|
Post by boboplata on Sept 29, 2016 3:41:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CHOPPEDnSCREWED on Sept 29, 2016 6:31:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 9:06:49 GMT -5
This override is a big deal. Not necessarily politically, because everyone wants to distance themselves from the almost lame duck President- but because of the implications it can have on the global stage. These trials would not be held in our court system, I believe they'd be carried out in The Hague (correct me if I'm wrong here James).
This would put those redacted pages from the 9/11 report front and center, not just for the MarkSharks of the world but for everyone. Could be a very bad thing for S.A. Very, very bad.
Looking forward to watching this play out. Could end up being a really big deal.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Sept 29, 2016 9:56:18 GMT -5
Your government financially supported an attack on civilians in peace time and Obama tries to protect you from litigation after already providing you immunity from military repercussion of any sort.
Someone help me out here. Is this thing really this openly corrupt and absurd?
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 29, 2016 11:03:33 GMT -5
This override is a big deal. Not necessarily politically, because everyone wants to distance themselves from the almost lame duck President- but because of the implications it can have on the global stage. These trials would not be held in our court system, I believe they'd be carried out in The Hague (correct me if I'm wrong here James). This would put those redacted pages from the 9/11 report front and center, not just for the MarkSharks of the world but for everyone. Could be a very bad thing for S.A. Very, very bad. Looking forward to watching this play out. Could end up being a really big deal. I don't know much about this, but I don't think it would be carried out under the Hague. I think it would be a lawsuit in American courts that, if successful, would lead to an unenforceable judgment against one or more Saudi officials (unenforceable unless that official happened to have assets in the US, in which case perhaps it would be enforceable?). But I'm not really sure. Perhaps the judgment could be enforced - that would depend on the specific treaties we have with the defendant-country. International litigation is super fucking complex. Anyone who hasn't studied this bill closely, and read up on its potential repercussions, is doing themselves a disservice if they think they know whether the bill is a "good" or "bad" thing. Even some members of Congress who voted for the bill talked about how disappointed they were that there wasn't any floor debate about the bill, as they think there are problems with it that warranted discussion. This Bill could open up the US to lawsuits by other countries if those countries determine that the US funded/assisted activities they claim were terrorist activities. For example, we fund Israel, Israel attacks Palestine killing some civilians, Palestine sues the US for funding terrorist actions against Palestine. Or, we attack what we believe is an Isis compound using drone strikes, we kill civilians, those civilian families sue the US for engaging in terrorist activities. Further, right now Saudi Arabia works closely with our anti-terrorism intelligence by sharing info. If the Saudis think that the info they share could be used against them to create civil liability, they're going to be less inclined to share that info with us. I'm not saying the bill is bad and shouldn't have been passed. I'm just saying the natural reaction of "Of course the 9/11 families should get their day in court" isn't the full story.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 29, 2016 11:09:37 GMT -5
Your government financially supported an attack on civilians in peace time and Obama tries to protect you from litigation after already providing you immunity from military repercussion of any sort. Someone help me out here. Is this thing really this openly corrupt and absurd? Well, just for the sake of clarity, it's not like Obama created the idea of sovereign immunity to protect Saudi Arabia. Sovereign immunity has existed forever, including during the entire Bush administration (post-9/11) and he didn't lift it either. For seven and a half years after 9/11, Bush didn't attack S.A. militarily, nor did he make any effort to lift the sovereign immunity to allow 9/11 families to sue S.A. So, this isn't exactly an Obama issue as much as it is a US Govt issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2016 11:33:18 GMT -5
That all makes sense James. I was thinking that they'd take the "Crime against Humanity" approach and with the U.N. getting more involved in Crimes against Humanity cases in the last ten years or so, figured they'd be involved in this somehow.
Seems like holding the trial in a U.S. court would be a big waste of resources for results that don't have a guarantee of enforcement. But that'd be par for the course these days anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Sept 29, 2016 12:36:56 GMT -5
I wonder if there is even enough information available that isn't classified that these lawsuits can use that'll actually win them a case though.
|
|
|
Post by jamesod on Sept 30, 2016 9:21:22 GMT -5
And now Congress is having second thoughts about this, with Mitch McConnell going so far as to blame Obama, in part, for not fully warning Congress of the possible repercussions of the Bill. You know, the Bill that Congress, not Obama, drafted.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.):
"That was a good example, it seems to me, of a failure to communicate early about the potential consequences of a piece of legislation,” McConnell told reporters before Congress got out of town until after the elections. “By the time everybody seemed to focus on some potential consequences of it, members had already basically taken a position.”
“I think it was just a ball dropped,” McConnell added. “I wish the president — I hate to blame everything on him, and I don’t — but it would have been helpful had he, uh, we had a discussion about this much earlier than last week.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 9:37:03 GMT -5
Good lord politicians can be morons. That's probably why they went into politics in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by CHOPPEDnSCREWED on Sept 30, 2016 9:53:44 GMT -5
Scary how many people don't know how to be citizens any more.
Even scarier when those people are 50-60 years with advanced degrees and are making laws.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Sept 30, 2016 10:26:00 GMT -5
That all makes sense James. I was thinking that they'd take the "Crime against Humanity" approach and with the U.N. getting more involved in Crimes against Humanity cases in the last ten years or so, figured they'd be involved in this somehow. Seems like holding the trial in a U.S. court would be a big waste of resources for results that don't have a guarantee of enforcement. But that'd be par for the course these days anyway. Was US a signatory? This is a 2 edged sword. Pakistan could sue the US for those random drone attacks. The US, would of course scoff it off. Expect other countries to do so as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2016 13:13:13 GMT -5
Yes, the US was one of the signers of the accord that outlines Crimes Against Humanity.
I personally have zero problem with the citizens of the world holding the government of this country accountable for actions they took that would be deemed terrorism or crimes against humanity. The US government no longer represents the people. It represents the few. That needs to change, but in order for it to change it requires most people in this country wake the fuck up. The country being sued for things that it did that most of its citizens don't even know it did- that's a bucket of cold water tossed on a sleeping individual. It's shocking and it makes you mad. But at least you're awake after.
Congress might have unwittingly handed over the design for their demise. I find that fitting too. Fucking idiots.
I really don't have any problem with the citizens of the world, including the people here in this country, waking up, standing up and saying "Hey, fuck you guys." If it causes global strife and massive upheaval as those with power see it start to be stripped from them- oh well. We're due for a reset.
|
|