TOTALLY GEEKED!

Well. I'm putting my flame suit on b/c in this instance, I actually agree with Obama.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Well. I'm putting my flame suit on b/c in this instance, I actually agree with Obama.

---

*throwing lit matches at LL* 

It's an emotional bill, not a well thought out bill. You think opening the door to citizens of other countries suing us when their loved ones die and an American is involved is a good idea?

It is the government's job to deal with foreign nations. Man up and declare war, if necessary. Don't pass the buck onto the citizens.

Well, ok if you get a judgment against Saudi Arabia then what happens? They are just gonna say "oh ok, here's your check"?

Well, i dont' want other countries to be able to sue the USA either and of course we are so "fair" that if we allow that, then we have to allow it in the reverse.

Think about how the lawsuits would clog our court system worse than it is already

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

It is, quite frankly, one of the stupidest, ill conceived bills I've seen - right up there with Obamacare.

---

 This.  How the heck do you sue a foreign country?  For, as the article mentioned, "justice"?  This is just incredibly stupid - what is WRONG with our so-called representatives?

Americans are just sue-happy. I don't really know enough about the bill to comment on it intelligibly, so I will refrain from comment on the content, but the idea of suing a foreign country just seems, well, dumb. What's next??

FNW wrote:

---

Do foreign governments have sovereign immunity?

---

 Yes.  And this bill overrides it for terrorist attacks.  That's bad precedent.

FNW wrote:

---

I'm not sure how the U.S. can override another country's sovereign immunity. Shouldn't this be some kind of mutual agreement among the various countries?

---

 And there's one of the big issues.   Only one, mind you.  

Saudi Arabia, Gulf States Prepare to Strike Back Following 9/11 Bill Veto Override

www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/28/saudis-allies-warn-us-retaliation-911-bill/

Saudi Arabia and its allies have reportedly threatened to retaliate against the United States over a law that allows the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Gulf Arab kingdom in U.S. court for any role it may have played in the 2001 attacks.
White House and top Pentagon officials have warned the contentious bill would place American troops and interests at risk.

The Associated Press (AP) explains:

The kingdom maintains an arsenal of tools to retaliate with, including curtailing official contacts, pulling billions of dollars from the US economy, and persuading its close allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council [GCC] to scale back counterterrorism cooperation, investments and US access to important regional air bases.

Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter sent a letter to Congress saying “important counterterrorism efforts abroad” could be harmed.

He indicated that enacting the bill into law “could be devastating to the U.S. military” and warned that it “could lead to the public disclosure of American secrets and even undercut counterterrorism efforts by sowing mistrust among U.S. partners and allies,” reports AP.

Chas Freeman, former U.S. assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and ambassador to Saudi Arabia during operation Desert Storm, told AP the Saudis could retaliate in ways that place America’s strategic interests at risk, like permissive rules for overflight between Europe and Asia and the Qatari air base from which U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria are directed and supported.

“The souring of relations and curtailing of official contacts that this legislation would inevitably produce could also jeopardize Saudi cooperation against anti-American terrorism,” he said, according to AP.

We have put ourselves in an extremely precarious position. Since we have had decades of failed leadership on energy we are wholely and solely dependent on the Middle East. We could have built our own refineries, drilled Anwar and off shore, expanded shale, coal, gas and nuclear but we didn't do any of those things. W actually tried to enact a comprehensive energy policy in his first term but was smacked down by those saying "oh it would take 10 years to see results". Well, here we are decades later in the same position.

I agree but he wasn't in office during 9/11. He probably has other reasons to oppose this. Like cash might stop flowing into his and Hillary's pockets. I think he is opposing this purely for selfish and self centered reasons. I don't believe for a second he has America or what is best for America in mind at all. It is just a cash flow thing to him and his coffers. However, i not see the point to suing another country at all.

White House Spokesman Compares Congress to Children After Veto Override

www.breitbart.com/video/2016/09/29/white-house-spokesman-compares-congress-to-children-after-veto-override/