Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does that mean other countries can sue us if some of our citizens kill people in their countries.
IF? The US has caused a lot of collateral damage over the years. If we can sue other countries it's only fair that they can sue us. Not a good idea I don't think. I rarely agree with barry, but in this case...
The veto is the right thing for him to do. He knew it would be overridden. He can do it because he doesn't have to worry about being reelected. It's really just a feel-good bill for those sympathetic to 9/11 families. It makes no sense in the long run. We need Saudi Arabia to assist in fighting ISIS.
And I believe it runs against international treaties and agreements to which the US is a signer. As titular head of the US, he just about HAS to veto it.
Nevertheless, I too would like to see the saudis held at least somewhat accountable for al qaeda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777
This is one of those bills that will come back to bite Congress in the butt. It is a stupid precedent.
"...Mr. Obama argues that the measure would overturn longstanding principles of international law that shield governments from lawsuits, potentially opening the United States to a raft of litigation in foreign countries... the bill would prompt other nations to retaliate, stripping the immunity the United States enjoys in other parts of the world. "And no country has more to lose, in the context of those exceptions, than the United States of America, given the preeminent role that we play in global affairs..."
“...potentially opens up U.S. service members, and diplomats and even companies to spurious lawsuits in kangaroo courts around the world,”... He acknowledged that the stance was “politically inconvenient,” given the strong sympathy that exists for the families of the victims..."
It's a tricky balancing act for sure, but I think the US should also be held at least somewhat accountable for our foreign policy. I think you're right that some of the folks clamoring to open this door will be mightily incensed when the stuff comes flying back in at them. But - I have to admit I'd like to see it...
It appears that the senate will override the presidents veto, today and the house vote is tomorrow. This is a very short sighted bill and will cause the US some problems with other countries when they reciprocate in kind.
Quote:
As part of its final bit of business before the election, Congress is set to vote to override President Obama’s veto of a bill allowing families of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the terrorist plot.
The override, the first Mr. Obama has faced in his presidency, is expected to begin in the Senate on Wednesday, followed by the House on Thursday.
It can still become law despite this clowns attempt to stonewall.
Article I, Section 7 of the constitution.
Yes we know I take it you feel this is a good idea, have the congressmen thought this through? I wonder if it wasn't an election year would they still override. First time he used the veto by the way and that does not amount to stonewalling.
If we can sue them they can sue us. Remember, they have a lot of money... Lawyers aren't cheap...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
