+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress (/Thread-The-Justice-Against-Sponsors-of-Terrorism-Act-passed-by-Congress)
Pages:
1
2
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - bfine32 - 09-09-2016
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-vote-sept-11-legislation-veto-threat-looms-070653809--politics.html
Quote:Congress sent President Barack Obama a bipartisan bill that would allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, putting lawmakers on a collision course with the White House on the eve of the 15th anniversary of the attacks.
it is assumed the The President of The United States, Barack Obama, will veto the bill.
What are our thoughts?
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - PhilHos - 09-10-2016
(09-09-2016, 09:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-vote-sept-11-legislation-veto-threat-looms-070653809--politics.htmlFrom what I've read it passed unanimously in the Senate 100-0 too. So it'll be interesting to see Obama's reasoning for the veto.
it is assumed the The President of The United States, Barack Obama, will veto the bill.
What are our thoughts?
Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - bfine32 - 09-10-2016
(09-10-2016, 11:04 AM)PhilHos Wrote: From what I've read it passed unanimously in the Senate 100-0 too. So it'll be interesting to see Obama's reasoning for the veto.
Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk
From what I read his reasoning is it will open up other countries charging us with crimes and to be fair I can see it as a concern.
In late 1990s we were tasked with resettling Bosniaks to the city of Zvornik. They had be removed entirely during the Zvornik massacre. Unfortunately, serbs moved into the houses when Bosniaks were forced to leave (or be killed). While relocating one of the first families (I was in a 2 vehicle patrol with a total of 10 people) a huge, hostile crowd gathered, one civilian vehicle "accidentally" stuck my wing man's vehicle. The local police were called and they were not on our side,
Through my terp, I was told the crowd was suggesting over-running us, I asked the Police Chief if he could help, he said the crowd was doing nothing wrong and that my partner's vehicle was too far out in the street and we were responsible for the accident; even though we were stationary.
By then the quick reaction force was arriving. I sure was glad I was not bound by local law.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Nebuchadnezzar - 09-10-2016
I'm with Obama on this one since I see this as opening up the United States for lawsuits from others.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Belsnickel - 09-10-2016
(09-10-2016, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From what I read his reasoning is it will open up other countries charging us with crimes and to be fair I can see it as a concern.
In late 1990s we were tasked with resettling Bosniaks to the city of Zvornik. They had be removed entirely during the Zvornik massacre. Unfortunately, serbs moved into the houses when Bosniaks were forced to leave (or be killed). While relocating one of the first families (I was in a 2 vehicle patrol with a total of 10 people) a huge, hostile crowd gathered, one civilian vehicle "accidentally" stuck my wing man's vehicle. The local police were called and they were not on our side,
Through my terp, I was told the crowd was suggesting over-running us, I asked the Police Chief if he could help, he said the crowd was doing nothing wrong and that my partner's vehicle was too far out in the street and we were responsible for the accident; even though we were stationary.
By then the quick reaction force was arriving. I sure was glad I was not bound by local law.
(09-10-2016, 01:10 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I'm with Obama on this one since I see this as opening up the United States for lawsuits from others.
It seems like a fine gesture, as there is sufficient evidence to suggest that our country should be holding some folks in the Saudi government responsible. But as bfine and Neb have pointed out, it would be a major liability when it comes to international affairs. There is a bit of an understood reciprocity with regards to this that could, and likely would, be revoked were this to happen. It could be disastrous for us with our global military presence.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - CKwi88 - 09-10-2016
I get that 9/11 was a terrible event and all, but if we're talking about letting people hold governments accountable for civilian losses of life, our country is really throwing stones from a glass house here.
Even should Obama not use the veto, what kind of enforceability would there even be?
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - treee - 09-10-2016
(09-10-2016, 03:11 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I get that 9/11 was a terrible event and all, but if we're talking about letting people hold governments accountable for civilian losses of life, our country is really throwing stones from a glass house here.
Even should Obama not use the veto, what kind of enforceability would there even be?
None that I know of but it would certainly set a precedent.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - BmorePat87 - 09-10-2016
The general consensus here sums up my thoughts: How do you even enforce this? What damage does it do to us in dealing with other nations? What does it open our own government up to?
Their government wouldn't even dignify the lawsuit with a response.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - fredtoast - 09-11-2016
Obama's veto has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the policy. It is just about the fact that we are in bed with the House of Saud.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/apr/20/supreme-court-ruling-iran-terror-victims-families
The supreme court on Wednesday upheld a judgment allowing families of victims of the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut and other terrorist attacks to collect nearly $2bn in frozen Iranian funds.
The court on Wednesday ruled 6-2 in favor of more than 1,300 relatives of the 241 US service members who died in the Beirut bombing and victims of other attacks that courts have linked to Iran.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the court rejecting efforts by Iran’s central bank to try to stave off court orders that would allow the relatives to be paid for their losses. The money is sitting in a federal court trust account.
Iran’s Bank Markazi complained that Congress was intruding into the business of federal courts when it passed a 2012 law that specifically directs that the banks’ assets in the United States be turned over to the families. Barack Obama issued an executive order earlier in 2012 freezing the Iranian central bank’s assets in the United States.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - THE Bigzoman - 09-14-2016
(09-10-2016, 02:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It seems like a fine gesture, as there is sufficient evidence to suggest that our country should be holding some folks in the Saudi government responsible. But as bfine and Neb have pointed out, it would be a major liability when it comes to international affairs. There is a bit of an understood reciprocity with regards to this that could, and likely would, be revoked were this to happen. It could be disastrous for us with our global military presence.
I'm with you all and Obama on this.
I don't like the international precedent with this. How much shit could the US get sued for?
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Belsnickel - 10-02-2016
So I just read the most asinine thing I have in a while. In the latest effort by GOP lawmakers to blame the POTUS for everything, they have now taken to blaming the White House for this bill becoming law as they experience a bit of buyers' remorse.
Congress's Retreat on 9/11 Saudi Bill Shows Fear of Backlash
Because the WH didn't sit down with them and specifically talk about the issues rather than making the statements every day in press briefings and threatening the veto, Congress is trying to blame the WH for this bill becoming law, even though it became law through no action of the POTUS. And now there are talks about wanting to change it because they are concerned about the very things the WH warned them about but they ignored.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - GMDino - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 11:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I just read the most asinine thing I have in a while. In the latest effort by GOP lawmakers to blame the POTUS for everything, they have now taken to blaming the White House for this bill becoming law as they experience a bit of buyers' remorse.
Congress's Retreat on 9/11 Saudi Bill Shows Fear of Backlash
Because the WH didn't sit down with them and specifically talk about the issues rather than making the statements every day in press briefings and threatening the veto, Congress is trying to blame the WH for this bill becoming law, even though it became law through no action of the POTUS. And now there are talks about wanting to change it because they are concerned about the very things the WH warned them about but they ignored.
Just highlights the last eight years. The GOP just did the opposite of what the President said/wanted.
Their supporters don't care because they are blind.
And the Democrats that voted for it are just afraid to vote against anything with "9/11" or "terrorist" in the title because ou know there are people running for election right now who will say how good this bill was and why the supported it even while they don't know.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - bfine32 - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 11:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So I just read the most asinine thing I have in a while. In the latest effort by GOP lawmakers to blame the POTUS for everything, they have now taken to blaming the White House for this bill becoming law as they experience a bit of buyers' remorse.
Congress's Retreat on 9/11 Saudi Bill Shows Fear of Backlash
Because the WH didn't sit down with them and specifically talk about the issues rather than making the statements every day in press briefings and threatening the veto, Congress is trying to blame the WH for this bill becoming law, even though it became law through no action of the POTUS. And now there are talks about wanting to change it because they are concerned about the very things the WH warned them about but they ignored.
So only Republicans in Congress voted to over-turn the Presidential veto?
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Nebuchadnezzar - 10-02-2016
There's another problem that I see,
Not only will other governments not pay when sued but the United States will pay if ever they are sued and if they do not pay, we will be vilified for it after being vilified for whatever it is we are sued for.
Congress crapped the bed on this one and no one is going to clean it up. It's going to smell forever and just smear all over that place.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - GMDino - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So only Republicans in Congress voted to over-turn the Presidential veto?
No.
So you don't read the articles?
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Belsnickel - 10-03-2016
(10-02-2016, 05:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So only Republicans in Congress voted to over-turn the Presidential veto?
No, but I've only heard the GOP trying to blame the White House.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Au165 - 10-03-2016
So now, using our own law against us, Iraqi people are setting up to have their parliament demand compensation from the US over the invasion of Iraq. Yea who would have ever saw this happening........o wait everyone but congress did! Win or lose, this will cost money to defend. Before it would have been thrown out but now, because of this law, it could actually go to a trial if proposed correctly.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Rotobeast - 10-03-2016
(10-03-2016, 01:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: So now, using our own law against us, Iraqi people are setting up to have their parliament demand compensation from the US over the invasion of Iraq. Yea who would have ever saw this happening........o wait everyone but congress did! Win or lose, this will cost money to defend. Before it would have been thrown out , but now because of this law, it could actually go to a trial if proposed correctly.This was all a GENIUS plan by the Obama administration, to redistribute wealth across the globe.
Obama had his little cronies put bugs in the right ears, allowed it to fester, claimed to catch wind of the "plan", proclaimed adamant (yet facetious) opposition to the idea, and wham.... it's set in motion.
My hat's off to this beautifully executed con.
Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - bfine32 - 10-03-2016
(10-03-2016, 08:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, but I've only heard the GOP trying to blame the White House.
Most likely because you read it from Bloomburg.
RE: The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act passed by Congress - Belsnickel - 10-03-2016
(10-03-2016, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely because you read it from Bloomburg.
Well, I follow a lot of political sites, partisan from both sides and more neutral ones, and haven't seen anything come up. Granted, I wasn't paying a ton of attention this weekend for a variety of reasons, but I was lead to this article because my local paper ran it on the front page (and they are notoriously, heavy handedly, right leaning). So, you know, it's what it is. If you run across any of the Democrats blaming the White House for this fiasco, feel free to post it right here. I'd love to see it so that I can make fun of all of them. Only quote I've seen from someone with a D next to their name in this mess has been to deny the accusations that the vote was a political one.