Support NeoGAF

[Riddick]

Never mind that the entire Washington foreign policy establishment is built around catering to "the Saudi scum," the big picture reason for being opposed to this is that it opens the floodgates for thousands of foreign nationals to sue the U.S. government for their civilian casualties incurred.

Which, morally, isn't a bad thing, but financially could be some fuckery. Although logistically, who knows if or how that kind of litigation would even play out.

All of which is to say is, Obama's veto does not mean he hates 9/11 victims.

Financially it could be some fuckery if the US continues bombing countries into the stone age which in combination with the Saudi Royal religious nutjobs is the main reason the Middle East and Islam are in the state they're in nowadays.

If that's the incentive to stop the imperialistic foreign policy I'm fine with that. But since Obama is part of that status quo I can see why he wouldn't like it.

 

[excelsiorlef]

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

well, SA is the king of exporting terror

I mean Bush also launched the war on Iraq so....

 

[The Albatross]

Virtually all legal and legislative experts interviewed on NPR today have thought that this will not have any significant downstream affect given that there are already exceptions to sovereign immunity clauses, this will be yet another exception, and it's overwhelmingly likely to be rewritten come December after the election. Almost nobody, save for alarmists on internet forums, think that this is going to open the doors to the US (or other allies) being sued world wide in either legitimate or dubious lawsuits. That's why this passed easily with a voice vote in both chambers of Congress and the veto was overridden with virtual unanimity amongst both Republicans and Democrats. If the consequences were as dire as the posts in this thread and others in federal law enforcement/executive positions want to make it seem, then over 93% of Senate democrats would not have voted to overrride Pres. Obama's veto.

Beyond everything, this is going to be amended after the election. It's already on the docket for the lame duck session that comes up in December. Congress is going to come together and amend the bill before it becomes law, there's already been a bipartisan letter that a few dozen congressmen in both parties have signed off on saying that the bill will come up for review again after the election. The reason Tim Kaine and Bernie Sanders abstained from the vote is precisely this reason, given that Tim Kaine is likely to become Vice President and there's a likelihood that Bernie Sanders may see an executive appointment, they're the only two senators who have something to lose by voting with the president but against the rest of their party. The only senator that upheld the president's veto, Harry Reid, is retiring.

So, no, this is not opening the door to widespread civil judicial action against the United States on issues of Drone Strikes, Hiroshima, Slavery, the absorption of Texas, Hawaii becoming a state, Native Americans suing Portugal for Columbus, or Montezuma's Grand Children lawyering-up against Spain, or any number of nightmare or fantasy scenarios we can think of.

The vote is important because it's the first time that Congress has over-ridden a veto under Obama, now in the closing months of his presidency, but the affect of the vote will be measured and insignificant.

 

[Lord Morairty007]

It was a matter of time. Even Hilary supports the action to sue the Saudis. Saudi Arabia is no ally to the U.S all they care about is our funding to them.

 

[Moral Panic]

I'm really confused as to why this is a bad thing.

 

[TheRealTalker]

This is what I'm wondering about tho. Can someone sue the us in us court and get a compensation as well? if not then that's surely won't encourage more hate against the us in the world.

nothing will stop other countries suing the US under their own courts

what will make this even worse for the US though is if SA does something suicidal and tosses this court to the ICC

that would be a double edged/ bold move play in which SA would be prying itself upon to cases in North Yemen but would either make the US join the ICC to sue SA or will have to back down

the most extreme scenario is after all of this every country is suing other countries, which would lead to national companies assets to be frozen worldwide which would lead to some economical world crisis

----

This whole thing is US short sighted idociy at its finest

I mean even say they actually go and sue SA for 9/11 (let us ignore the other people who will be tossed into this mess)

and let us say SA actually attends
then what


you think the SA today is the same government 15+ years ago?


I mean some Americans or in this little self centered delusional bubble that it worries me

 

[Mohonky]

No wonder Obamas hair has been turning grey over the years; try to improve something, blocked at every turn, try to prevent the senate from passing stupid shit, its going through anyway.

Fucked if you do, fucked if you dont. There are probably walls in the white house with the shape of Obamas head knocked into them

 

[smokeymicpot]

I'm really confused as to why this is a bad thing.

They can start suing the US for stuff we done. It will open a bunch of floodgates.

 

[djplaeskool]

Also, wasn't Iran successfully sued by Americans in the past? Why would this open a can of worms when that didn't?

That was for interest on a debt we hadn't paid back in 30+ years.

 

[gutter_trash]

I mean Bush also launched the war on Iraq so....

in the wrong country but he had ulterior motives

 

[The Albatross]

They can start suing the US for stuff we done. It will open a bunch of floodgates.

Nah

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=218429348&postcount=206

No flood gates are being opened. There will be no flood.

 

[RecRoulette]

Damn, 97-1 in the senate.

 

[Hari Seldon]

They can start suing the US for stuff we done. It will open a bunch of floodgates.

Country: We sue you US!!!
US: No
Country: Ok no harm in asking, my bad!

 

[pa22word]

It actually would be kind of nice if drone strike victims could sue the US. That way the US government could turn over documents proving the nation in question signed on to using them in the first place and are not just gaining a net benefit of using them to deter extremism at home while slandering the US in public because it plays well domestically.

Looking at you, Pakistan.

Nah

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=218429348&postcount=206

No flood gates are being opened. There will be no flood.

Yeah, this. This whole hullabaloo just seems to me Obama wanting to maintain some kind of relationship with the Saudi's long term.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

"vote better!"

It was 97 to fucking 1 and as far as i know the one person who voted no is retiring soon anyway. This just goes to show it doesnt matter who you vote for, these are pretty much all flawed politicians who rarely have our best interests in mind. Just reaffirms my thoughts after the debate, whoever wins, we lose. This shit sucks.

 

[RMI]

I'm really confused as to why this is a bad thing.

America is like king shit of perpetrating international terror, depending on your perspective. So if anything it just seems kind of ass backwards.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Interesting that so many people in this thread are against this.

If you haven't, go read the 28 pages on Saudi Arabia. It's one of the most damning things I've ever read.

 

[Zeusy]

Not good

 

[andythinkpad]

already this (#قانون_جاست&#1575 is trending on twitter

and if you type in Jasta even more people from around the world are discussing about suing the US

from Vietnam to Latin America to Eastern Europe to the ME... a bunch of suing possibilities will arise

Every single country invaded by the US (there must be 30 of them) can sue US, they just can't enforce the fine.

FYI China issue human right report on the US every year.

 

[Keri]

Nah

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=218429348&postcount=206

No flood gates are being opened. There will be no flood.

I feel like this needs to be reposted every couple of minutes. A lot of people don't seem to understand the very limited effect of this law.

 

[TheRealTalker]

Every single country invaded by the US (there must be 30 of them) can sue US, they just can't enforce the fine.

FYI China issue human right report on the US every year.

yes but now there is substance in these suing claims

like how the US will freeze SA's investment assets in the US and if this expands later on where US citizens try and sue other countries and freeze there assets as well

what is stopping other countries with US investment from doing the same

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

It actually would be kind of nice if drone strike victims could sue the US. That way the US government could turn over documents proving the nation in question signed on to using them in the first place and are not just gaining a net benefit of using them to deter extremism at home while slandering the US in public because it plays well domestically.

Looking at you, Pakistan.

Uh, that doesn't absolve the US of responsibility for drone deaths.

 

[Mudcrab]

yes but now there is substance in these suing claims

like how the US will freeze SA's investment assets in the US and if this expands later on where US citizens try and sue other countries and freeze there assets as well

what is stopping other countries with US investment from doing the same

The small fact that exactly 0 nation states that enjoy the benefits of US cooperation would ever dream of allowing that to happen. There's plenty of scenarios that can involve seizure of assets but this isn't one of them and really any US based suits against the Saudis won't amount to much either.

 

[BobLoblaw]

How many of these votes were because they didn't want future competition holding this against them?

 

[shoplifter]

Jesus, it's 2016.

Come on, Senate

 

[SecretMoblin]

How many of these votes were because they didn't want future competition holding this against them?

A lot of the people voting for this are running unopposed and will effectively have their seats as long as they want them. You only get votes like this when something is effectively non-controversial, and among the members of Congress, this bill is exactly that. It isn't because they're terrified of attack ads or primary challengers or whatever.

 

[TheRealTalker]

The small fact that exactly 0 nation states that enjoy the benefits of US cooperation would ever dream of allowing that to happen. There's plenty of scenarios that can involve seizure of assets but this isn't one of them and really any US based suits against the Saudis won't amount to much either.

I agree that I don't even believe that SA is going to attend the court hearings

but if the US court decides to freeze SA investments because of that it opens a ton of possibilities

what stops other future countries from doing the same

it is a double edged sword and don't think they'll be like sure America you can take my money but I won't freeze US investments

 

[Ryzaki009]

If the US government can give banks $700 billion for the banks' own fuckups, they can at least match that.

.

Hahaha thinking they're gonna give us civilians as much as they give the banks. That's funny. Plus we gotta split what they give us.

 

[Moral Panic]

They can start suing the US for stuff we done. It will open a bunch of floodgates.

Again. I am really confused as to why this is a bad idea.

 

[Shmuppers]

I also don't understand why this necessarily a bad thing

 

[gutter_trash]

I also don't understand why this necessarily a bad thing

people think about national interest before thinking about justice

morally, it is the right thing to do. Bring 'em to justice

 

[TheRealTalker]

Again. I am really confused as to why this is a bad idea.

people think about national interest before thinking about justice

morally, it is the right thing to do. Bring 'em to justice

again suing anyone that was involved in 9/11 isn't wrong and that indeed is the morally correct thing to do

but

your suing a government here

the people in power now are not the same people in power 15+ years ago

I mean this whole bill is too obtuse, short sighted and simple minded

-----
then again they can always amend it

 

[andythinkpad]

I think the Obama fans should STFU about this veto. The Trans Pacific Partnership Obama work so hard to get pass will allow corporations to sue countries.

Bringing out the Westphalian nation state argument will make yourself a hypocrite.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Well.

Sounds like Brexit all over again.

Fucking morons don't even know how to pander right.

 

[Elfforkusu]

They can start suing the US for stuff we done. It will open a bunch of floodgates.

Maybe we should stop doing fucked up shit?

 

[Slurpy2k20]

So do the families of the literally hundreds of thousands of people who have been slaughtered by US bombs and artillery the past decade or two or so also get to sue the US gvt? Or is it just the special snowflake families of those who died in one terror attack 15 years ago?

 

[gutter_trash]

again suing anyone that was involved in 9/11 isn't wrong and that indeed is the morally correct thing to do

but

your suing a government here

the people in power now are not the same people in power 15+ years ago

I mean this whole bill is too obtuse, short sighted and simple minded

-----
then again they can always amend it

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy dictatorship, people in power then are still in power now.

 

[LiK]

can't wait for other countries to start suing our asses for shit we do.

 

[Dayner_Kurdi]

let see who will get bankrupt first, you or us

Country: We sue you US!!!
US: No
Country: Ok no harm in asking, my bad!

why not, you bend the rules 1st, that mean I could do too.

 

[koji kabuto]

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy dictatorship, people in power then are still in power now.

3 kings and their families since 9/11

 

[Chocolate & Vanilla]

Saudi Arabia needs to be brought to justice for being a country that sponsors terror

no matter the geopolitical strategic interests, justice must be served

So who's gonna bring America to justice for sponsoring Saudi Arabia?

 

[xkramz]

So what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims family? Are they entitled to sue the US? How about the pearl Harbor victims family? Are they allowed to sue japan?

 

[gutter_trash]

So who's gonna bring America to justice for sponsoring Saudi Arabia?

Night Shamalyan twist

 

[TheRealTalker]

Saudi Arabia is a Monarchy dictatorship, people in power then are still in power now.

UMMMMM

yeah, okay, sure, right!

my bad

Spoiler

I don't even want to waste my time posting who black and white this is and wasting time scavenging thorough years worth of papers, talk forums, articles, etc..

 

[Chocolate & Vanilla]

Let's be honest here, this whole thing smells like a slow burn setup to the US' next oil field invasion.

Just lining up the first of many "reasons".

 

[SenorArdilla]

Political posturing and nothing more.

 

[LCGeek]

So who's gonna bring America to justice for sponsoring Saudi Arabia?

or Israel for that matter.

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Republicans have zero shame to bring this up and vote on it this year to bulletproof it. When we start getting sued up the ass by other countries they'll do what they always do and say "Dems voted for it! It's both our faults!", except they were in the drivers seat. It's incredibly disheartening because its all a fucking game to them. It's always been a game.

 

[Pagusas]

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

overriding/check-balances isnt stupid. This particular reason is stupid. sorry if that wasnt clear.

 

[Lord Morairty007]

Also to people who think this will start having other countries suing the U.S for drone strikes. Your a year too late....
Yemeni families sue US over drone strike that caused 'unlawful deaths'