Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto of Suing Saudi Arabia Bill (1 Viewer)

[Statorama]

It figures that the first time they override his veto is on something that Obama's kind of right about.

 

[The Commish]

Jesus.

We know they're possible because we're not completely ignorant of the legal system.  If counsel for Saudi Arabia simply didn't appear in the case or file any pleadings, the victim families would get a default judgment.  So Saudi Arabia would certainly send lawyers (from a US firm).  Those lawyers would still argue that Saudi Arabia was immune to suit by virtue of sovereign immunity or by any number of jurisdictional challenges.  But let's assume they lose all of those.  Saudi Arabia is found complicit in the 9/11 attacks and the victims receive a judgment of, let's say $500 million.

That money doesn't magically appear out of thin air when you get a judgment.  You need to enforce that judgment.  When a party's assets are in the United States, we have mechanisms to do that.  We can attach a bank account or garnish wages or repossess a car.  When the party's assets are in a foreign country, we can't.  When the party's assets are controlled by a foreign sovereign, we particularly can't.  The Court can't order any relief.  So the victim's only recourse would be to go the government and say, "How can you persuade Saudi Arabia to pay this judgment?"  And maybe the government would: a) have some leverage that they could use (foreign aid, a weapons sale, something like that), and b) be willing to use that leverage.  Or maybe it wouldn't.  At the point where Saudi Arabia needs to pay up, it becomes an issue of foreign policy anyway.  As a matter of institutional competence, our courts are not the most effective means of addressing these types of potential issues. 

Calm down.  Not all of us are lawyer nerds so that's why I was asking questions rather than pontificating on #### as if I knew what the #### I was talking about.  My initial thought on this was "why would anyone sue a foreign government if they aren't guaranteed collection of the settlement?"  (thinking, I know how tough it is to collect in this country)  Which seems to be what you're saying here.  The same then is asked of our government.  So far, I don't see a huge deal if an individual wants to sue a foreign government.  At best, they'd get a judgment and collect.  At worst they'll be ignored by the other country's judicial system and get nothing, most likely they'd get a judgment and not be able to collect. 

If our government wants to mold behavior, they give the individual two options...go it alone and sue, or let us see if we can help you out without suing.  Then, stick by that answer.  This seems like the quickest, easiest way to teach the people in this country that not all countries have an environment where people can sue over anything/everything they feel entitled to.

ETA:  Would this "trial" be in US court or the courts of the country being sued?  If in the US, what is the rationale behind holding another country to our standard?

 

[dutch]

At worst they'll be ignored by the other country's judicial system and get nothing, most likely they'd get a judgment and not be able to collect. 

The suit would tale place in the court's of the citizen (s) bringing the suit not the court's of the country being sued.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Wouldn't it all be symbolic anyway...

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Not all of us are lawyer nerds

Apparently not all of us have basic reading comprehension either.

 

[The Commish]

The suit would tale place in the court's of the citizen (s) bringing the suit not the court's of the country being sued.

thanks

 

[Sand]

And the one thing Muslims hate more than anything is loss of face.

I'm all for pushing SA to modernize but I find this the specific issue of 9/11 suing their government counter-productive.

The government is the ruling family.  If they didn't want to be caught up in this mess they should have had a tighter noose around all the little princes throwing their millions around.

 

[The Commish]

So far the most compelling reason for this being bad is the exposing of national security information.  How do we handle cases like that today?  Seems like we would apply those same processes/procedures, no?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Not even making this up...Mitch McConnell:  "Obama should have warned us of the consequences of this bill."

Obama ####### VETOED IT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON YOU ####### #######.

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

President Obama explained this at the Military Town Hall in a way that even a 5 year old could understand. So of course they still override the veto. 

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Not even making this up...Mitch McConnell:  "Obama should have warned us of the consequences of this bill."

Obama ####### VETOED IT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON YOU ####### #######.

And it's not just McConnell. They ALL truly are a bunch of clueless, spineless blowhards. The fact that our entire Congress is just voting on stuff without digesting or understanding it is actually probably even more outrageous than the ####show going on in the Presidential election. This is seriously ####### awful.

 

[timschochet]

McConnell's statement is unbelievable. Shameful. 

 

[Coeur de Lion]

McConnell's statement is unbelievable. Shameful. 

And just about everyone on both sides just eats crap like this up because "of course it's the other side's fault."

 

[Cjw_55106]

Not even making this up...Mitch McConnell:  "Obama should have warned us of the consequences of this bill."

Obama ####### VETOED IT FOR EXACTLY THAT REASON YOU ####### #######.

Is that a direct quote? Usually when you put something in quotes, its actually what was said. Maybe it is, but I cant find it. 

 

[Rich Conway]

Not at all. It's not a partisan issue -- clearly, our interventionist foreign policy in the ME hasn't been successful. Starting with propping up the Shah in Iran, through Saddam in Iraq, and continuing on with the Saudis, I think that it's pretty clear that we have thrown gasoline on the fire in many ways.

On the flip side, non-intervention would likely lead to the unchecked spread of fundamentalist theocracy in the region, hence my "to play devil's advocate." I don't see a good solution; it's a matter of walking the thin line of "least terrible," but overall I don't think that our actions in the region have been very well thought out or focused on long term solutions in general.

Nothing our government does is focused on long term solutions any more.  Everything is geared to the 24x7 news cycle and the next election.

 

[msommer]

Everyone who voted in favor of this should at the very least issue a statement detailing why, with specifics as to why the President's concerns were unfounded. Individually, in their own words and signed

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Is that a direct quote? Usually when you put something in quotes, its actually what was said. Maybe it is, but I cant find it. 

Here is a story: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/obama-911-veto-congressional-concerns/index.html

"It appears there may be some unintended ramifications of that and I do think it's worth further discussing," he [McConnell] said. "But it's certainly is not something that was going to be fixed this week."
McConnell said Obama didn't reach out to him until this week, which was after the bill had passed both chambers, been vetoed, and was facing an override vote that clearly was going to succeed.
"That was a good example of the failure to communicate early about a piece of legislation that was obviously very popular," McConnell said.
McConnell explained that lawmakers were very focused on the needs of the 9/11 families and didn't take the time to think through the consequences.
"Because everyone was aware who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships. And I just think it was a ball dropped," McConnell said. "I wish the President -- and I hate to blame everything on him and I don't -- but it would have been helpful had...we had a discussion about this much earlier than the last week."

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

McConnell basically said that Obama didn't do a good enough job preventing Congress from doing something stupid and it is therefore the President's fault.

It is really quite extraordinary.

 

[MattFancy]

Yup, it's Obama's fault that Congress overrode his veto.

 

[massraider]

Is that a direct quote? Usually when you put something in quotes, its actually what was said. Maybe it is, but I cant find it. 

It's not a direct quote.  That would be too stand up for McConnell, too honest.  

Hwe said it could have unintended consequences, which the Obama administration warned them of before the vote.  

Here's a good read of exactly what the senior dipS**t rom Kentuckey said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/mitch-mcconnell-saudi-9-11-bill-228903

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.
 

“I told the president the other day that this is an example of an issue that we should have talked about much earlier,” McConnell said Thursday. “It appears as if there may be some unintended ramifications of that and I do think it’s worth further discussing. But it was certainly not something that was going to be fixed this week.”

 

Tough to imagine a more embarrassing moment for these boneheads.  

 

[msommer]

McConnell basically said that Obama didn't do a good enough job preventing Congress from doing something stupid and it is therefore the President's fault.

It is really quite extraordinary.

Yup

"I'm elected. If I do stupid stuff, that's on you"

 

[Cjw_55106]

McConnell basically said that Obama didn't do a good enough job preventing Congress from doing something stupid and it is therefore the President's fault.

It is really quite extraordinary.

Whether Obama is right or not, when a veto is over ridden 97-1, saying the president didnt do a good job explaining his stance is probably accurate. This doesnt excuse Congress, but clearly the president didnt communicate well. 

 

[massraider]

Whether Obama is right or not, when a veto is over ridden 97-1, saying the president didnt do a good job explaining his stance is probably accurate. This doesnt excuse Congress, but clearly the president didnt communicate well. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/saudi-911-bill_us_57ec2f1fe4b0c2407cdb98d2?xxyt5e8wv1evr6bt9

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-09/u-s-could-pay-a-high-price-for-suing-the-saudis

They didn't need the president to get out his colored flash cards and explain it to them, they could have turned on their iPads, and read about it on Bloomberg.  

He vetoed it.  They warned of this before hand.  Regular old folks in the media said it was clearly a political stunt, and a can of worms.  

You sure you don't want to walk back this statement?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Whether Obama is right or not, when a veto is over ridden 97-1, saying the president didnt do a good job explaining his stance is probably accurate. This doesnt excuse Congress, but clearly the president didnt communicate well. 

Perhaps there is some truth to that, but McConnell also basically said that Congress was so focused on doing the thing that was politically popular that it didn't think through potential consequences.

If one of my kids used similar logic for blaming me for something stupid they did, I'd call that a very immature excuse and a total lack of accountability. And Congress is made up of adults. Alledgedly.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Perhaps there is some truth to that, but McConnell also basically said that Congress was so focused on doing the thing that was politically popular that it didn't think through potential consequences.

If one of my kids used similar logic for blaming me for something stupid they did, I'd call that a very immature excuse and a total lack of accountability. And Congress is made up of adults. Alledgedly.

I agree, but when you could see they were going to do something stupid anyways, would you not lay out everything you "know" to steer them away? 

Again, Im not blaming Obama and maybe nothing he did would have mattered in the end, but from the outside, it seems like he didnt try too hard to sway things his way. 

 

[massraider]

I agree, but when you could see they were going to do something stupid anyways, would you not lay out everything you "know" to steer them away? 

Again, Im not blaming Obama and maybe nothing he did would have mattered in the end, but from the outside, it seems like he didnt try too hard to sway things his way. 

Aside from the veto, right?  You mean aside from the veto?

 

[Cjw_55106]

Aside from the veto, right?  You mean aside from the veto?

The veto doesnt explain the why....especially when it seems it was obvious an override was coming. 

 

[massraider]

The veto doesnt explain the why....especially when it seems it was obvious an override was coming. 

The 'WHY' was all over the internet, it wasn't a secret, some blogger at HuffPo with a MacBook figured it out over a latte at Starbucks.  

This is when you hold your local lawmakers responsible, for the votes they cast.  It is not the president's job to walk through, point by point, all of the problems with a piece of legislation that HE DIDN'T create, with the politicians that have made their only mission for 8 years to oppose anything he says or does.  

You really cannot see that, can you?  You only have a ''yeah, but'' response all queued up, correct?  

Amazeballs.  

You know the really F***ed up part?

If he had not vetoed it, and the media came asking McConnell why he was pushing through legislation that would allow foreign victims of war to SUE American soldiers, he would be saying he didn't know why the President didn't veto it, and you would be in here saying, ''Gosh, I'm not excusing Congress, but Obama was really asleep at the wheel, huh??''

 

[jamny]

It's so crazy. Obama hasn't exactly been on the best of terms with SA, especially with the Iran deal, but they must really not know who their friends are here now. Interesting how the Republicans have turned against them.

I support Obama's veto.

 

[The Commish]

Seems like the dysfunctional parent/child relationship has reared it's head again.  This has been getting worse and worse.  The prevention of a child from doing something stupid lays at the feet of both parent and child.  If child continues to try and touch hot stove and parent doesn't do anything other than say "don't touch that".  They are both at fault IMO.  The parent for not taking the time to educate the child and the child for ignoring what the parent says.

The relationship between the White House and Congress is ####.  It's been #### for a long time.  There is no good will and they both look for any and every opportunity to point the finger at the other.  That is not up for debate.  Because of this, "I told you so" simply isn't enough from the President.  That's essentially what a veto with no in depth discussion is.  It's also not acceptable for Congress to ignore the veto and still say "you should have told me more".  We all know they weren't listening anyway.  

Has anyone seen specific changes Congress wants to make to the bill?  If it's that big of a screw up, why not have a vote to repeal it?  

 

[massraider]

Seems like the dysfunctional parent/child relationship has reared it's head again.  This has been getting worse and worse.  The prevention of a child from doing something stupid lays at the feet of both parent and child.  If child continues to try and touch hot stove and parent doesn't do anything other than say "don't touch that".  They are both at fault IMO.  The parent for not taking the time to educate the child and the child for ignoring what the parent says.

The relationship between the White House and Congress is ####.  It's been #### for a long time.  There is no good will and they both look for any and every opportunity to point the finger at the other.  That is not up for debate.  Because of this, "I told you so" simply isn't enough from the President.  That's essentially what a veto with no in depth discussion is.  It's also not acceptable for Congress to ignore the veto and still say "you should have told me more".  We all know they weren't listening anyway.  

Has anyone seen specific changes Congress wants to make to the bill?  If it's that big of a screw up, why not have a vote to repeal it?  

Yeah,no.  

Just because McConnell  trotted out this sorry excuse doesn't mean that it's a legit one.  

The stove analogy doesn't work because Congress isn't a bunch of children, that don't know any better.  And the child didn't draft legislation that he wanted to touch the stove, and lay out why touching the stove was a great idea.  

Obama has nothing to do with this embarrassment.  Nothing.  At all.  

 

[Cjw_55106]

The 'WHY' was all over the internet, it wasn't a secret, some blogger at HuffPo with a MacBook figured it out over a latte at Starbucks.  

This is when you hold your local lawmakers responsible, for the votes they cast.  It is not the president's job to walk through, point by point, all of the problems with a piece of legislation that HE DIDN'T create, with the politicians that have made their only mission for 8 years to oppose anything he says or does.  

You really cannot see that, can you?  You only have a ''yeah, but'' response all queued up, correct?  

Amazeballs.  

You know the really F***ed up part?

If he had not vetoed it, and the media came asking McConnell why he was pushing through legislation that would allow foreign victims of war to SUE American soldiers, he would be saying he didn't know why the President didn't veto it, and you would be in here saying, ''Gosh, I'm not excusing Congress, but Obama was really asleep at the wheel, huh??''

Nope, he didnt create it. It was a bipartisan creation. McConnell didnt create it either. 

You can save the "their only mission for 8 years to oppose anything he says or does" for some other time as this was vetoed by Obama's party as well. 

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

What is funny is that no one complaining about Obama not communicating his reasons prior to the override vote.  They're complaining that he didn't communicate them early enough so that they wouldn't show ### on the override vote.  At the time the Senate voted, Obama had released a statement along with his veto and had sent letters to Senators.  Every Senator knew the reasons for the veto.  But they were pot committed.

Nevermind that every Senator has at least one lawyer on staff.  Presumably he or she also has many people who can pick up a freakin telephone and call the State Department. 

 

[massraider]

Nope, he didnt create it. It was a bipartisan creation. McConnell didnt create it either. 

You can save the "their only mission for 8 years to oppose anything he says or does" for some other time as this was vetoed by Obama's party as well. 

If he had not vetoed it, that would have been a mistake, right?  

 

[The Commish]

Yeah,no.  

Just because McConnell  trotted out this sorry excuse doesn't mean that it's a legit one.  

The stove analogy doesn't work because Congress isn't a bunch of children, that don't know any better.  And the child didn't draft legislation that he wanted to touch the stove, and lay out why touching the stove was a great idea.  

Obama has nothing to do with this embarrassment.  Nothing.  At all.  

Other than being part of it I guess  Ignore the analogy and look at the relationship between the two groups who were involved and tell me I'm wrong at what a #### show that relationship is.  That relationship (or lack thereof) and political  insisting on pointing the finger rather than having genuine dialogue is exactly why stuff like this happens.

 

[massraider]

What is funny is that no one complaining about Obama not communicating his reasons prior to the override vote.  They're complaining that he didn't communicate them early enough so that they wouldn't show ### on the override vote.  At the time the Senate voted, Obama had released a statement along with his veto and had sent letters to Senators.  Every Senator knew the reasons for the veto.  But they were pot committed.

Nevermind that every Senator has at least one lawyer on staff.  Presumably he or she also has many people who can pick up a freakin telephone and call the State Department. 

It's like that scene in A Few Good Men.  Obama objected, but he needed to strenuously object.  

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Other than being part of it I guess  Ignore the analogy and look at the relationship between the two groups who were involved and tell me I'm wrong at what a #### show that relationship is.  That relationship (or lack thereof) and political  insisting on pointing the finger rather than having genuine dialogue is exactly why stuff like this happens.

You're wrong.  Again.

 

[Cjw_55106]

If he had not vetoed it, that would have been a mistake, right?  

I dont know. I dont pretend to know all of the possible ramifications like many here do....most of which are speculation. 

I just find it funny/sad that while people give the cursory, its all of congress' fault, all of the angst seems to lean towards one specific party. Truth be told, if I was a Dem, I'd be pissed at "my side" not the other. The other side acted how I expected them to act. 

 

[msommer]

The veto doesnt explain the why....especially when it seems it was obvious an override was coming. 

Well if you are a reasonable person wouldn't you ask why if the reason for the veto given was not given?

It seems there were quite a number of elected officials who decided to not do any research or questioning beyond opinion polls.

Sadly i do not think this is all that unusual

 

[massraider]

I dont know. I dont pretend to know all of the possible ramifications like many here do....most of which are speculation. 

I just find it funny/sad that while people give the cursory, its all of congress' fault, all of the angst seems to lean towards one specific party. Truth be told, if I was a Dem, I'd be pissed at "my side" not the other. The other side acted how I expected them to act. 

No, the only point you made wasn't what you found funny/sad, or that Congress drafted some bad legislation, your only point was that is sure seems like the President should have communicated more.  

My only point is that anyone falling for McConnell's story is chkoing downa  bunch of crap with their morning coffee.

Be smarter than a Kentucky voter.  It's not hard.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I dont know. I dont pretend to know all of the possible ramifications like many here do....most of which are speculation. 

I just find it funny/sad that while people give the cursory, its all of congress' fault, all of the angst seems to lean towards one specific party. Truth be told, if I was a Dem, I'd be pissed at "my side" not the other. The other side acted how I expected them to act. 

I don't think anyone identified the Republicans until Republican lawmakers like McConnell and Conryn tried to pass the buck.  I think everyone understands that Democratic Senators were spineless. 

 

[dutch]

I don't think anyone identified the Republicans until Republican lawmakers like McConnell and Conryn tried to pass the buck.  I think everyone understands that Democratic Senators were spineless. 

Yup.

 

[massraider]

Yup.

I was thinking, who was the one vote?

97-1 to override the veto.  A staggering display of political pandering, and no fear of long term consequences.  

Bernie Sanders supported it.  Warren voted to override.  Embarrassing.  

Harry Reid.  That was it.  Harry Reid was the one vote, in case anyone was wondering.  

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s148

Here's another article BEFORE the override vote.  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-27/congress-prepares-for-override-votes-on-9-11-lawsuit-bill

THe money quote:

Opponents including many scholars, ex-officials and the White House, however, say it could harm the U.S. by disestablishing reciprocal sovereign immunity, a legal principle that generally protects governments from being sued in a foreign country’s legal system.

Harry Reid and The White House.  Anyone else was asleep at the wheel, gutless, or being obstinate. 

This thread should be everyone celebrating Obama, instead they are complaining he didn't communicate enough.  You're embarrassing yourselves.  Stop.  Just stop.  

 

[Gachi]

I know this is nothing new, but the stupidity of congress just amazes me. 

But then I remember that Donald Trump could be the next president and I remember why.

Stupid people elect stupid leaders. Time and time again.

 

[massraider]

I know this is nothing new, but the stupidity of congress just amazes me. 

But then I remember that Donald Trump could be the next president and I remember why.

Stupid people elect stupid leaders. Time and time again.

Someone raised the point, and I think it's a good one:  Everyone hates Congress, but they like their guy.  It's all those other Congressmen that are messing up.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

McConnell basically said that Obama didn't do a good enough job preventing Congress from doing something stupid and it is therefore the President's fault.

It is really quite extraordinary.

It is un#######believable. Every single one of those em-effers who end up changing their vote on this should get kicked out of office. They had multiple chances to look at it and consider it, and either didn't bother to think about it or are too dumb to see the potential problems. Then they blame Obama for not doing more to pointing it out. Either way, it's ironclad proof of total incompetence. Of course, no one will even know or care about it. 

 

[The Commish]

What is funny is that no one complaining about Obama not communicating his reasons prior to the override vote.  They're complaining that he didn't communicate them early enough so that they wouldn't show ### on the override vote.  At the time the Senate voted, Obama had released a statement along with his veto and had sent letters to Senators.  Every Senator knew the reasons for the veto.  But they were pot committed.

Nevermind that every Senator has at least one lawyer on staff.  Presumably he or she also has many people who can pick up a freakin telephone and call the State Department. 

Was this the first Senate vote or the vote to overrule his veto?

If he had laid it out and it was ignored, then that's a different story.  No one had made that point prior to my other comments and I based them on the information I was trying to collect while wading through all the  of defending a side.

 

[jon_mx]

Does anyone really care?  Seems like no one will ever successfully collect on such a lawsuit.  It is kind of like Bush being tried for war crimes.  A bunch of non-sense.  

 

[Rich Conway]

97-1 to override the veto.  A staggering display of political pandering, and no fear of long term consequences.  

Harry Reid and The White House.  Anyone else was asleep at the wheel, gutless, or being obstinate. 
 

Which senators abstained?

Also, "everyone else" isn't necessarily 100% fair.  As it applies to the Senate, yes, but I would assume some House members also voted against initially.

 

[massraider]

Which senators abstained?

Also, "everyone else" isn't necessarily 100% fair.  As it applies to the Senate, yes, but I would assume some House members also voted against initially.

Cool, I will happily give them props. 

Doesn't look like too many were interested in getting in the way of this one, tho.