Sadly, I can't believe, this is the first thing in 8 years that I actually can agree with. The can of worms that this will open is crazy. Just as I'm sure the victims families can find judges in the US that will side with them. What happens when Iraq families start to sue the US govt. for unlawful invasion and killing their families. I'm sure they can find judges in their country to side with them.

The fact is the Terrorists are responsible for the deaths. And if the Saudi Govt was responsible, it is important for our Govt. to hold them accountable. Individuals cannot hold them accountable and they will never be able to collect. (But I'm sure the lawyers will be paid well).

Yup, I'm with Obama on this one as well. It's sad, unfortunately, that these families can't get ultimate closure because the murderers only faced martyrdom justice, but allowing countries to be sued in this manner would set such a dangerous precedent. I mean, it'd be fantastic for the lawyers around the world but can you imagine how many suits could be brought against governments for various transgressions over the years? How many could be brought against the US government for all the shit we've done over the years? No thanks.

Sadly, I can't believe, this is the first thing in 8 years that I actually can agree with. The can of worms that this will open is crazy.

The only can of worms it will open is to make public things that governments want secret. To say it will open the floodgates of litigation is just posturing and complete guesswork and scare tactics. The Saudis are behind the lobbying interests to get Obama to veto the bill and now Obama is on the same side as the Saudis.

One of the few things I agree with Obama on. And, I think it would have been the easy thing to do to let this go, and let the next President deal with the fallout. He's probably going to take a lot of flack for this decision.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Sorry, but you're just wrong on this one. Sovereign immunity is not something to fuck with. Setting the precedent that we no longer recognize sovereign immunity is a very dangerous thing for our govt, and our citizens. Vetoing this bill is the right thing to do, and it's hard for me to believe that Congress is this close to passing it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Kinda hilarious--and scary--that this is one of the few things that Congress is listening to constituents on even though I'm sure many of them understand the implications of this kind of legislation. The government should not do the peoples bidding when that action will introduce major risk to the government and the people they serve, but that's exactly what they're doing. Bunch of fucking idiots.

Yeah, of all the issues to come together on, this one is a loser.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

   Im not quit sold on the whole sovereign imunity.

If obama had signed the bill, Americans could sue and win judgements with the billions of Saudi dollars that are already here. If any foreign government sues us, we could simply tell them to go pound sand and ignore their order to pay fines.

I think obama's real concearn is a bill, which doesn’t refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, "could backfire by opening up the U.S. government AND IT’S OFFICIALS to lawsuits by anyone accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly…"

I must admit though, the timing of this vote stinks to hell like political posturing for re-elections in congress.

Im not quit sold on the whole sovereign immunity.


It's a cop out, there shouldn't be sovereign immunity.

Saudia Arabia played a big role in 9/11 and the U.S government is protecting them because of their oil and for the role they play as a hedge against Iran. This immunity gives them permission to do it again and for all we know, they continue to sponsor terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. I know they continue to provide Madrasses around the world that teach anti-American values and that will come back to haunt the West.

As long as they give immunity to Saudi Arabia, there is no point in pretending you are fighting a war on terror because you are wasting your time.

Not being able to get sued doesn't give anyone permission to engage in terrorism. However, if a country attacks our citizens, suing isn't the appropriate resolution. If you think suing Saudi Arabia is going to lessen likelihood of future attacks, you're high.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Of course she said she would.

And of course, she wouldn't. He probably would.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

However, if a country attacks our citizens, suing isn't the appropriate resolution.

Protecting the Saudi government role in 9/11, allowing a few Princes to leave immediately after the attacks and continuing to provide them with billions in aid isn't the appropriate response either.

Allowing citizens to sue isn't about the money. It's about making their involvement public instead of keeping it secret. People should have the right to know the Saudi governments involvement with the terrorists and vetoing this is simply protecting that.

If you think suing Saudi Arabia is going to lessen likelihood of future attacks, you're high.


I don't think it will lessen the attacks. However, continuing to protect them and providing them will billions in military aid is not going to stop future attacks either, in fact, you are likely increasing the risk of them.

I agree.

---

_____________________________________
DISH is how we do it.

but allowing countries to be sued in this manner would set such a dangerous precedent.

Everyone here is saying it will set a precedent and open up lawsuits (speculation at this time because no one really knows) so by that logic there is a reason for the U.S to veto.

The Saudis have spent hundreds of millions on lobbying Congress and Obama, and they have threatened to sell off $750 billion in U.S treasuries (which would actually bankrupt the Kingdom so another idle threat).

So the question is why? Saudi Arabia doesn't care if the U.S is sued and they keep saying the 9/11 report (*cough*except for 28 pages*cough) exonerated them, so why go to so much effort in stopping it?

Bush said that the U.S would go after terrorists and those countries that harbor them but I guess he meant "The U.S will go after terrorists and those countries that harbor them (with the exception of the country where most of the hijackers came from and whom high levels of government supported)."

The trial would expose the reality of the Saudi involvement, full stop. The idea that it would open the floodgates of lawsuits and endanger Americans is BS.

Maybe not, but that doesn't make setting new precedence with regard to sovereign immunity ok.


Are you delusional enough to think that allowing this suit would change what people already know or don't know?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You seriously must be high.


Again, high.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You seriously must be high.

Not sure why you keep repeating that but if that's what works for you, ok.

So, if the reason for the veto is protect American interests, why did the Saudis spend so much lobbying business executives, Congress and the President? Why did they threaten to sell $750B in U.S treasuries?

Are they also that concerned that U.S citizens and the U.S government might be sued down the road?

It appears there are lots of people in Congress who agree they want to get more information about the Saudi involvement and will vote to overturn the veto. I gather a lot of us are high.

Just because the Saudis lobbied, that doesn't mean vetoing this bill isn't in American interests. The fact that two separate entities both want the same outcome doesn't mean that only one of them can have a valid reason for wanting that outcome. It's entirely possible for the outcome to be in our best interests, and good for the Saudis.


No, the people in Congress who support this bill simply care more about their Congressional positions and currying favor with voters than they do about doing the right thing.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The Senate just voted 97-1 to override the veto. Harry Reid voted no, Tim Kaine and Bernie Sanders did not vote (way to take a stand there Tim and Bernie).

---

I miss YaHey