# Senate override of Obama's veto re 9/11



## Gunz (Sep 28, 2016)

What do you think of this? In essence, it allows families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. That's the feel-good part. But the President and General Dunford say it opens us up to legal retaliation for drone attacks or other military actions, past and present, that other countries might construe as illegal.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/u...ide-obama-veto-on-9-11-victims-bill.html?_r=0


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> What do you think of this?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/u...ide-obama-veto-on-9-11-victims-bill.html?_r=0



That was pretty much predicted. His domestic capital may be at an end point. He has no diplomatic currency, as the Summit in China showed.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 28, 2016)

I don't think any legitimate international court would let cases against the House of Saud or against the US fly.  Even if they did, I doubt any compensation would be paid.


----------



## AWP (Sep 28, 2016)

> There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”



This is sad and hilarious and....sad. "We need to support this law bbbbuuuuttttttt we need to warn against using this law." We've elected this pack of geniuses. this is the gov't we deserve, not the gov't we need.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 28, 2016)

That is every cake metaphor ever baked.


----------



## Brill (Sep 29, 2016)

Why isn't the veto considered an insult to the Gold Star families who lost loved ones at the Pentagon?

As others have said, I don't see how this opens Americans up to lawsuits from foreign governments. Didn't Italy do that very thing BEFORE this law?


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 29, 2016)

That's always been a thing. The issue here is private persons.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 29, 2016)

Should the families of those killed by errant bombs dropped by the US be allowed to sue the pilots? I feel like this would open up our people to the pursuit of legal actions from other nations. That and the fact that there is not a whole lot of evidence that they would win, a court would hear it, or reparations would ever be paid, makes me think that this was a stupid thing to begin with.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Should the families of errant bombs dropped by the US be allowed to sue the pilots? I feel like this would open up our people to the pursuit of legal actions from other nations. That and the fact that there is not a whole lot of evidence that they would win, a court would hear it, or reparations would ever be paid, makes me think that this was a stupid thing to begin with.



I agree.  I understand voting on resolutions to put something on the record, and I think this could have been that.  This legislation would be nonbinding, nothing will ever come of it, and the potential downhill consequences are not good.


----------



## Brill (Sep 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Should the families of those killed by errant bombs dropped by the US be allowed to sue the pilots? I feel like this would open up our people to the pursuit of legal actions from other nations. That and the fact that there is not a whole lot of evidence that they would win, a court would hear it, or reparations would ever be paid, makes me think that this was a stupid thing to begin with.



What is stopping those families now? I can only think that places we've bombed have had less than stellar histories of justice.

Americans fighting for AQ, IS, or ANF...that opens another issue.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 30, 2016)

So let me get this straight. Congress and senate pass a bill that POTUS says he will veto, he vetoes it, it is overridden, and now it is POTUS fault? 

Yeah it's HuffPost: Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto | Huffington Post


----------



## Gunz (Sep 30, 2016)

We paid reparations to the Iranians after the _USS Vincennes_ shot down an Iranian airliner. That was a 61-million dollar settlement reached at the International Court of Justice over a tragic mistake made during peacetime. I mean, let's face it, we've killed a shitload of people over the past 50 years, not all of them combatant, most, I'd guess by air strikes and bombing campaigns. Dunsford might be more worried about the legal complications from former foes; I think Obama is concerned about rubbing salt in the Saudi's wounds. They're not real happy about our Iran deal.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 30, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> ...They're not real happy about our Iran deal.



They're not the only ones...


----------



## busdriver (Sep 30, 2016)

A private citizen sues a sovereign nation.  Hmmm


----------



## Etype (Oct 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Should the families of those killed by errant bombs dropped by the US be allowed to sue the pilots? I feel like this would open up our people to the pursuit of legal actions from other nations. That and the fact that there is not a whole lot of evidence that they would win, a court would hear it, or reparations would ever be paid, makes me think that this was a stupid thing to begin with.


No, because this-
American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's a nonsensical argument made by Obama as he panders to his international bros.


----------



## Etype (Oct 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> What is stopping those families now?


We are. Americans have been tried and convicted in absentia, we sit back and scoff.

That's most likely what would happen in this case, as well.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 2, 2016)

Etype said:


> No, because this-
> American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



"Hague Invasion Act" all day long.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

Etype said:


> No, because this-
> American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That's a nonsensical argument made by Obama as he panders to his international bros.



I think people with more knowledge of the workings of the international legal system disagreewith you. The point of the Servicememver protection act is that we are not a member of the courts. By putting us into those/making us a party to them opens us up to prosecution.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 2, 2016)

I think we're conflating two different things here.  I think this current legislation is bad, but it doesn't/shouldn't affect the ASMPA/Hague Invasion Act, unless the civil suits will be brought by the ICC, tried by the ICC, and have US service members imprisoned by the ICC.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> I think we're conflating two different things here.  I think this current legislation is bad, but it doesn't/shouldn't affect the ASMPA/Hague Invasion Act, unless the civil suits will be brought by the ICC, tried by the ICC, and have US service members imprisoned by the ICC.



Ok. I may have misunderstood. The way it was explained to me this opens that door. Maybe you can explain it better?


----------

