• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Will Veto 9/11 Lawsuit Bill

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think Obama has this right.

Obama will veto 9/11 lawsuit bill

Defying Congress and risking public backlash, the president will veto legislation allowing relatives of the 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.Override vote likely »

[FONT=&quot]Defying a seemingly united Congress and risking a public backlash, President Obama will veto legislation allowing relatives of the 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, the White House confirmed on Monday. Obama’s rejection of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will trigger what seems likely to be the first-ever successful congressional vote to override his veto.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“The president feels strongly about this, and I do anticipate that the president will veto the legislation when it’s presented to him,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at his daily briefing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The legislation never explicitly mentions Saudi Arabia, which was home to most of the 9/11 hijackers, but that American ally is widely understood to be the main target. The bill would change federal law to allow lawsuits against foreign states or officials for injuries, death or damages stemming from an act of international terrorism. Current law recognizes “sovereign immunity,” which protects governments and government officials from civil cases.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The White House has argued that eroding the legal principle of sovereign immunity could lead other countries to change their laws to permit their courts to try cases against the U.S. government or its diplomats and military personnel. . . .[/FONT]


 
I'm not certain it will be overridden. It is one thing for a Democrat to vote yes on the bill. It is another to override the leader of your party.

Why would Obama have vetoed it if he didn't have assurances it would stick?
 
BrewerBob said:
I'm not certain it will be overridden. It is one thing for a Democrat to vote yes on the bill. It is another to override the leader of your party.

Why would Obama have vetoed it if he didn't have assurances it would stick?
Click to expand...

Obama's a short timer and they want to look tough.
 
I can't be objective, sadly.

I have flown helicopters in and out of Saudi Arabia.
I trained more than my share of Saudi Arabian flight students.
I have met and worked with Saudi Foreign Military Sales (FMS) representatives.

My impressions, based upon those encounters, could best be categorized as 'unsatisfactory'.
Or negative, if you will.

I have nothing for those people.
And I will never bow before them.

:shock:
 
And if the response is, "Well, this will open the door for other nations to sue US," then I say, shame on your for your weakness and your lack of testicular fortitude.

Fear of lawsuits isn't prudent leadership, it's weakness.
Fear of grievances and frivolous litigation isn't admirable stewardship, it's just gutlessness.

I have nothing for those people, and those who would bow before them.
:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Obama's a short timer and they want to look tough.
Click to expand...

This legislation is VERY problematic for the US. And I think Democrats in Congress know that. But they also know it would look bad voting against it with an election coming up. So I think Obama told them he would bite the bullet. I think the Democrats felt safe voting yes on it because they knew Obama would veto it. I might be wrong. We'll see.
 
Trying to be as objective as possible, is there any solid, concrete evidence that Saudi Arabia is directly linked to the 9/11 attacks?
 
Sparky2 said:
And if the response is, "Well, this will open the door for other nations to sue US," then I say, shame on your for your weakness and your lack of testicular fortitude.

Fear of lawsuits isn't prudent leadership, it's weakness.
Fear of grievances and frivolous litigation isn't admirable stewardship, it's just gutlessness.

I have nothing for those people, and those who would bow before them.
:cool:
Click to expand...

Americans serving abroad will be liable to arrest and worse.
 
Diplomatically, it's smart to veto it rather than have a fight with them. They buy a buttload of defense items and are a good ally over all.

They could just tell us to GFYS, and there is little we can do about it.
 
chuckiechan said:
The House of Saud -AKA "The government" has not been shown to be involved, but certain members of the royal family gave money. We gave no proof that they knew what it was for.
Click to expand...

And how many Irish Americans (including many office holders) gave money to "Northern Ireland Aid" over the years?
 
Jack Hays said:
Americans serving abroad will be liable to arrest and worse.
Click to expand...

Americans serving abroad are ALREADY subject to arrest and worse.
I was a serviceman serving abroad for many, many years.
I knew the rules, and I knew my left and right limits.
Nothing has changed.

The bottom line is this;
If the leader of the free world knuckles under and subjugates himself and this nation to Saudi Arabia, or indeed, any other nation, he is only making that situation worse.

There is a position of strength and confidence that comes with operating with top-cover from your government.
With Obama, there IS no top-cover.

Get it??
:doh
 
Sparky2 said:
Americans serving abroad are ALREADY subject to arrest and worse.
I was a serviceman serving abroad for many, many years.
I knew the rules, and I knew my left and right limits.
Nothing has changed.

The bottom line is this;
If the leader of the free world knuckles under and subjugates himself and this nation to Saudi Arabia, or indeed, any other nation, he is only making that situation worse.

There is a position of strength and confidence that comes with operating with top-cover from your government.
With Obama, there IS no top-cover.

Get it??
:doh
Click to expand...

Respect for sovereign immunity is not knuckling under. I don't think you understand the problem. This bill puts every SOFA at risk.
 
The Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) are based upon a foundation of mutual respect, and a mutual understanding of each other's willingness to use force.

Dig deeper, Jack.
Think about it.
Don't view it from the lawyer's perspective, look at it from the warfighter's perspective.

Do you need a recent example?

arrest-sailors.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Americans serving abroad will be liable to arrest and worse.
Click to expand...

You already are if you are in another country.
If you break the laws of that country you can end up in jail.
 
ludin said:
You already are if you are in another country.
If you break the laws of that country you can end up in jail.
Click to expand...

I was not clear. I'm speaking of our diplomats, military personnel and other official assignees. All are covered by legal agreements rooted in sovereign immunity so they can perform their duties. Those agreements would be at risk.
 
Jack Hays said:
I think Obama has this right.

[FONT=&]Obama will veto 9/11 lawsuit bill

Defying Congress and risking public backlash, the president will veto legislation allowing relatives of the 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.Override vote likely »

[/FONT][FONT="]Defying a seemingly united Congress and risking a public backlash, President Obama will veto legislation allowing relatives of the 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, the White House confirmed on Monday. Obama’s rejection of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will trigger what seems likely to be the first-ever successful congressional vote to override his veto.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#26282A][FONT="]“The president feels strongly about this, and I do anticipate that the president will veto the legislation when it’s presented to him,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at his daily briefing.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The legislation never explicitly mentions Saudi Arabia, which was home to most of the 9/11 hijackers, but that American ally is widely understood to be the main target. The bill would change federal law to allow lawsuits against foreign states or officials for injuries, death or damages stemming from an act of international terrorism. Current law recognizes “sovereign immunity,” which protects governments and government officials from civil cases.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#26282A][FONT="]The White House has argued that eroding the legal principle of sovereign immunity could lead other countries to change their laws to permit their courts to try cases against the U.S. government or its diplomats and military personnel. . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=&]

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Of course he will.
 
Jack Hays said:
Respect for sovereign immunity is not knuckling under. I don't think you understand the problem. This bill puts every SOFA at risk.
Click to expand...
The Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) are based upon a foundation of mutual respect, and a mutual understanding of each other's willingness to use force.

Dig deeper, Jack.
Think about it.
Don't view it from the lawyer's perspective, look at it from the warfighter's perspective.

Do you need a recent example?

View attachment 67207228
 
I get this but I'd like to see an anomynous wire transfer to every family of $5m
 
Sparky2 said:
The Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) are based upon a foundation of mutual respect, and a mutual understanding of each other's willingness to use force.

Dig deeper, Jack.
Think about it.
Don't view it from the lawyer's perspective, look at it from the warfighter's perspective.

Do you need a recent example?

View attachment 67207228
Click to expand...

I spent 18 years on foreign assignments myself. If this bill passes then the SOFA's will be worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom