Obama vetoes 9/11 bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:41:38 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Obama vetoes 9/11 bill
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill  (Read 4144 times)
President Johnson
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,592
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.70


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 24, 2016, 04:45:32 AM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2016, 05:26:37 AM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2016, 09:49:45 AM »

This is one of those cases where I happen to agree with Obama. (it does happen from time to time, despite my public disdain towards him)
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2016, 10:14:12 AM »

Congress might override his veto next week.  This is a bad bill for the reasons stated above, but it will be bad optics for Democrats to follow Obama's lead and vote against with the election a month away, unfortunately.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2016, 11:28:16 AM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

good, hopefully they do
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2016, 11:39:35 AM »

This is a good bill, not only for it's obvious purpose, but also for the reasons laid out by X. Hopefully it passes.
Logged
SATW
SunriseAroundTheWorld
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,463
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2016, 11:46:05 AM »

This is one of those cases where I happen to agree with Obama. (it does happen from time to time, despite my public disdain towards him)

This.
Logged
Heisenberg
SecureAmerica
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,110
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2016, 11:49:13 AM »

I hope so too.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,069
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2016, 12:01:44 PM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

American companies getting sued for this isn't that bad. If they have gotten involved in stuff like that, they should be held accountable. It's the same for Saudi Arabia. They shouldn't get a free pass just because they're an ally or just because they're American.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2016, 12:05:49 PM »

Saudi Arabia is terrible, but as others have mentioned, this is reckless, and will likely lead to folks from other countries suing the U.S. Sometimes, you have to handle a situation with nuance, and not always choose the most bloodthirsty option.
Logged
nicholas.slaydon
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,088
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2016, 12:30:38 PM »

Saudi Arabia is terrible, but as others have mentioned, this is reckless, and will likely lead to folks from other countries suing the U.S. Sometimes, you have to handle a situation with nuance, and not always choose the most bloodthirsty option.

Good. People have a right to seek compensation from countries which have killed members of their families, destroyed their homes and ruined their lives.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2016, 12:37:03 PM »

This may be the dumbest bill of all time.  I wish Obama had a Tinder-esque super-veto that he could use once a year to stop particularly stupid bills without any override.

We have international courts for international legal action... domestic courts have absolutely no sovereignty over foreign nations or foreign nationals, so any ruling would be useless except for propaganda and stirring-up-sh**t purposes... but as others have pointed out, we're also basically rubber-stamping any other country that decides to take this same route to create propaganda and stir up sh**t against us.
Logged
Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas
Ray Goldfield
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,616


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2016, 12:48:57 PM »

This is going to be interesting. Obama's never had a veto overridden partially because of partisanship, partly because his Justice department has a reputation for taking on critics from his own party. This bill is where we'll see if he quietly goes into his lame duck period, or fights back aggressively to ensure he's not seen as defanged in those last few months - especially if he has big plans on the international front for November-January.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2016, 12:52:51 PM »

So people can spend lots of money on a costly legal battle only for Saudi Arabia to not pay up when the court rules against them.  Sounds like a good plan, definitely.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2016, 01:19:54 PM »

So people can spend lots of money on a costly legal battle only for Saudi Arabia to not pay up when the court rules against them.  Sounds like a good plan, definitely.
If it means we'll cut back on our military aid to enforce it, I'll endorse.
Logged
Anna Komnene
Siren
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,654


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2016, 02:42:16 PM »

So people can spend lots of money on a costly legal battle only for Saudi Arabia to not pay up when the court rules against them.  Sounds like a good plan, definitely.
If it means we'll cut back on our military aid to enforce it, I'll endorse.

...You know me well Mr. shua.  Though I can't say I'd be too confident that would actually happen.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2016, 04:09:25 PM »

Anyway, it's remarkable how quickly the Saudi stock has fallen across the west. Just a few years ago, the Saudis viewed Obama as a terrible appeaser to the Iranians with an ideological aversion to their inbred, lazy arses, and now he's acting as their sole defender against Congress. And the same thing is hapenning in Europe as well, and even in the Muslim world itself, what with embarassing Hajj stories etc (even freaking Sisi's regime is ambivalent to them nowadays). It's crazy that despite its huge amounts of cash, their soft power has been proven incredibly shallow - remarkably they somehow slipped behind the Kurds, who are stateless ex-communists, in soft power in Western capitals.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2016, 07:22:08 PM »

We have international courts for international legal action... domestic courts have absolutely no sovereignty over foreign nations or foreign nationals, so any ruling would be useless except for propaganda and stirring-up-sh**t purposes.
You have read the U.S. Constitution, haven't you?  Specifically, Article I Section 8 Clause 10: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"

Now I don't think that the law Congress has proposed is a wise law, but it is constitutional.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2016, 07:27:36 PM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. If a company operates under a foreign jurisdiction they should be subject to that country's laws. Forcing companies to treat people as people is a good thing even if it hurts our GDP.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2016, 03:11:45 PM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. If a company operates under a foreign jurisdiction they should be subject to that country's laws. Forcing companies to treat people as people is a good thing even if it hurts our GDP.

What happens if the Saudis start demanding that major American companies to pay large enough amounts of money to drive them into bankruptcy after finding them guilty of kangaroo courts on trumped up charges?  What happens if they do that and threaten an embargo if we don't find a way to force the companies to pay?  What happens if they refuse to sell oil to any American companies until all "fines," "penalties," etc have been paid? 

The Saudis are obviously horrible and so are many of the American companies that would be hurt by this, but I really don't think folks who support this idea have thought this through.  Yes, it'd feel good for a few months, but then reality would set in.  If we really want to stick it to Saudi Arabia (and the bad elements of the Israeli government, for that matter), the best thing we can do is dramatically increase funding for research into alternative energy sources.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2016, 06:54:30 PM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. If a company operates under a foreign jurisdiction they should be subject to that country's laws. Forcing companies to treat people as people is a good thing even if it hurts our GDP.

What happens if the Saudis start demanding that major American companies to pay large enough amounts of money to drive them into bankruptcy after finding them guilty of kangaroo courts on trumped up charges?  What happens if they do that and threaten an embargo if we don't find a way to force the companies to pay?  What happens if they refuse to sell oil to any American companies until all "fines," "penalties," etc have been paid? 

The Saudis are obviously horrible and so are many of the American companies that would be hurt by this, but I really don't think folks who support this idea have thought this through.  Yes, it'd feel good for a few months, but then reality would set in.  If we really want to stick it to Saudi Arabia (and the bad elements of the Israeli government, for that matter), the best thing we can do is dramatically increase funding for research into alternative energy sources.

There's little reason to believe that a dramatic increase in funding for renewable energy research would make much of a difference in world demand for fossil fuels within the decade.

All you can do is all you can do.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2016, 07:20:21 PM »

NY-Times: Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

A really bad decision. Saudi Arabia and its government officials should be hold accountable for their involvement in 9/11. We shouldn't care whether they are so called "allies" or not. Justice must be done for the victims and their families. So, no, Mr. President, it does not "undermine US interests".

The only good news is that congress is expected to override the veto. Hope this gets done in a bipartisan effort. This isn't something were Republicans and Democrats should fight but work together instead.

Too bad that there is no information how Clinton and Trump view this.

The problem is that if we do this, then we'll open the door for other countries to file lawsuits in their own courts against American companies (and lets be honest, our companies have directly or indirectly gotten plenty of innocent people killed in the Middle East).  This bill is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory, but would be a disaster if actually implemented.

I don't see why this is a bad thing either. If a company operates under a foreign jurisdiction they should be subject to that country's laws. Forcing companies to treat people as people is a good thing even if it hurts our GDP.

What happens if the Saudis start demanding that major American companies to pay large enough amounts of money to drive them into bankruptcy after finding them guilty of kangaroo courts on trumped up charges?  What happens if they do that and threaten an embargo if we don't find a way to force the companies to pay?  What happens if they refuse to sell oil to any American companies until all "fines," "penalties," etc have been paid? 

The Saudis are obviously horrible and so are many of the American companies that would be hurt by this, but I really don't think folks who support this idea have thought this through.  Yes, it'd feel good for a few months, but then reality would set in.  If we really want to stick it to Saudi Arabia (and the bad elements of the Israeli government, for that matter), the best thing we can do is dramatically increase funding for research into alternative energy sources.

That would be our companies' problem for choosing to business under such a climate. Look, I couldn't care less whether we stick it to Saudi Arabia or are best friends with them, but if the 911 families can win in court against the Saudi government, they deserve the opportunity to have that chance.

As for the alternative energy aspect, what we could really do if we cared is subsidize compressed natural gas or electric cars. We could also rewrite our nuclear protocols so we can feasibly build power plants but that has little to do with gasoline. But I don't want to stick it to anyone; people should be held accountable for their actions, not whether or not we like them.
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 25, 2016, 11:07:51 PM »

How can you actually have an international lawsuit?  Who would the judges be?  How does it make things any better? Not sure if I agree with the bill being overridden or not because it just sounds silly.

Im not an expert but Im pretty sure similar things happened with Iran in the past.  People sued them in US Courts and when they won the courts froze Iranian assests in the US and awarded them to the plaintiffs.  Perhaps something similar would happen here
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,205
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2016, 05:49:47 PM »

How can you actually have an international lawsuit?  Who would the judges be?  How does it make things any better? Not sure if I agree with the bill being overridden or not because it just sounds silly.

Im not an expert but Im pretty sure similar things happened with Iran in the past.  People sued them in US Courts and when they won the courts froze Iranian assests in the US and awarded them to the plaintiffs.  Perhaps something similar would happen here

Not a chance.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2016, 03:14:09 AM »

That would be our companies' problem for choosing to business under such a climate. Look, I couldn't care less whether we stick it to Saudi Arabia or are best friends with them, but if the 911 families can win in court against the Saudi government, they deserve the opportunity to have that chance.

Okay, so here's how this works: The 9/11 families sue the government of Saudi Arabia in U.S. federal court. No one from Saudi Arabia shows up to court. The 9/11 families get a default judgment against Saudi Arabia. Technically the 9/11 families "win," but good luck collecting on that judgment. So nobody gets their "day in court" proving their claims against the Saudi government. Therefore, even as a symbolic gesture, this bill is useless.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 12 queries.