Will the fun begin now?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by shortbus, Oct 4, 2016.

  1. shortbus

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 30, 2009
    4,000
    1,512
    Congress over rode the President's veto of the ‘Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 Bill". More than anything else just as obstructionism. They didn't think it through just saw a chance to slap his hands. Now all countries we "invade" and soldiers that kill some one in those countries can sue in our courts. This should never of been allowed to be passed into law. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/52773-2/
     
  2. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,247
    6,744
    Looks like a complete, 3 ring circus is coming to town!
    Whole countries will sue the U.S.
    Lawyers will get rich.
    Every drone strike will cost millions in, "colateral" damage.
    And that's just the beginning.
     
    shortbus likes this.
  3. wayneh

    Expert

    Sep 9, 2010
    12,086
    3,024
    I don't get what the problem is. What difference does it make to a Saudi or any non-U.S. entity what law we pass. Our laws apply to us and us only. So we can sue a foreigner in a U.S. court. Cool. That doesn't mean we have to extend that same right to the foreigners, to give them access to our legal system. F 'em. Let them pass their own laws.
     
    boatsman likes this.
  4. #12

    Expert

    Nov 30, 2010
    16,247
    6,744
    I think they just did.:p
     
  5. crutschow

    Expert

    Mar 14, 2008
    12,974
    3,220
    Then you're in good company with all the congress persons who voted to override the veto. :rolleyes:
     
    shortbus likes this.
  6. tcmtech

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 4, 2013
    2,029
    1,619
    Yep but given their laws don't reciprocate they can tell us to go fark ourselves over the lawsuits. :rolleyes:

    Our laws are not their laws and their laws are not ours thusly there is no agreed on common legal ground to work from.

    Heck, at this point we owe almost every other country so much money we should be the last ones to be fussing over them owing us anything for any reason.:(
     
  7. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    They can sue for anything but let them
    [​IMG]
     
    wayneh likes this.
  8. shortbus

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 30, 2009
    4,000
    1,512
    They (other counties) will pass the same laws. Then any person that kills a non-combatant will be libel. And already congress is talking about a "do over".
     
  9. R!f@@

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 2, 2009
    8,733
    759
    I believe the bill back fired .
     
    shortbus likes this.
  10. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    New military invasion SOP.

    ''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers''
    http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/2henryvi.4.2.html
     
    boatsman likes this.
  11. R!f@@

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 2, 2009
    8,733
    759
    Ditto
     
  12. tcmtech

    Well-Known Member

    Nov 4, 2013
    2,029
    1,619
    I think putting them under a 'services rendered' law where if their client/they lose they don't get paid work system would get rid of the majority.

    Either they would quit or they would kill themselves. Either ways win win.
     
    boatsman likes this.
  13. shortbus

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 30, 2009
    4,000
    1,512
    That's why Obama vetoed it, but if he was against it that made the congress for it, no matter what.
     
    GopherT likes this.
  14. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,671
    899
    I have so far stayed out of these political discussions, but that clueless and factually wrong comment takes the cake.

    Are you aware that the Republican majority in Congress is very slim? Are you aware that it takes a 2/3 majority to override a veto? Are you aware that this is the first Obama veto that his Democrats have opposed? Now, I realize the unions are in lock step with Obama, but that doesn't mean it is right or good. There is no doubt the Saudi's financed 9/11 and so far Obama has protected them.

    The legislation may have some flaws, but they can be fixed, unlike the flaws in the abysmal failure of Obamacare.

    John
     
    nsaspook likes this.
  15. ronv

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,281
    1,230
    The biggest flaw is that it can go both ways and we have killeda lot more innocents than the Saudis.
    Think about the civilians we bombed recently in Syria. I suspect we paid them off already, but still.

    The Dutch parliament, for example, said JASTA is a “gross and unwarranted breach of Dutch sovereignty.” Many countries will soon retaliate with their own versions of JASTA and force the U.S. into their courts for sponsoring terrorism in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other battlefields. Sheikh Jamal Al-Shari, president of the Iraqi National Project, has already promised to sue the U.S. government for terrorism in Iraq should JASTA become law, and is gathering “top Iraqi lawyers and judges along with numerous international legal advisors.”

    The U.S. benefits from sovereign immunity more than any other nation because we influence and act in more countries than anyone else, and JASTA means that American diplomats and soldiers will be sued in Iraq and other foreign courts, crippling our ability to carry out foreign policies and defend our national security. Courts and lawyers of a multitude of nations will influence what we do everywhere in the world, and then sue us for doing it. Senators and congressmen who opened Pandora’s Box surely realize that the U.S. has far more foreign assets than Saudi Arabia, and those public and private assets will be seized in foreign courts that offer far less protection against irresponsible lawsuits than do American courts.


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/26/jasta-the-anti-saudi-law-will-hurt-us-not-them/#ixzz4MGwDDq00
     
    shortbus likes this.
  16. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    The Saudi's have financed (or put a huge number in the pot for) just about every covert ME operation from the 70's to the present in Yemen. Some of their boys went off the reservation on 9/11 and everybody knows it. The veto of this bill was pure political cover from every administration back to Nixon for favors and services rendered. The passing of this stupid bill will change absolutely nothing IRT US policy, operations or personnel as the CIA (and most other clandestine services) operates above the law by charter every day.

    The military and its official contractors are covered by 'Status of Forces' agreements/treaties with the host countries where it operates in peacetime that set limits on local courts and lawyers. Nothing in this bill will change that.
    In times of war all bets are off the table so who cares about being sued for your official duties.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
    [​IMG]
    A S.O.F.A. stamp in my old passport.
     
    wayneh and JoeJester like this.
  17. shortbus

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Sep 30, 2009
    4,000
    1,512
    I love you too john.
     
    GopherT and R!f@@ like this.
  18. ronv

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,281
    1,230
    They won't go after you. Not enough money in it. (no offense)
    But they might go after some ketchup money.
    Edit:
    Pi**ing off your "friends" often isn't a good idea either.
     
  19. nsaspook

    AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    No offense taken, that's a good thing. The vast majority of the 'war' legal cases aren't really done for money only for political points.
    There is always a slush fund for paying off locals in most cases for the dead pig, blown-up house or sadly dead relative. They almost always take the money because they will never see a dime in the political cases.
    https://theintercept.com/2015/02/27/payments-civilians-afghanistan/
     
  20. ronv

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 12, 2008
    3,281
    1,230
    Pig? :D
     
Loading...