their assets differently such as leasing military bases instead of owning them. The true problem is that these countries will start collecting from US companies/US citizens to recover their lost assets. It ignores the whole point of international courts and diplomacy.
 

necrosis

Member
saudi arabia is horrible and backwards in many respects but this is fucking stupid lmao

good luck enforcing any judgements
 

womfalcs3

Banned
If the president's veto can be overridden, he or she isn't really powerful.

didn't Bush say that we must go after countries that harbor and sponsor terror?

well, SA is the king of exporting terror
No country has committed as bad of a terrorist act than the US with 250,000 dead civilians in the nuclear strikes of Japan...
 

Chris R

Member
No country has committed as bad of a terrorist act than the US with 250,000 dead civilians in the nuclear strikes of Japan...

That was an act of war. Does it suck that we did it? Yup. Did it prevent that number from being in the millions as it would have been with a land invasion of Japan? Yup.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
If the president's veto can be overridden, he or she isn't really powerful.


No country has committed as bad of a terrorist act than the US with 250,000 dead civilians in the nuclear strikes of Japan...

War was formally declared, so it's technically an act of war. Just FYI.
 

Wereroku

Member
If the president's veto can be overridden, he or she isn't really powerful.

No country has committed as bad of a terrorist act than the US with 250,000 dead civilians in the nuclear strikes of Japan...

That's not an act or terrorism it was an act of war. Also we did worse then that with the fire bombing campaigns against the axis powers.

Absolute idiocy. Populism at its worst.

Yep the house and senate are supposed to support the interests of the US even if it is against the interests of a few citizens. Putting in measures to support these families and help them go through the international courts should be what they should focus on.
 
I just think the entire premise of this bill is horrifying:

"Hey, a lot of people died in a horrible terrorist attack! Let's sue another country!"
 

Raven117

Gold Member
Who will enforce the rulings?

This is the right way to think about this.

Not just from an enforcement standpoint, but from a truly implementation standpoint.

Yeah, okay, so the U.S. says you can sue. Saudi Arabia is an independent country, with its own Sovereign Immunity protections. You can't just file a lawsuit and send over a courier to Saudi Arabia with a summons to give to the royal family, have them show up in Court, abide by discovery . . .etc. you get my point.

Even if you could (you can't), the pockets of Saudi would put an army of lawyers between them and the plaintiffs.

It just ain't going to happen.
 

Garlador

Member
I agree with you but in this case what difference would it make? Democrats are supporting this en masse.

It's not about voting just down party lines or not. It's about electing the right people IN that party for the job as well, no matter what party they represent.
 

Dr.Acula

Banned
Practically, other than put money of 9/11 families into the coffers of lawyers, what will this bill do? Is there any real prospect of SA settling with these families?
 

Wereroku

Member
This is the right way to think about this.

Not just from an enforcement standpoint, but from a truly implementation standpoint.

Yeah, okay, so the U.S. says you can sue. Saudi Arabia is an independent country, with its own Sovereign Immunity protections. You can't just file a lawsuit and send over a courier to Saudi Arabia with a summons to give to the royal family, have them show up in Court, abide by discovery . . .etc. you get my point.

Even if you could (you can't), the pockets of Saudi would put an army of lawyers between them and the plaintiffs.

It just ain't going to happen.
No it would happen if this passes. The Saudi's may have huge pockets but the families will have an army of lawyers working on commission because a win would be one of the biggest paydays in history. Also any action would involve their US assets getting locked down to avoid them removing them from US interests. If this goes through SA will probably lose the case and the assets.

Like Saudia Arabia gives a fuck who is going to sue them. This is a waste.

Oh they care they have a lot of money invested in the US that could be taken. You keep forgetting that SA is the monarchy so any assets the family has in the US can be seized. Just think about all the stories of the princes with garages full of Lambos and huge estates.

Why is overriding a veto stupid? President Obama isn't a dictator.

Choosing to override this particular bill is whats stupid not the ability to override a veto.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
No it would happen if this passes. The Saudi's may have huge pockets but the families will have an army of lawyers working on commission because a win would be one of the biggest paydays in history. Also any action would involve their US assets getting locked down to avoid them removing them from US interests. If this goes through SA will probably lose the case and the assets.

And then the door is opened for this to happen the other way.
 

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
97-1?

Yeah I'm skeptical that voting better would have any impact on that. That's such an overwhelming majority that I think anyone you vote for is going along with that unless they specifically campaign on not suing Saudi Arabia. No constituency is actually going to make that a wedge issue however.

9/11 is just one of those things that garners overwhelming bipartisan support whether it's rational or not.
 

Wereroku

Member
And then the door is opened for this to happen the other way.

Yes except the US government doesn't store their assets in the countries that would do this against us. Their would be nothing for them to recover.

97-1?

Yeah I'm skeptical that voting better would have any impact on that. That's such an overwhelming majority that I think anyone you vote for is going along with that unless they specifically campaign on not suing Saudi Arabia. No constituency is actually going to make that a wedge issue however.

9/11 is just one of those things that garners overwhelming bipartisan support whether it's rational or not.

It's more that voting against it is political death for most candidates. Having a commercial and record that says you are against 9/11 families is the end of your run. That is why it has bipartisan support.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Harry Reid and Obama are gonna regret this come election time when they both lose their positions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom