http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sen ... ll-n656011

After President Obama initially vetoed the bill, the Senate voted 97-1 to override the veto. Harry Reid (D-NV) was the only "no" vote. This is the first time Congress has voted to override one of Obama's vetoes.

The bill itself was to allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian government for their role in the attacks.

Obama's reason for the veto was that, essentially, it was opening Pandora's Box of international lawsuits, meaning, that if we allow our citizens to sue another nation, it opens the door for citizens of other countries to sue us for our perceived misdoings internationally.

For 97% of the Senate to agree on something that doesn't seem have an obvious right or wrong answer leaves me highly suspicious. Of all the things the GOP and Dems could come together and agree on, it's allowing citizens to sue another country? Usually, you follow the money for the answers to these sorts of things, but I can't quite follow the money trail here.

I understand wanting to appease the victims of 9/11, but wouldn't it better better to just sever our allied ties with Saudi Arabia and quit supplying them money and weapons (something that should of happened a LONG time ago)? It makes more sense to have Iran as an ally in the Middle East, considering the hostility between the two countries is mostly the US towards Iran and not the other way (we have definitely been the bully in that relationship). And Iran is just as, if not more committed to defeating ISIS.

What do y'all think about this? There is an incredibly fishy smell emanating from this veto/vote, but I can't tell where it's coming from.

I don't understand your surprise, this is what true patriots do!

This was 100% political. Essentially anyone could be attacked mercilessly for voting against it because many people won't bother to actually understand the real issue.

Tugg

I'm not familiar with the subject, so what effect does a lawsuit in an American court have on another country?

If a judgment is found against Saudi Arabia, will they actually pay it? How does this all work?

vikkyvik wrote:

I'm not familiar with the subject, so what effect does a lawsuit in an American court have on another country?

If a judgment is found against Saudi Arabia, will they actually pay it? How does this all work?

I'm not sure about either question, nor would I even know if such a trial would be held in a US court (as opposed to The Hague). I doubt Saudi Arabia would actually pay if a judgement is rendered against them - who would enforce it?

Yes, the majority of Congress are lawyers, but I doubt any of them would personally handle a case, so what do they have to benefit from? That's why I can't follow the money trail here.

Saudi Arabia has a huge sovereign fund that has to be invested in many US companies and assets.

LittleFokker wrote:

I'm not sure about either question, nor would I even know if such a trial would be held in a US court (as opposed to The Hague).

According to the CNN article:

which for the first time would allow suits in American courts against state sponsors of terrorist attacks inside the US

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/ov ... index.html

I also hate it when people use this argument:

"This measure does not prejudge a verdict or issue a judgement. It gives both sides a fair day in court," said Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut during remarks on the Senate floor, arguing the legislation simply closed a loophole. "If the Saudi government had no involvement in 9/11, it has nothing to fear. But if it was culpable then it should be held accountable."

Well this shouldn't have any unintended consequences anywhere whatsoever. I'm surprised republicans weren't more divided; they're usually first in line to suck up to misogynistic religious whackos.

I can see a lot of US lawyers working on spreadsheets to calculate potential commissions (sorry, contingent fees) and getting very excited.

The problem is that there will also be attorneys all over the world opening their spreadsheets as well.

It's pretty sad that the politicians isn't bother to really study both sides of the coin before placing their votes.

Tugger wrote:

This was 100% political. Essentially anyone could be attacked mercilessly for voting against it because many people won't bother to actually understand the real issue.

Absolutely correct. Our government is now being steered by the least informed segment of the populace. And they want to "make America great again" LOL

salttee wrote:

Tugger wrote:

This was 100% political. Essentially anyone could be attacked mercilessly for voting against it because many people won't bother to actually understand the real issue.

Absolutely correct. Our government is now being steered by the least informed segment of the populace. And they want to "make America great again" LOL

That's not Hillary's slogan, is it?

But that about sums up the basic intelligence of the "left" - despicable, uninformed people are always on the other side. Time perhaps that the Democrats look into the mirror - the last eight years weren't such a roaring success, and wanting 4 more years of that....that's the definition of insanity, is it not?

Aesma wrote:

Saudi Arabia has a huge sovereign fund that has to be invested in many US companies and assets.

I don't think it has to be invested in US companies. That's one of the fears: Saudi Arabia will pull its money out of the US for fear of it being frozen and/or seized, resulting in real damage to the US economy.

Mir wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Saudi Arabia has a huge sovereign fund that has to be invested in many US companies and assets.

I don't think it has to be invested in US companies. That's one of the fears: Saudi Arabia will pull its money out of the US for fear of it being frozen and/or seized, resulting in real damage to the US economy.

Is not the real worry that the money comes -back- into the United States, in liquid form? If it stays offshore, does that not, in effect, keep it out of circulation? For example, various countries own a lot of 'debt' - treasury bonds, etc. If that was to come back to the States, is that not a huge problem? If it stays away, 'locked up', that would be the best thing, no? Or is this all a big multi-faceted situation that any number of cards being played can cause grief?

Thanks for the education...

YZF101 wrote:

That's not Hillary's slogan, is it?

No, I said it, not Hillary.

YZF101 wrote:

But that about sums up the basic intelligence of the "left" - despicable, uninformed people are always on the other side.

You might not understand this, but there are valid real world reasons why allowing these lawsuits to go on and are not a good idea - but of course they make you "feel" better and allow you to puff your chest up - so of course we should always go along with that. Common sense should always take a back seat to machismo.

YZF101 wrote:

Time perhaps that the Democrats look into the mirror - the last eight years weren't such a roaring success, and wanting 4 more years of that....that's the definition of insanity, is it not?

We've recovered from the condition Bush left us in much quicker than it look like it would take back in 09. Our military is now back on its feet and could be deployed again without involuntary extensions of enlistments and emergency acquisition of replacement hardware. Obama has kept our troops home with the exception of a few ranger types who lusted for real combat anyway. The national economy has recovered more than should have been expected from the Bush years, the employment picture is definitely better than it was when Obama inherited the Bush disaster. We are actually doing pretty good for a nation that has lost two wars in the last 40 years, but I see that the bomb em back into the stone age folks such as yourself are itching to get us into another losing battle.

Dumping on Saudi Arabia may sound like a clever idea, much as getting rid of Saddam sounded oh so great back in 03, but like getting rid of Saddam, destroying the current state of Saudi Arabia would have consequences. Like em or not the Saud family are still riding herd over there and it is very much in our interests that their applecart not be overturned anytime soon and that the Saud family members are not forced to have a binary choice of "western" or Islam.

You'd be better off to let the adults manage the situation over there, unless you'd like to try for a third military catastrophe in fifty years.

salttee wrote:

Absolutely correct. Our government is now being steered by the least informed segment of the populace. And they want to "make America great again" LOL

I suppose one needed to re-read what you said - yup, it is the safety of the "left" to marginalize those who don't agree with the dogma.

Seriously, stop and read what I responded - not a word about how good or bad this desicion was. Definately a shot at the record of Obama, yes, and a retort to the 'lefty ideoliogy'.

For the record, though, I personally don't think it was a great idea to follow through with the second vote. You see, sometimes Mr. Obama gets something right - or close to it. Unfortunately it's lost in the not-so-great moments and mis-steps of his. On this, he was right. Sometimes it's best to leave your "indignation" at home. it serves no purpose except to look good for the cameras.

If US families win these lawsuits, which they will by default judgements, those nations will sue the US in international courts. Those nations will win. Then the assets of US citizens and companies will be at risk of seizure in dozens of countries around the world.

The 'link' between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers has never been shown to be true. It is mainly conspiracy theorist and some families who argue they should have received much more than the compensation they have already received from the US government. They simply want more money, not 'justice'.

It is all about the money. Nothing else.

But no one in Congress is willing to risk their reelection by doing what they should.

Just when some country seizes an aircraft of AA DL or UA don't be surprised, or upset. We are opening this can of worms and will have to pay the price.

I don't think anyone should be suing any one nation for 9/11. In a guerrilla war where the fighters have no allegiance to any chartered nation, these things are impossible.

Awesome.... so when can we expect a million or so lawsuits from Iraqis, for invading the wrong country on inaccurate/false pretenses?

But no one in Congress is willing to risk their reelection by doing what they should.

And that is the crux of the problem, nothing, nobody means anything, but survival sure does. They are addicted to the big game of power and influence.

The countries involved never respond to such law suits. The premises of the Saudi government will be that under international law - there is no 'right' or standing to sue them.

So they will not respond. The US courts will issue a default judgement for the families, because if someone doesn't defend a suit - the plaintiffs wins.

Other people in other countries will sue the US, and will win for similar reasons. The US will not respond to such suits (i.e. children killed in a drone attack when didn't get the bad guy).

The US courts will issue a judgement to seize certain assets of Saudi Arabia or Saudi citizens in the US. Similarly, other country courts will issue similar orders to seize US assets.

Then all that they need is a sympathetic government to be willing to honor the seizure order. Say President Trump lets his son take the B757 on a vacation to The Seychelles. If their government is sympathetic to the non-US law suit/ cause - they might seize the aircraft against the judgement.

Don't say it can't happen. This is how we put pressure on Iran for years. Finding their assets in other countries and getting those governments to act as the US agent. For part of those - there was a clear standing for the Iranian government being responsible for damages under international law - to those US citizens with diplomatic passports held in Iran against their will in 1979-80.

(I was injured in the Oct 23, 1983 bombing in Beirut. I was sent a lot of paperwork about joining the law suit against the Iranian government. I chose not to participate. I don't like the concept for a lot of the above reasons.)

The bad precedent that this bill establishes is that it moves the US farther into having our court decisions reviewed and our actions being determined legal or illegal by international courts. And putting more US citizens and businesses at risk of adverse international court decisions.

It is not a one way street. If we set the standard of allowing these suits, we have to expect similar suits against us.

So now Iranian citizens can sue the USA for the civilian plane shot down by mistake?

SOBHI51 wrote:

So now Iranian citizens can sue the USA for the civilian plane shot down by mistake?

No, the US has already paid reparation to the Iranians including money for relatives of those killed. That case is settled.

The alliance with barbaric kingdom of Saudi Arabia is morally indefensible.

The USA along with some European countries have long supported the KSA originally as part of Cold War policy, to have a large country dominate the control of oil and to keep the then USSR from expanding into the region. We still support the KSA as a balancing act vs. Iran. It is also a deep pocket for arms sales.

rfields5421 wrote:

The countries involved never respond to such law suits. The premises of the Saudi government will be that under international law - there is no 'right' or standing to sue them.

So they will not respond. The US courts will issue a default judgement for the families, because if someone doesn't defend a suit - the plaintiffs wins.

Other people in other countries will sue the US, and will win for similar reasons. The US will not respond to such suits (i.e. children killed in a drone attack when didn't get the bad guy).

The US courts will issue a judgement to seize certain assets of Saudi Arabia or Saudi citizens in the US. Similarly, other country courts will issue similar orders to seize US assets.

Then all that they need is a sympathetic government to be willing to honor the seizure order. Say President Trump lets his son take the B757 on a vacation to The Seychelles. If their government is sympathetic to the non-US law suit/ cause - they might seize the aircraft against the judgement.

Don't say it can't happen. This is how we put pressure on Iran for years. Finding their assets in other countries and getting those governments to act as the US agent. For part of those - there was a clear standing for the Iranian government being responsible for damages under international law - to those US citizens with diplomatic passports held in Iran against their will in 1979-80.

(I was injured in the Oct 23, 1983 bombing in Beirut. I was sent a lot of paperwork about joining the law suit against the Iranian government. I chose not to participate. I don't like the concept for a lot of the above reasons.)

The bad precedent that this bill establishes is that it moves the US farther into having our court decisions reviewed and our actions being determined legal or illegal by international courts. And putting more US citizens and businesses at risk of adverse international court decisions.

It is not a one way street. If we set the standard of allowing these suits, we have to expect similar suits against us.

This! I couldn't have said it any better than you just did. I just don't understand why so many lawmakers and American citizens can't understand how this will come back to bite us. Currently, we have troops in over 130 countries. If any of them screw up in some form now opens American's investments to various national courts. Unreal!!!

rfields5421 wrote:

But no one in Congress is willing to risk their reelection by doing what they should.

And this is what it all comes down to, which may explain why pretty much everybody voted in favor of the override. For election politics, it's necessary: you vote against, you're a traitor, you don't care about 9/11 victims, and you deserve to be defeated (which will trickle up to the presidential nominees).

L410Turbolet wrote:

The alliance with barbaric kingdom of Saudi Arabia is morally indefensible.

What better way to put an end to it than by withdrawing troops or asking for reforms? This bill does nothing to address it.

US liability abroad aside, doesn't it just feel scummy to anyone that people are trying to profit off 9/11?

I mean I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but when it comes down to "Ohh, let's change US law so we can sue them!" I feel like assigning a dollar value cheapens the memory of the whole ordeal. For moral reasons alone, I do not support JASTA.

L410Turbolet wrote:

The alliance with barbaric kingdom of Saudi Arabia is morally indefensible.

But practically very sound!

[quote="YZF101]
But that about sums up the basic intelligence of the "left" - despicable, uninformed people are always on the other side. Time perhaps that the Democrats look into the mirror - the last eight years weren't such a roaring success, and wanting 4 more years of that....that's the definition of insanity, is it not?[/quote]

Read: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/tru ... americans/

The ignorant, less intelligent ones support Trump. The educated ones are supporting Clinton.

incitatus wrote:

L410Turbolet wrote:

The alliance with barbaric kingdom of Saudi Arabia is morally indefensible.

But practically very sound!

Unfortunately, true. The last thing we want is a failed state in Saudi Arabia.

YZF101 wrote:

But that about sums up the basic intelligence of the "left" - despicable, uninformed people are always on the other side. Time perhaps that the Democrats look into the mirror - the last eight years weren't such a roaring success, and wanting 4 more years of that....that's the definition of insanity, is it not?

For the last six years, two of the three major branches of the government have been controlled by the GOP/Right Wing. Only the Executive branch has been under DNC control. It is disingenuous at best to blame the Left for the Right's intransigence. Especially since Speaker Boehner on assuming office in 2010 explicitly said that the legislative agenda was to sabotage any political progress so that the blame could be laid at the feet of the President. And yet, in spite of that in most measures we are doing much better than we were in 2008 or 2010. The stock market is higher, the economy is stronger, and our international standing is higher.

So which wing is made of the despicable and uninformed? I'd say it's anyone who lays the blame for the things that have gone wrong at the feet of the President when it is actually a concerted effort by a disloyal opposition to make America fail.

seb146 wrote:

I don't think anyone should be suing any one nation for 9/11. In a guerrilla war where the fighters have no allegiance to any chartered nation, these things are impossible.

Al Qaeda and ISIS both follow the Wahhabi ideology which is tolerated and even actively spread by the Saudi government. Ultimately it's the Saudi regime that is largely responsible for significant portion of terrorism worldwide

Unfortunately, true. The last thing we want is a failed state in Saudi Arabia.

KSA falling would sure bring a new wave of terror on short term, but on long term it would be good for world peace. If KSA fell there would be no more mosques funded by them elsewhere, no more foreign imams going to study hateful Wahhabi ideology in KSA. As long as KSA keeps protecting Wahhabists and pouring money to their foreign operations the mainstream Islam will become more and more violent and less tolerant everywhere in the world.

pvjin wrote:

KSA falling would sure bring a new wave of terror on short term, but on long term it would be good for world peace. If KSA fell there would be no more mosques funded by them elsewhere, no more foreign imams going to study hateful Wahhabi ideology in KSA. As long as KSA keeps protecting Wahhabists and pouring money to their foreign operations the mainstream Islam will become more and more violent and less tolerant everywhere in the world.

Holy crap, you just said something semi-cogent!

But yeah, one has to wonder if the status quo isn't worse than the potential worst-case scenario brought on by the House of Saud falling.

But it'll have to happen on its own. Barring an invasion from Russia (which there seems to be no indicia of happening), I doubt any US politician other than John McCain or Lindsay Graham would want anything to do with the notion of the US getting involved in Saudi regime change.

It will be hilarious when the usual wing nuts on this site in 2 or 3 years start screaming about President Hillary Clinton because the USA is getting sued in a Japanese, Korean, or Chinese, court for war reparation monies......just wait....it will happen!!!

pvjin wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I don't think anyone should be suing any one nation for 9/11. In a guerrilla war where the fighters have no allegiance to any chartered nation, these things are impossible.

Al Qaeda and ISIS both follow the Wahhabi ideology which is tolerated and even actively spread by the Saudi government. Ultimately it's the Saudi regime that is largely responsible for significant portion of terrorism worldwide

Wahhabiism in Saudi Arabia, while still significant, is steadily on the decline, with the government taking actions to weaken the Wahhabi clerics's stranglehold on power. The last thing anyone should advocate is the removal of the House of Saud, because the aftereffects isn't going to be short term - it will be long term & it will be nuclear in terms of destruction.

As much as I'm not enamored with the politics of the Middle East, I don't really see why it should be changed. The West tried with Iran & Iraq and have failed miserably.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... edicament/

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

pvjin wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I don't think anyone should be suing any one nation for 9/11. In a guerrilla war where the fighters have no allegiance to any chartered nation, these things are impossible.

Al Qaeda and ISIS both follow the Wahhabi ideology which is tolerated and even actively spread by the Saudi government. Ultimately it's the Saudi regime that is largely responsible for significant portion of terrorism worldwide

Wahhabiism in Saudi Arabia, while still significant, is steadily on the decline, with the government taking actions to weaken the Wahhabi clerics's stranglehold on power. The last thing anyone should advocate is the removal of the House of Saud, because the aftereffects isn't going to be short term - it will be long term & it will be nuclear in terms of destruction.

As much as I'm not enamored with the politics of the Middle East, I don't really see why it should be changed. The West tried with Iran & Iraq and have failed miserably.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... edicament/

I personally see it as rising rather than declining, with members House of Saud actually increasing their sponsorship of Wahabism particularly overseas.

However I do agree the west should not get involved in regime change for KSA. Better to let them collapse internally. I do wish Western countries will stop selling advanced weapons to them but that's doubtful.

TheF15Ace wrote:

However I do agree the west should not get involved in regime change for KSA. Better to let them collapse internally. I do wish Western countries will stop selling advanced weapons to them but that's doubtful.

Then Russia would just swoop in and supply them with advanced weapons. No win situation there.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

However I do agree the west should not get involved in regime change for KSA. Better to let them collapse internally. I do wish Western countries will stop selling advanced weapons to them but that's doubtful.

Then Russia would just swoop in and supply them with advanced weapons. No win situation there.

True. But we have to start somewhere. Besides Russia being a close ally of Iran might not indulge KSA.

Also the Saudi's are playing with a double-edged sword. While certain members of the royal family like to sponsor extremism, they themselves still prefer to enjoy the western lifestyle. One day some nut job will decide that those pleasures are not appropriate for the holy-land which might lead to a civil war within Saudi borders, with or without our weapons.

Today's headlines on CNN and Fox are funny.

Now 28 senators - 15 of them Republican and at least 35 Republicans in the House - say the bill needs to be rewritten to preclude some of the possibilities we've discussed above.

It is President Obama's fault the veto was overridden because he didn't fully explain the possibilities of adverse consequences if the bill was passed as originally written.

rfields5421 wrote:

It is President Obama's fault the veto was overridden because he didn't fully explain the possibilities of adverse consequences if the bill was passed as originally written.

Everything else is his fault, so this might as well be too.

rfields5421 wrote:

Today's headlines on CNN and Fox are funny.

Now 28 senators - 15 of them Republican and at least 35 Republicans in the House - say the bill needs to be rewritten to preclude some of the possibilities we've discussed above.

It is President Obama's fault the veto was overridden because he didn't fully explain the possibilities of adverse consequences if the bill was passed as originally written.

Maybe those in Congress would, you know, maybe READ THE THING?

Maybe AF4590 victims (their families) will finally get money from UA ?

pvjin wrote:

KSA falling would sure bring a new wave of terror on short term, but on long term it would be good for world peace. If KSA fell there would be no more mosques funded by them elsewhere, no more foreign imams going to study hateful Wahhabi ideology in KSA. As long as KSA keeps protecting Wahhabists and pouring money to their foreign operations the mainstream Islam will become more and more violent and less tolerant everywhere in the world.

I'm not sure you can say this with any certainty. A failed Saudi Arabia seems very likely to become an ISIS or ISIS-like state with access to tons of oil. It could possibly have all of the bad things associated with KSA now without the somewhat western friendly government.

You can't make this stuff up. Only 24 hours after overriding Obama's veto on allowing 9/11 victim's family suing a sovereign nation, Speaker Ryan and Majority Senator Mitch McConnell now are having second thoughts about passing the bill in the first place. Of course, they blame Obama now for not telling them sooner why he was against it....even though they condemned Obama last April for being against the bill and them met with the Saudis. Unreal!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/con ... aad9ba8595?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... de/502337/

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Wahhabiism in Saudi Arabia, while still significant, is steadily on the decline, with the government taking actions to weaken the Wahhabi clerics's stranglehold on power. The last thing anyone should advocate is the removal of the House of Saud, because the aftereffects isn't going to be short term - it will be long term & it will be nuclear in terms of destruction.

As much as I'm not enamored with the politics of the Middle East, I don't really see why it should be changed. The West tried with Iran & Iraq and have failed miserably.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... edicament/

The Saudis export the most oil of any country, and currently produce 13% of all of the world's daily oil supply. Can you imagine how expensive oil would become overnight if you removed 13% of the world's production overnight, due to a coup in KSA? Oil would triple or quadruple or more overnight, creating a world wide recession / great recession / mini-depression.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

The Saudis export the most oil of any country, and currently produce 13% of all of the world's daily oil supply. Can you imagine how expensive oil would become overnight if you removed 13% of the world's production overnight, due to a coup in KSA? Oil would triple or quadruple or more overnight, creating a world wide recession / great recession / mini-depression.

33 years in the oil business makes me think you're overly pessimistic on this. The oil price is where it is today because of softening demand and surplus production. If, and it's a huge if, all Saudi production were to cease overnight, there would be a short-term spike in prices, but others (especially Iran and Russia) will be happy to increase production. I certainly don't see anything remotely approaching a quadrupling of price.

rfields5421 wrote:

It is President Obama's fault the veto was overridden because he didn't fully explain the possibilities of adverse consequences if the bill was passed as originally written.

Excuse my ignorance but would not any bill be sent through the Committee stage in order to investigate possible impacts in terms of existing laws, budgetary considerations, and any new taxes or tax increases that will be required by the bill? In the case of this particular bill, wouldn't the Committee have investigated and sought opinion from relevant bodies dealing in international law before producing its report and any recommendations? In other words, if Congress passed the bill against any advice wouldn't a Presidential veto have been expected?

33 years in the oil business makes me think you're overly pessimistic on this. The oil price is where it is today because of softening demand and surplus production. If, and it's a huge if, all Saudi production were to cease overnight, there would be a short-term spike in prices, but others (especially Iran and Russia) will be happy to increase production. I certainly don't see anything remotely approaching a quadrupling of price.

Indeed. And on the positive side, higher oil prices would encourage development of green tech, possibly helping us to combat climate change and save the planet. Thus ultimately KSA's collapse would make it more likely that humankind will still exist in 1000 years from now.

HGL wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

It is President Obama's fault the veto was overridden because he didn't fully explain the possibilities of adverse consequences if the bill was passed as originally written.

Excuse my ignorance but would not any bill be sent through the Committee stage in order to investigate possible impacts in terms of existing laws, budgetary considerations, and any new taxes or tax increases that will be required by the bill? In the case of this particular bill, wouldn't the Committee have investigated and sought opinion from relevant bodies dealing in international law before producing its report and any recommendations? In other words, if Congress passed the bill against any advice wouldn't a Presidential veto have been expected?

Re: a Veto - the bill passed to overturn the Presidential Veto must be the exact same bill as the President vetoed - no committee stage etc. It is a straight on the record Yes/No vote to overturn the veto.

In theory the Congress committee stage does analyze and investigate the impact of a bill before it reaches the floor for a vote.

In practice, many bills/laws are worded in a vague non-specific form. This makes it almost impossible to determine in advance any detailed impact of many bills. The process has also been described as Congress tells the government what to do, not how to do it.

The final implementation of the bill is the responsibility of the members of the Executive Branch who write the regulations which put new laws into practice. This is where the detailed analysis of a bill / law occurs.

Re: This bill. President Obama/ members of his White House staff/ several Democratic members of Congress warned against the original bill of the exact possible consequences mentioned above and in the press. Those comments/ analysis were labeled as 'political views' by members of Congress supporting the bill.

The name of the bill and its wording are purposely very politically charged. This close to an election it is very difficult for someone in Congress to vote against a bill named "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act"

How does a Congressman respond in a 15 second sound bite why he is against punishing sponsors of terrorism or against justice for victims of terrorism?

It is impossible to analyze the impact of such a bill in detail. Saudi Arabia might choose to accept and pay any court judgements against the nation by a US court. It could happen. Is it likely? No. Exactly opposite, the government of Saudi Arabia might see it as a direct insult to their sovereignty and personally to their leaders.

The 'need' for such a bill is that when someone files a law suit - the court first determines if the person has 'standing'. i.e. a right to sue due to harm to the person, and that the person/organization being sued has a probable legal responsibility for the action which caused harm. I can't sue a driver of a car who caused a fatal accident which I witness for 'mental anguish'. The at fault driver didn't harm me directly. I have no standing.

National governments have traditionally been held exempt from law suits in the courts of nations in which they have diplomatic relationships around the world.

This law, and a past law allowing suits against the government of Iran, are specific exemptions to that international practice.

The law allowing suits against the government of Iran was for a very small group, for a very specific incident where the relationship between the terrorist bombers and the government of Iran is clearly documented in international courts.

There is no such documentation against the government of Saudi Arabia in relation to the 9/11 attacks.

One law suit has already been filed in a US court citing this bill as justification for the suit.

PacificBeach88 wrote:

You can't make this stuff up. Only 24 hours after overriding Obama's veto on allowing 9/11 victim's family suing a sovereign nation, Speaker Ryan and Majority Senator Mitch McConnell now are having second thoughts about passing the bill in the first place. Of course, they blame Obama now for not telling them sooner why he was against it....even though they condemned Obama last April for being against the bill and them met with the Saudis. Unreal!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/con ... aad9ba8595?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... de/502337/

Is Obama really the only grown up in the American political system. The more you read about Congress the sillier they seem. This is just fantastic.

Is Obama really the only grown up in the American political system. The more you read about Congress the sillier they seem. This is just fantastic.

Hey, in a democracy people always get the rulers they deserve. I'm confident Americans deserve no better.