Support NeoGAF

[Ziltoidia 9]

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.

The real question is why are the dems in the senate going against what Obama thinks? This can't just be blamed on a republican led senate. Someone is at play, and I really doubt the senate dems would go so far against Obama unless there was a reason.

 

[Chris R]

Who were the two that did not vote?

NAY - 1
Reid (D-NV)

NOT VOTING - 2
Kaine (D-VA)
Sanders (I-VT)

 

[Lunar15]

How is this so overwhelmingly supported?

Is there something attached to this that we're not aware of? On the surface it just seems like the most asinine thing, from every political standpoint available.

Even my fairly conservative parents heard about this and knew it was utter bullshit.

 

[Luschient]

Senate won't do jack shit regarding gun regulation but they can certainly get a majority to vote for this toothless pos bill...

 

[Dr.Acula]

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.

I feel like the US has much more interest in its relationship with SA as a whole than its relationship with a handful of 9/11 families, sadly. Especially considering that the royal family runs much of the government and business in the country.

 

[QuantumBro]

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.

If only people could have that sort of choice. Most house elections will have a choice between a person chosen by the Democratic party and a person chosen by the Republican party.

I guess they could always write in Bernie Sanders and make a true difference.

 

[tuxfool]

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.



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.

One has to wonder what these nations will do once the US starts seizing all their assets, or even threatening for that matter.

 

[darkwing]

How is this so overwhelmingly supported?

Is there something attached to this that we're not aware of? On the surface it just seems like the most asinine thing, from every political standpoint available.

who would vote against the 9/11 families? it will be a political suicide at the polls

 

[Wiz]

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.

Pretty much. This override is all political. Obama can veto this and not worry about any major political blow back. For senators or representatives, not so much, especially in an election year. Good luck to any member of congress trying to explain why they voted against a bill to give 9/11 families a day in court. (Not saying I agree, just stating the motivation behind this)

 

[Walshicus]

How is this anything other than a good thing? I mean unless you're a fan of the KSA?

 

[Angelus Errare]

Being able to sue the government of a country for the actions of a few citizens is hilariously dumb.

 

[MisterShine]

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

Is there actually any threat of that? I can't imagine the fed would allow that to happen. We are still the only superpower, who has the leverage to pull that off on us without disproportionate retaliation?

OT: I'm curious if these suits could force the government to release more information on the 9/11 attack. I remember a lot of the initial report was blacked out to protect foreign nations (which pretty much eveyone assumed was Saudi Arabia). If this can definitively link elements of the Saudi Gov't to the attacks, this is a pretty big deal.


edit:

Being able to sue the government of a country for the actions of a few citizens is hilariously dumb.

This is part of the reason for the bill, it isn't about suing the government over what the citizens did, this kind of suit could essentially force the Saudi gov to prove that portions of itself did not assist in/finance the attack.

 

[tuxfool]

Also I doubt those families would get anything. Proving culpability here is going to be really difficult. The only problem is that it looks bad politically and invites the same actions abroad.

 

[Xyrmellon]

If they completely override this, I believe he could issue an executive order preventing the lawsuits.

 

[badcrumble]

As others have explained, this opens the door for America to be brought to justice for doing things like killing innocents in drone strikes.

Wait and that's bad how

 

[Condom]

The stupidity of certain decisions keep amazing me. Wtf are the party leaderships doing?

 

[EatinOlives]

Can't wait until other countries start suing the US in turn and GOP blowhards start beating the "Clinton's leadership is WEAK!!" drum.

 

[Aeriscloud]

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

 

[Wereroku]

One has to wonder what these nations will do once the US starts seizing all their assets, or even threatening for that matter.

Honestly most countries would be fine SA is so special because the Monarchy owns the assets and can be sued as the government. Like the US most other countries keep their assets protected but this would kill investment from countries like SA. Would probably cool investment overall since other companies would be afraid of this kind of overreach affecting them as well.

 

[platakul]

Wait and that's bad how

Our precious moral high ground

 

[Walpurgis]

Wait and that's bad how

Yeah, I'm pretty happy with this, tbh. SA and USA deserve to be sued.

 

[kamspy]

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.

Right.

What court would hear this? What penalty would there be if KSA just didn't show up to court? Who will enforce this penalty?

I would agree that voting against this is writing a campaign attack ad against yourself that would be effective against either party. Still, what the fuck.

 

[BobTheFork]

The oddest thing about this to me: Since when did the republicans even acknowledge Saudi involvement in 911? I'm way behind but I thought that fact that the majority of attackers on the planes were Saudi was totally ignored during the Bush era.

 

[whitehawk]

I thought the whole point of a veto was that... y'know it as a veto.

 

[ClayKavalier]

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

well, SA is the king of exporting terror

Well Bush certainly never led us astray. Full speed ahead!

 

[itxaka]

As others have explained, this opens the door for America to be brought to justice for doing things like killing innocents in drone strikes.

So then this is good? I don't understand why would something like this would be bad. If a country has committed illegal acts why should people not be able to obtain justice?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Oh no, not that.

Yeah lol people act like this is a bad thing. Bombing innocent civilians is a bad thing. So is funding terrorism.

 

[Father_Brain]

As others have explained, this opens the door for America to be brought to justice for doing things like killing innocents in drone strikes.

I'm sorry, this is supposed to be a bad thing?

 

[Keri]

There's really no risk of lawsuit against the U.S. I mean, if another country wanted to sue the U.S., they can feel free, but it's extraordinarily unlikely to have any effect or harm U.S. interests. The only reason this ruling potentially means anything, is because the Saudi monarchy apparently has assets in the U.S., which can be seized.

 

[ClayKavalier]

I thought the whole point of a veto was that... y'know it as a veto.

The whole point of checks and balances is no one branch can completely ignore input from the others.

 

[Lightning_Roller]

The Senate would sooner see the world in ashes then let Obama beat them.

 

[ClayKavalier]

I'm sorry, this is supposed to be a bad thing?

I honestly don't know, like I said I don't understand the consequences.

Just based on my knowledge of lawsuits in general I think opening the doors for suing foreign governments seems ripe for abuse, and I wonder how much money we'll spend annually dealing with this if it becomes a common thing.

 

[Henry Jones Jr]

I thought the whole point of a veto was that... y'know it as a veto.

Its a check to make sure a President cant just sit in there and veto everything. But a superiority vote (2/3) is needed to override a veto, so its generally not an easy thing to get.

 

[mercenar1e]

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

they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. voting against this could potentially cost them the next election or pass it and let others worry about the consequences years from now.

 

[flkraven]

Is congress just being intentionally blind to the double standard that their country/citizens may be sued by other nations' citizens for the mistakes the US makes? Or are they aware but don't give a fuck, essentially calling the bluff and assuming it won't be done in reverse?

 

[womfalcs3]

The whole point of checks and balances is no one branch can completely ignore input from the others.

Right... So both the legislative and executive branches have to agree. If you can override a veto, the executive branch is weaker.

 

[freeofgreed]

I don't understand the "make sure you vote" posts in this thread. This was supported almost unanimously in both house by both parties. I mean go vote please, but in this specific case, regardless of who you're voting for it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

While it sucks that this is the kind of thing that can unite both parties so strongly I also don't think it's all that big of a deal. Likely nothing much will come of it. What courts will this be tried in? Who will enforce it? Pretty sure it's the president's job to and Obama is against it and Clinton Likely will be as well. This is pretty much just a "feel good" law that won't amount to much.

And now in regards to the counter argument, that this will allow other countries to do the same. Most likely that won't amount to much either. Most of our allies probably won't let such a thing happen and if any other country does, the US will most likely be able to ignore it without repercussion, as it does with a lot of things. And even if those lawsuits do go through, I fail to see how it would be bad thing. If a "fair" court deems that we were at fault for a tragedy to a victim then we should be held accountable for it.

 

[Regulus Tera]

How the fuck can people whose entire job is to make laws not understand how International law works!?

 

[Henry Jones Jr]

Right... So both the legislative and executive branches have to agree. If you can override a veto, the executive branch is weaker.

I would say if the system were working correctly, the legislative branch as a whole should be the most powerful, but that power is distributed among hundreds of people. But they mostly do nothing these days because of how divided things have become.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Someone explain why this is a bad thing. I see so many posts decrying this but no explanation. From my perspective the Saudi Royal family are pretty shitty and seizing their US assets is fine by me.

 

[Butane123]

... This opens up so many problems and issues.

Though I'm wondering if I, as a Native American, can now sue Europe for displacing my ancestors and moving us to Oklahoma...

Because Oklahoma sucks, ya'll.

If you find out, let me know since I'm in the same boat.

 

[belvedere]

As an American, can I sue America for false advertising?

 

[RurouniZel]

Can this law be sued and brought to the Supreme Court?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Is there any precedent or jurisprudence that would allow the Supreme Court to overrule this?

 

[djplaeskool]

Someone explain why this is a bad thing. I see so many posts decrying this but no explanation. From my perspective the Saudi Royal family are pretty shitty and seizing their US assets is fine by me.

I hope you're okay with the inverse, then.
A lot of variables are about to be put in play that could cost the US greatly.
I feel like this entire thing hasn't really been thought through, because I'm still wondering how this would even play out legally, in terms of jurisdiction, judgement, and enforcement.

 

[andythinkpad]

I don't understand the language posters use in this thread. It may be "opening a can of warms", but I don't see why it's a "shameful" or "disgusting" idea.

If the US government including the white house and the senate do the right thing and cut tie with Saudi to begin with, the civilians doesn't have to rely on US law to go after the Saudi theocratic government in round about ways.

 

[Regulus Tera]

How is this anything other than a good thing? I mean unless you're a fan of the KSA?

Imagine if the government of Syria made it legal for its citizens to sue the United States for the civilians killed in drone strikes. They would be laughed at by the international community.

Never mind that there is no way to implement such decisions. Who is gonna enforce the rulings, exactly?

I don't understand the language posters use in this thread. It may be "opening a can of warms", but I don't see why it's a "shameful" or "disgusting" idea.

If the US government including the white house and the senate do the right thing and cut tie with Saudi to begin with, the civilians doesn't have to rely on US law to go after the Saudi theocratic government in round about ways.

US law cannot go after the Saudi government. It goes entirely against the concept of national sovereignty.

 

[andythinkpad]

Imagine if the government of Syria made it legal for its citizens to sue the United States for the civilians killed in drone strikes. They would be laughed at by the international community.

Never mind that there is no way to implement such decisions. Who is gonna enforce the rulings, exactly?

The Syria government can't enforce it because US government don't have asset in Syria banks.

The only country that can enforce such ruling are the US, China and a couple EU countries. Same reason the US/Chinese/EU government can fine XX company X billion dollars for monopoly practice but not other countries. If a multinational company don't do enough business in your company, you can't realistically fine them a large amount and expect to collect the fine.

 

[andythinkpad]

...

US law cannot go after the Saudi government. It goes entirely against the concept of national sovereignty.

First of all, US government already ignore the traditional nation state definition when they started the 2nd Iraqi war unilaterally.

Secondly, this is different from UN passing a resolution to condemn a country how?

 

[Kolx]

So they're willing to sue a country based on info most of which "remains speculative and yet to be independently verified" while allowing people from other countries to sue the us by the thousands? yeah elections season is a bitch.