PBS: Congress Overrides Obama's Veto On Sept. 11 Lawsuit Bill

[s0crates]

This seems a bit off topic for the election thread. I don't know much about the bill, but I find the dynamic of Obama standing against 97 Senators interesting. 

Thoughts?

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/28/495709481/sept-11-lawsuits-vote-today-could-be-first-reversal-of-an-obama-veto

Quote

 

Congress Overrides Obama's Veto On Sept. 11 Lawsuit Bill

Congress approved the first successful override of a presidential veto from President Obama on Wednesday when the House joined the Senate in voting against Obama's objection to a bill that would allow family members to sue Saudi Arabia over the Sept. 11 attacks.

The override cleared the Senate earlier Wednesday, in a 97-1 vote in favor of the override, well above the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's objection. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid cast the lone "no" vote. Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did not vote.

The House vote was 348-77.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) would, among other things, give families of Sept. 11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia over claims it aided or financed the terrorist attacks.

. . .

The Saudi government denies any role in those attacks, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, though, and there have long been suspicions that some of the hijackers received support during their time in the U.S. from individuals with possible connections to the Saudi Kingdom.

Supporters of the veto override say those suspicions should be explored in a U.S. court of law.

The Obama administration says it's sympathetic to victims' families, but concerned that allowing such lawsuits would open the door to legal challenges against American officials in other countries.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I think Obamaso reason for vetting was spot on.  The only reason Congress overturned it is they don't want a rival to say they voted against 9/11 families.  Sad that drove the decision instead of what's really best.

 

Reminder: Republican here saying I agree with Obama.

[SkinInsite]

We don't exactly have a clean record with our activities aboard and at home. Wonder if Congress want those being dragged out in court.

[Predicto]

It's a lousy law that violates international norms and is going to backfire on us around the world, and the President was right to veto it.

 

It also isn't surprising that the veto was overridden.   What Senator or Congressperson has the guts to risk going into an election six weeks from now facing endless attack ads saying "My opponent favors Saudi Terrorism over 9/11 victim families!"   

[s0crates]

48 minutes ago, Predicto said:

It's a lousy law that violates international norms and is going to backfire on us around the world, and the President was right to veto it.

It also isn't surprising that the veto was overridden.   What Senator or Congressperson has the guts to risk going into an election six weeks from now facing endless attack ads saying "My opponent favors Saudi Terrorism over 9/11 victim families!"   

 

The idea that Congress voted for political reasons seems to be the going narrative, but I'm not sure I'm ready to call 97 Senators and 347 Congressmen gutless. Presumably their constituents and the 9/11 families have some reasons for thinking as they do.

I don't know much about the Bill, but from what I gather it sounds like supporters of the Bill are interested in prosecuting the people responsible for the attack, which sounds a lot like seeking justice to me. 

On the other hand, Obama seems to be heeding concerns from the intelligence community that it will erode "sovereign immunity." I'm not one to trust the CIA, and this sounds a lot like a slippery slope argument to me, but for all I know they may be right. Sometimes the slope really is slippery.

I'm obviously in no position to decide the case, but I do find the tension between justice and prudence in the argument interesting. 

[Springfield]

What are they going to sue for and what court takes the case?

 

Serms frivolous at this point.

[SkinInsite]

There's probably a queue of south/central american countries waiting to sue the CIA.

[Bozo the kKklown]

29 minutes ago, SkinInsite said:

There's probably a queue of south/central american countries waiting to sue the CIA.

African

Asian

Iran

[s0crates]

 

In case I'm not the only one wondering what "sovereign immunity" means:

Sovereign immunity

Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. This principle is commonly expressed by the popular legal maxim "rex non potest peccare," meaning "the king can do no wrong."

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

55 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

African

Asian

Iran

You are aware you listed two continents and a country in response to that quote, right?

[tshile]

isn't the information that proves the link classified, and simply speculated about?

how do they plan on getting that for a case in court?

[dfitzo53]

Setting aside why it should or shouldn't be supported, I'm curious about the actually functionality of it. 

 

If a US citizen wants to bring a suit against a foreign country, is that something that would even be recognized? I know there are international courts, but would they hear something like that? 

[DCSaints_fan]

2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Setting aside why it should or shouldn't be supported, I'm curious about the actually functionality of it. 

 

If a US citizen wants to bring a suit against a foreign country, is that something that would even be recognized? I know there are international courts, but would they hear something like that? 

 

This bill would apply to the US court system.  Generally, foreign governments don't get sued, except for very few exceptions.   Even the US government has to, in essence, "allow itself to be sued", even by our own citizens.    

I don't think this would be fundamentally different from other tort cases.   Should a case go to trial its likely that foreign nationals (Saudis) would be called to testify, which is rare but not unheard of.

Now if they do get a verdict, the issue becomes enforcement.   The US governemnt would then have to demand renumeration from the Saudis.  If they fail to comply, the US might take the step of seizing Saudi assets in US controlled banks, etc..  Its likely that the Saudis might withdraw assets before that ever happens. Which would be bad for the US economy.

[Bozo the kKklown]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You are aware you listed two continents and a country in response to that quote, right?

Yes, yes I am.

[Going Commando]

3 hours ago, Predicto said:

It also isn't surprising that the veto was overridden.   What Senator or Congressperson has the guts to risk going into an election six weeks from now facing endless attack ads saying "My opponent favors Saudi Terrorism over 9/11 victim families!"   

Yep.  It's bad law.  The bill should have been pushed back until after the election.  The veto override vote should have been pushed back until after the election.  That's what would have happened if Congress was controlled by adults.  But it's a dysfunctional rudderless mess, controlled by a majority party that is collapsing.  Bad law is what we can expect from them.

[Fergasun]

Reading this thread is depressing and encouraging.  Encouraging because a number of people here identify this as election-year politics and bad law, depressing because enough voters would believe a political ad which says, "My opponent voted against 9/11 families."

[s0crates]

17 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Reading this thread is depressing and encouraging.  Encouraging because a number of people here identify this as election-year politics and bad law, depressing because enough voters would believe a political ad which says, "My opponent voted against 9/11 families."

 

Is it not true that the 9/11 families supported this bill?

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, s0crates said:

 

Is it not true that the 9/11 families supported this bill?

For one thing, there is little reason to believe the law will actually help the families of victims of 9/11.  It's completely symbolic.  For another, you can't put the interests of the very few over America's national interests.  And for third, the primary motivation for passing this law at this time was for Republicans to have a piece of gotcha legislation late in a campaign to either ding Obama or the Democrats who wouldn't break ranks with him.

I think (hope) the stakes of the law are pretty low, but it's yet another example of how congressional Republicans are willing to hurt the country to win petty political battles.

[Predicto]

5 hours ago, s0crates said:

 

Is it not true that the 9/11 families supported this bill?

 

Of course they did.   It's still a bad law, and was drafted entirely for political purposes.   

[justice98]

His argument makes sense, but Obama's trying to have it both ways.  It's basically choosing CYA over justice.  Again, I get it, but dont act like it isnt what it is. 

14 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

The bill should have been pushed back until after the election.  The veto override vote should have been pushed back until after the election.  That's what would have happened if Congress was controlled by adults.  

I dont think the legislature should  essentially cease to operate as intended just because it's an election year.  

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, justice98 said:

I dont think the legislature should  essentially cease to operate as intended just because it's an election year.  

Why not?  They operate as intended the rest of the time either.

[Predicto]

1 hour ago, justice98 said:

His argument makes sense, but Obama's trying to have it both ways.  It's basically choosing CYA over justice.  Again, I get it, but dont act like it isnt what it is. 

I

 

I honestly don't understand this argument.  Can you explain in more detail?

I mean, I don't see how Obama is covering Obama's ass with this.   As far as I can see, he gains nothing politically or personally from vetoing this - he just thinks it is a bad law that is going to backfire on America.   

[Riggo-toni]

1 hour ago, justice98 said:

I dont think the legislature should  essentially cease to operate as intended just because it's an election year.  

Scotus appointment anyone?....

[DogofWar1]

McConnell is shameless.

Coming out a day after overriding the veto and saying that the administration didn't fully explain the consequences?

Way to go dude, for you to not do your due diligence, and then to similarly try to lay any blame from this at Obama's feet.

If it works great you can attack Obama for trying to block it.  If it goes badly, you can blame Obama for not doing your job for you.

Seriously, can someone Kantor that guy?  He's so bad.

[zoony]

Id like to sue Brazil for the Macarena

and South Africa for vuvuzelas