• 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

Napoleon said:
I think there are some key differences. It wasn't just individuals. It was (at minimum) a faction of the Saudi intelligence apparatus collaborating and coordinating with their Ambassador to the US and other diplomatic staff to provide material support to the hijackers. Retrieving them from the airport, meeting with them, providing them with money, and making living arrangements for them among other things. The thing is that even though it looks and smells like a government sanctioned activity - there's no way to know with certainty. Even if it wasn't - it should still be a point of concern that it's possible for a shadow group within the Saudi government to successfully operate with access to Saudi resources. I don't think any of that was going on between Irish terrorists, the CIA, and American office holders.
Click to expand...

Your post is mostly fiction.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because it will harm the US and endanger Americans.
Click to expand...

True enough, getting tough on the Saudis now won't save Obama's Presidency. The only reason his approval is high is because the next President is going to be one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States of America no matter who wins.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
True enough, getting tough on the Saudis now won't save Obama's Presidency. The only reason his approval is high is because the next President is going to be one of the worst Presidents in the history of the United States of America no matter who wins.
Click to expand...

I don't care so much about Saudi Arabia. This bill, if passed, would endanger Americans everywhere.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't care so much about Saudi Arabia. This bill, if passed, would endanger Americans everywhere.
Click to expand...

That and Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the most repressive and repugnant regime on Earth next to North Korea and China.
 
Jack Hays said:
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 »

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.
“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.
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.
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. . . .
Click to expand...

It is a president's job to sign into law bills he agrees with and to veto bills he disagrees with. If the house and senate do not like it then it is their job to get enough votes to override his veto.


I am not sure what good a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia would do. Because lets say a judge agrees with the victims of 9-11 and orders the Saudis to pay. Who is going to make the Saudis pay? The Saudi government would tell the judge and the victims of 9-11 they can stick it where the sun don't shine. Sure the US and other countries can threaten sanctions, but who is going to do that when the Saudi supplies a good chunk of the oil the world needs.
 
Jack Hays said:
This stupid bill poses immense dangers to the USA and to every American abroad.
Click to expand...

Please explain how a suit against a foreign regime could possibly be enforced, i. e. how would individuals collect on a claim if the govt. decided not to pay .
 
solletica said:
Please explain how a suit against a foreign regime could possibly be enforced, i. e. how would individuals collect on a claim if the govt. decided not to pay .
Click to expand...

No idea. That's another problem. The real danger is that it will undermine protections for American military and diplomatic personnel abroad.
 
Jack Hays said:
No idea. That's another problem.
Click to expand...

It's the central question.

If a lawsuit can't be enforced, then the law, even if it were successful, would have zero effect, which means that the GOP bill is nothing more than a PR stunt, i. e. a move that their gullible right wing will fall for.
 
calamity said:
But, why veto it?
Click to expand...
To protect his own ass is why. This law would give other counties a better legal standing if they choose to go after US presidents. There are a few ME countries that would like a shot at jailing Obama on war crimes from the drone killings. Pakistan would like a go for Obama ignoring their boards by sending in an invasion force to kill a resident in their country( OBL raid).

What one nation sees as protecting its citizens and interests others regard the same action as a war crime.


I agree with the principals of this legislation, but think the veto is the right choice.
 
solletica said:
It's the central question.

If a lawsuit can't be enforced, then the law, even if it were successful, would have zero effect, which means that the GOP bill is nothing more than a PR stunt, i. e. a move that their gullible right wing will fall for.
Click to expand...

It's not a "GOP bill." It passed the Senate unanimously, and nearly unanimously in the House. It's a bipartisan error. And if you think its enforceability is the primary problem then you don't understand the issue, or Obama's reason to veto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom