Should Congress override Obama's veto on Saudi waiver?

[CarnalK]

@Northern_Piper

Yes. And when the foreign bailiff comes to enforce the court order and seize a tank, of course the US army would meekly turn the tanks over.

I hadn’t mentioned the issue of military equipment because that is simply not at all likely. It would be an act of war.

And when the U.S. seizes Saudi assets, everything will be hunky dory?

A lot of the people who voted for the override of the veto are looking for backdoors already, they were just too scared of 9/11 families to vote intelligently. I suspect they’ll find a way to blunt this law because they mostly know it’s a massive bungle for international relations.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

So does this mean that Afghanistan can allow lawsuits against the US? And seize US property in Afghanistan to satisfy the judgment?

[Jackmannii]

@Trinopus

Isn’t Saudi Arabia, as a nation, relative safe anyway? Their government didn’t plan or execute the attacks, and any reasonable trial should be able to establish that very clearly.

It’s a waste of time, but the decision can’t be threatening… Can it?

Yeah, it’s like those physicians who get upset over groundless malpractice suits. If they’re so innocent and all, why are they worried? :dubious:

The Saudis have a lot to answer for when it comes to encouraging terrorism, but this law and the slithering horde in Congress (and nimrods on the campaign trail) who support it aren’t helping matters.

[DrDeth]

@Northern_Piper

Yes. And when the foreign bailiff comes to enforce the court order and seize a tank, of course the US army would meekly turn the tanks over.

I hadn’t mentioned the issue of military equipment because that is simply not at all likely. It would be an act of war.

It’s the rule of law, and the USA subscribes to it. Of course we would. More likely just pay them.

But you see, they wouldnt have to try to seize our tanks. They would just send the judgement to our embassy and we would pay it. It’s the rule of law.

Now yes, no one can FORCE the USA to pay up. But we’re bigger than that.

[running_coach]

McConnell blames Obama for unintended consequences of JASTA.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that a new law allowing U.S. victims of terrorism to sue foreign governments **may have “unintended ramifications,” **despite Congress’s overwhelming vote this week to defy President Barack Obama’s veto of the legislation.

Though Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act was easily overridden, many senators are seeking changes to the law later this year, particularly after gauging any international reaction. McConnell laid some fault at the hands of the White House, calling the battle over JASTA a “good example” of “failure to communicate early about the potential consequences” of a popular bill.

Mr. Turtle couldn’t read it himself and figure it out?

[magellan01]

@aldiboronti

The President certainly gave some good and valid reasons why this bill is unsound policy. But on the other hand I think the 911 families are entitled to their day in court and, as the article comments, if Saudi Arabia is guiltless in this why is it so worried about the courts? I think on the whole I’d be inclined to support an override, financial consequences be damned.

I don’t think the financial aspect is the problem. Seems like it would create chaos we’d be sued by the second and third world every other week. While I understand the desire to hold Saudi Arabia accountable, the cons of doing so seem to greatly outweigh the pros. So, I’m with Obama on this one.

Ouch.

[CarnalK]

@DrDeth

It’s the rule of law, and the USA subscribes to it. Of course we would. More likely just pay them.

But you see, they wouldnt have to try to seize our tanks. They would just send the judgement to our embassy and we would pay it. It’s the rule of law.

Now yes, no one can FORCE the USA to pay up. But we’re bigger than that.

Haha, that’s pretty funny. Yes, the US government would open the floodgates for publicly paying up for every wedding convoy or baby formula factory they accidentally wipe out with a drone attack. Good one.

[DrDeth]

@CarnalK

Haha, that’s pretty funny. Yes, the US government would open the floodgates for publicly paying up for every wedding convoy or baby formula factory they accidentally wipe out with a drone attack. Good one.

Now that this law is passed, yes. *We just made it legal to sue us and just made us bound to pay. * Unless we simply say to the World “Hey, we are the biggest most powerful nation in the world, so make us! Nyaa nyaa nyaa!”:rolleyes:

Sure, we probably get to ignore places we have no diplomatic relationship with, like North Korea.

[Northern_Piper]

No, the bill doesn’t make it legal to sue the US in foreign courts.

It makes it legal to sue foreign governments in the US courts.

There is nothing in the bill that changes the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Here’s the Congressional summary:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040

[DrDeth]

@Northern_Piper

No, the bill doesn’t make it legal to sue the US in foreign courts.

It makes it legal to sue foreign governments in the US courts.

There is nothing in the bill that changes the sovereign immunity of the United States.

Here’s the Congressional summary:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040

It’s a normal accepted premise of International Law, and we just threw it out the window. Now that it is legal for us to sue them, they can make it legal for them to sue us.

http://www.charlescamplaw.com/faqs/foreign-sovereign-immunities-faqs/

"What is sovereign immunity?

It is customary international law that one foreign state is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another foreign state. "

[Northern_Piper]

Sure, any other country could pass similar legislation. Where’s the authority saying the US would comply with the decision by a foreign country that the US no longer had sovereign immunity?

[Northern_Piper]

@DrDeth

It’s the rule of law, and the USA subscribes to it. Of course we would. More likely just pay them.

But you see, they wouldnt have to try to seize our tanks. They would just send the judgement to our embassy and we would pay it. It’s the rule of law.

Now yes, no one can FORCE the USA to pay up. But we’re bigger than that.

The Nicaragua case I cited earlier does not support that conclusion. The US simply ignored the decision of the ICJ and never paid the reparations ordered by the Court.

What makes you think the US government would pay a judgment ordered against it by a foreign court?

[Lord_Feldon]

Soooooo it turns out that Congressional leaders think this law is pretty problematic, and are looking into rewriting it. It’s Obama’s fault, of course.

[Miller]

@magellan01

…I’m with Obama…

Found my new sig!

[Smapti]

@running_coach

McConnell blames Obama for unintended consequences of JASTA.

Mr. Turtle couldn’t read it himself and figure it out?

He had to pass the law to find out what was in it.

[Velocity]

This is the problem with election-year legislation. You could pass a law calling for an 80% income tax increase, call it the “Anti-Human Trafficking of Kidnapped Victims” bill, and no Congressman could dare vote against it.

[Mallard]

I’ll wager there will be some fabulously wealthy lawyers over this, a huge foreign relations set back, and no compensation for victim families.

[Northern_Piper]

@Lord_Feldon

Soooooo it turns out that Congressional leaders think this law is pretty problematic, and are looking into rewriting it. It’s Obama’s fault, of course.

According to Senator Corker, it’s also the fault of the House. The Senators only passed the bill because they didn’t think the House would pass it. They were completely surprised when the House did pass it. How could the Senators have foreseen that?!? A bill actually passing Congress? When’s that ever happened?

From the Bloomberg article:

Corker said last week the bill only passed the Senate on a voice vote the first time around because members didn’t think the House would take it up. But the House sent it to the President’s desk.

Things have come to a sorry state if the Senate can’t even rely on congressional gridlock any more.

[Northern_Piper]

@DrDeth

It’s the rule of law, and the USA subscribes to it. Of course we would. More likely just pay them.

But you see, they wouldnt have to try to seize our tanks. They would just send the judgement to our embassy and we would pay it. It’s the rule of law.

Now yes, no one can FORCE the USA to pay up. But we’re bigger than that.

According to this article:

More on Sovereign Immunity and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act

both Cuba and Iran have already lifted US sovereign immunity in their courts, and Cubans and Iranians have sued the US in the Cuban and Iranian courts. The US ignored the actions, leading to default judgments against the US which the Cuban and Iranian governments have tried to enforce against the US, without success.

So what’s your basis for saying the US will now allow itself to be sued in foreign courts and will pay any judgments those courts issued? To date, the US government doesn’t seem to be convinced by your rule of law argument.

Here’s another article which explains how Iran lifted the US’s sovereign immunity in response to the US earlier allowing lawsuits against Iran:

http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iraninsight/united-states-and-iran-should-settle-not-escalate-mutual-claims

[silenus]

@Mallard

I’ll wager there will be some fabulously wealthy lawyers over this, a huge foreign relations set back, and no compensation for victim families.

[Small hijack - you can answer in a PM if you think it will derail this thread.]

This what gets me, and always has. Under what principle should the victim families receive anything at all? If some crazed Canadian came down and blew up my neighbors Subaru with him in it, I wouldn’t go haring off on a quest to make Canada pay his family. Hell, if it was a Utahan who killed him. Other than the sheer size of the body count, what gives with the “payments to victim families?”