Will the fun begin now?

Thread Starter

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,045
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/
 

#12

Joined Nov 30, 2010
18,224
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.
 

wayneh

Joined Sep 9, 2010
17,496
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.
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
So we can sue a foreigner in a U.S. court. Cool.
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.:(
 

tcmtech

Joined Nov 4, 2013
2,867
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.
 

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
11,087
That's why Obama vetoed it, but if he was against it that made the congress for it, no matter what.
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
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
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
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
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
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

A S.O.F.A. stamp in my old passport.
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
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

A S.O.F.A. stamp in my old passport.
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.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
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.
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/
The Foreign Claims Act, passed in 1942, gives foreign citizens the ability to request payment for damages caused by U.S. military personnel. But the law only covers incidents that happen outside of combat situations — meaning that civilians caught up in battles have no recourse.

Since the Korean War, however, the U.S. military has realized that it’s often in its best interest to make symbolic payments for civilian harm, even when it occurs in combat. Over the years, the Pentagon authorized “condolence payments” where the military decided it was culturally appropriate.
 

ronv

Joined Nov 12, 2008
3,770
Top