Senate override of Obama's veto re 9/11

Gunz

Gunz

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
9,289
Location
Decisive Terrain
Last edited:
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.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lindy said:
What is stopping those families now?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Similar threads

Crusader74
NEW CIA BOSS.
Replies
12
Views
4K
Brooklynben
Brooklynben
Back
Top