I will find it amusing when americans find themselves judged by juries in other countries, they should be very open to that of course, it makes so much sense. A jury in the Pakistan can find judgement for the civilian deaths from the drones.
but the idea that the juries and the courts are the way to resolve issues where the countries have classified relations, this is very dumb.
Of course it is why the long tradition of the sovereign immunity has been held.
I suspect he might well let it go through. He did say this about the Iraq war:
**“It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center, we went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran’s taking over, okay. But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, ‘cuz they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”
**
I am sure the discerning amongst us will note that he did use the word may.
Also related to this is if the Saudi government is as pure as the driven snow in this matter why are they so adamantly opposed to the release of the suppressed 28 pages of the 2002 Congressional Joint Inquiry?
You seem to imply that our justice system would be a sort of kangaroo court where people would be held liable on specious grounds. I think that a judge and a jury are capable of determining if foreign governments were negligent.
I am unaware of the rules of court in Pakistan and/or whether the United States should respect the decisions of those courts. Saudi Arabia is free to disrespect the decisions of United States courts as well.
I am just not seeing the larger issue. No matter if this law is in effect or not, Pakistan could allow these types of trials, no?
This would be superseded by International Law. Just like in 2012 when Italian rulings that attempted to override sovereign immunity with Germany were declared invalid.
Or, at least, that’s how it seems to me. I can’t really see how the U.S. can make a law that abrogates the sovereign immunity of another nation without running into International Law problems. Sure, the above example is based on court rulings and not passed laws, but I don’t really think there’s a difference in a common law system. The law would just be declared unenforceable.
I think that it is more than clear that the trial by popular jury around very highly politicized and emotional cases, as the illustration of the multiple series of the false convictions of the child molestation cases, is not effective.
It is also the case to doubt around the emotional and very politically charged case against a foreign sovereign that is perceived to have the limitless wealth.
I do not. And even your own legal tradition for centuries has thought the same thing.
There are always secrets between sovereigns and there will be things, both good and bad that the sovereigns will not want to put into a public record, like some collaborations against the Al Qaeda and the DAESH, informaitons that would be harmful to all parties.
then of course it is very, very stupid to open the breach and then see yourselves, often hated and disliked, having your assets frozen or attached or otherwise taken - the sauce for the duck is the same.
Who will do that? there is no “international court” to override this own sovereign act. the US is not a signatory to any thing that would override.
By who?
The problems will be the practical ones.
…
The USA would be sued by every 2nd and 3rd world nation, they’d sue and seize our assets.
This is a *very *bad precedent.
They should not override it, but they probably will, for political and stupid reasons
Uh, what? Did I sleep through multiple series of false child molestation convictions?
I think we should all be held accountable for our actions, no one nation should play god.
What does this mean? Which country is playing god in your mind? The US or Saudi? 
As for the OP, I don’t believe Congress should override Obama’s veto.
Oh, I didn’t think we were talking about 30 years ago.
If you think such hysteria couldn’t happen in this day and age, just look at the current “clown scare”.
Held accountable to who?
Right now, sovereign immunity doesn’t mean the US can’t punish Saudi Arabia, it just means that the channels with which punishment is done is not through US civilian courts. The question isn’t why Saudi Arabia should escape punishment, as many people like you seem to think it is, but why should the US open them up to anybody who can file court papers in a civilian court?
We have elected officials to deal with foreign countries for a reason, they are trained and they appreciate the enormous gravity of interaction between two political bodies, both with their own rules and interests, while taking into account the wider geopolitical setting such interactions are held in. Why should that change?
So do you think we should get rid of juries for cases where hysteria might be a factor?
I personally don’t think allowing people to sue a foreign government is a good idea for a heck of a lot of good reasons but I’m just not sure “people are too emotional, just look at child abuse cases” is a one of them.
Noooo. I think I posted what I posted in answer to questions that you asked.
The winds are blowing towards the first override of a veto from the Obama administration, and I am not happy.
I could point to dozens of bills in the past eight years that deserved to pass into law, even if over an Obama veto. But this particular one is not a winner. It even has a snappy acronym: JASTA, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
But it sets a horrible precedent, allowing suit against a sovereign power. I know Saudi Arabia is unsympathetic and the 9/11 families are highly sympathetic. But that’s not the basis for upending sovereign immunity. The President is right: this bill is well intentioned but misguided.
I agree with Bricker wholeheartedly. It is a naked grab for votes on behalf of both political parties, with the expectation that, if/when any problems should occur, they will fall on the shoulders of the Executive…if they thought that far ahead at all.
I agree as well…this would be a mistake to overrule the veto in this case. It sets a bad precedence (this bill, not overruling a Presidential veto).