Congress hard at work, still not reading the bills they pass. Still blaming Obama.classy.

Given the severe lack of evidence people would have against the Saudi government the scarier concern is violating international sovreignty.

If there is no evidence, then the lawsuit fails. So what?

And...international soveirnty? People, countries, etc sue everyone every day. Globally, sountries and can sue other countires in international courts all the time. Look at trade agreements.

So, if there is some international agreement, or treaty between our nations, that people feel is violated and they can present evidence against SA for their personal harm caused by SA breaching of a legal agreement...so what?

Again...any cases will go nowhere anyway...but who the fuck is the government to say you CAN'T sue some other <person, company, country>?

The concern both Obama and now McConnell have are what it means for our relationships with other countries. That's something governments inherently have the right to decide. And considering Saudi Arabia is one of our most coherent allies in the region, especially in terms of trade, having that relationship tarnished is undesirable.

Also, it's already led to a response of other countries clamoring to sue the US, which I'm sure they've long since wanted. What a fun age of foreign relations this is going to open up.

"Again...any cases will go nowhere anyway...but who the fuck is the government to say you CAN'T sue some other <person, company, country>?"

Well since the government is the institution that created the legal concept of suing someone and who enforces the decisions in those cases...who else would have any say in the matter?

I like turtles.

Kentucky is growing ambivalent of them, I'm sure.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2040/text

This is the bill as passed. Interesting note here is that they would have these suits take place in US courts instead of international ones.

"The concern both Obama and now McConnell have are what it means for our relationships with other countries."

Haaaaaa ha ha ha ha haaah ah aha hah a hah ! How other nations relate to us???!! After fucking Obama has screwed one ally after another, I have the answer to that question: NOT BLOODY FUCKING WELL.

mike drop....

@jmo - under current legal structure, pretty much anyone can sue anyone. The governemtn decides the merits of the case AFTER it gets to court, NOT FUCKING BEFORE. Not too difficult to figure out.

I bet tech crew is pissed you dropped their mic when you didn't even acknowledge the point itself.

Yes, it's a good time to waste the money of 9/11 victims pursuing lawsuits whose judgments cannot be enforced and will be ignored.

You're missing the point.

I could make the same point that it's a good time to stop litigation against, say, drug companies because some 0.0001% of population is harmed by some drug, and bankrupts a drug company that in other cases succssfully makes life-saving drugs. Who are all the fucking assholes that think their individual harm is more important than the benefits other's recieve.

And while were at it...fuck all those people getting shot by police. After all, the overwhelming majority of cops go about their day not shooting people...so who gives a fuck if a few people get shot here and there...


Your logic is grossly flawed, Leth..

Wanna know how to get a Republican Congressman to vote for something? Simply mention 9/11 and words like victims, compensation or muslims.

JASPA is a completely idiotic idea. We approvex this crap but not a perfectly qualified Supreme Court appointment?

krellin: "I could make the same point"

Well, you can start making the same point anytime you like, then. So far you've only made completely unrelated points.

bb: "Wanna know how to get a Republican Congressman to vote for something? Simply mention 9/11 and words like victims, compensation or muslims."

You'd think so, but look at how much shit Jon Stewart went through pursuing the Zadroga Act renewal for 9/11 first responder healthcare.

"@jmo - under current legal structure, pretty much anyone can sue anyone. The governemtn decides the merits of the case AFTER it gets to court, NOT FUCKING BEFORE. Not too difficult to figure out."

Except in every case involving a pre arranged deal between 2 entities. Like any contract you ever sign which invalidates your right to sue. Is it so weird to you that the government also prefers arbitration with other governments instead of international lawsuits, because that seems pretty reasonable.

"Yes, it's a good time to waste the money of 9/11 victims pursuing lawsuits whose judgments cannot be enforced and will be ignored."

You miss the point.

Enforcement and ignoring the cases. This would allow the US government to legally seize any Saudi Arabian assets which it wants to. That means if a US court find the Saudi Government/royal family guilty they can order the government to take action. (in the article they talk about the Saudi not risking this by selling off all assets which the US could seize)


Similarly, any other state can allow it's citizens to take a court case against the US in their national courts, and then go on to seize american property. And since the US is a pretty big foreign investor, i'd say that amounts to a huge potential threat.

It is likely to also result in military action by the US. In the past when 'communists' or other left-leaning countries in South America have seized US property (those investments made by US companies) the US has had a standing policy of toppling the regimes and murdering leftist rebels across south and central america.

When Iran seized anything remotely American, during the revolution, they became the number one US enemy in the region and the US sponsored Saddam Hussein's Iraq to engage in an 8 year war against Iran... So really this is a serious issue on a global level.

It is clear the the US will continue to protect its assets overseas, the question is how.

Actually, this is more about getting votes from constituents than taking Saudi money, which would go to private families (it's not going too, because the case is definitely not going to win).

I think they literally did not read the bill, saw something about 9/11 and saw Obama veto it. So they opted to just blindly override the veto. Sounds likely.

My family survived the blitz during WWII. I better sue the German govt. For their role in harming the british.

How is my example above any different?

The Democrats did it too.

Makes sense, ora. Thanks for the context.

Perhaps my point isnt well thought out. If there were proof of Saudi training, or money used to fund 9/11 couldnt they just do a war crimes tribunal??

You could just use UN Security authority to take action in a War Crimes Tribunal against the Saudi Royals (if they did it). Why even pass this bill?

Or in the aftermath of 9/11 we didnt even need actual "evidence" saddam helped fund 9/11. We invaded fuckin Iraq over this same issue.

But there's not a war, so that wouldn't work, and we don't like doing things in the UN anyway. It'd make more sense to go through the ICC if anyone thought there were sufficient evidence, but we aren't really part of the ICC.

Internet Chess Club?

Also yeah if we throw sovereign immunity out the window, I'm sure quite a few people in Iraq would LOVE to do the same.

I just cant believe they not only passed this absurdity (both parties as you said), but then overrode a veto and then blamed Obama.

It's believable, it's just dumb.

TrPrado you have a shadowy stalker who follows you around giving you relentless +1's. I wish my fan club was more diligent.

I'm pretty confident that I know who it is.

Thank god they overrode Obama. They should have been doing it a lot more. The guy has wrecked the USA.

So thank god they admitted they passed a bill they shouldnt have?

Are just a deliberately mindless Republican to make them look even worse or to make us laugh....

It takes both parties to override Obama, bud. And, the bill helps 9/11 families.

....

Paul Ryan- "We may still be able to do something to fix this bad bill next session"
Mitch McConnell-"iIts unfortunate we passed this. We needed to talk about it."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill

I guess that link is misleading. A phrase like "congress signals regret", I could see how you would interpret that as "thank god they overrode Obama".

They overrode it because it gets them votes because it looks good. There are vastly horrible consequences. And 9/11 families will lose EVERY case, so no it doesn't help.

Losing money on an expensive guaranteed to fail lawsuit doesn't actually help these families.

ND didn't get the memo telling conservatives to switch from blaming Obama for vetoing to blaming Obama for being overridden.

Also, it only helps those families who have the money to lose. Ie the wealthiest ones. So yeah, it helps those who need the least help. Congrats.