Obama may be headed for his first and only veto override with Saudi 9/11 bill - Polidicks

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sept-idUSKCN11T237[/url] [quote]President Barack Obama on Friday vetoed legislation allowing families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, a move expected to prompt the U.S. Congress to overturn his decision with a rare veto override, the first of his presidency. Obama said the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act would hurt U.S. national security. The bill passed earlier this month in reaction to long-running suspicions, denied by Saudi Arabia, that hijackers of the four U.S. jetliners that attacked the United States in 2001 were backed by the Saudi government. Obama said other countries could use the law, known as JASTA, as an excuse to sue U.S. diplomats, service members or companies - even for actions of foreign organizations that had received U.S. aid, equipment or training.[/quote]

how would another country be able to use the usa's law to sue them? if there's proof of the saudi government backing the hijackers, the families should have every legal right to sue the shit out of the government.

[QUOTE=Pops;51095788]how would another country be able to use the usa's law to sue them? if there's proof of the saudi government backing the hijackers, the families should have every legal right to sue the shit out of the government.[/QUOTE] No they shouldn't. Just. No. That's not how any of this should work, ever. I'm on mobile and not going to write a large response because I'm busy, but this opens up huge can of legal worms. If the US allows this, imagine what other countries could do to the US. Idk about you, but I'm not interested in having our government sued by iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or any other county where we tried to overthrow their government/ pillage their land via war.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51095822]If the US allows this, imagine what other countries could do to the US. Idk about you, but I'm not interested in having our government sued by iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, or any other county where we tried to overthrow their government/ pillage their land via war.[/QUOTE] why not?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51095829]why not?[/QUOTE] It will only hurt everyone involved at this point.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51095829]why not?[/QUOTE] International diplomacy should not be handled by class action lawsuits pressed by individual civilians. First of all the jurisdictional issues are immense -- what court can bind both parties to an agreement? If an American court hears Americans' charges against Saudi Arabia and convicts Saudi Arabia, at what point does the sovereign Kingdom of Saudi Arabia give a flying fuck about what a single judge thousands of miles away said? And if the matter does escalate to a global court jurisdiction, the precedent of individual citizens being able to escalate complaints to a global court means this court will rapidly become flooded as [I]the entire world[/I] uses it as an avenue to demand resolution to conflicts. That deadlocks the system from too many cases, and then people either start being denied a hearing simply on the basis of "we're full" (which is entirely counter to the spirit of justice) or waiting years to have their case heard (RIP speedy justice). It just can't work like that. International diplomacy is handled through diplomatic channels, and occasionally through economic and military channels when necessary, but it is not suitable to replace that entire system with America's "sue everyone" mentality. And this is completely independent of whether or not the families of 9/11 victims deserve justice or compensation from Saudi Arabia. Their cases may have an incredible amount of merit and I'm not interested in making any sort of determination as to the validity of their cause. If they're right, they deserve relief in some form, but that's not the point. The point is that suing a sovereign nation directly is not the appropriate avenue for them. The US federal government is responsible for addressing the complaints of 9/11 victims and their demands of restitution from the KSA through diplomatic channels and, if necessary, international judicial actions [I]on the citizens' behalf[/I]. It should have [I]never[/I] been shoved onto the judiciary to deal with directly. Under this precedent, were it to happen today, I could personally sue America for invading Canada in the War of 1812, but I'd have to worry about countersuits from rednecks about the reconstruction costs of the White House being burned down in retaliation (otherwise it comes out of US taxpayer funds). Do you see how stupid that sounds?

You shouldn't be able to sue countries, full stop. This applies to corporations as much as individuals (though both are more or less the same), by the way. People who support this but oppose corporations being able to sue countries should think about their opinions.

Suing a 'Country' makes no sense because a country isn't a single entity overall.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51095914]Bad idea...[/QUOTE] I largely agree with this, but then again U.S companies have hidden behind our government's diplomatic immunity to avoid law suit (See: Agent Orange), and I dislike our ability to strong arm everyone we fuck over.

We, the US, dropped a couple of atomic bombs on civilians including women and babies. That's just ONE of the many things the US government has done in the name of the people. Do we really want to go down the road of individuals suing governments over wrongdoing? It would be crazy.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;51096301]We, the US, dropped a couple of atomic bombs on civilians including women and babies. That's just ONE of the many things the US government has done in the name of the people. Do we really want to go down the road of individuals suing governments over wrongdoing? It would be crazy.[/QUOTE] If every living victim of America's two nuclear attacks on Japan were to sue the American government, America would go belly up :v: