|
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37503224 "He said the bill would set a "dangerous precedent" for individuals around the world to sue the US government. Wednesday's vote was the first time Mr Obama's veto power was overruled. CIA Director John Brennan agreed that the bill carried "grave implications" for national security. He added: "The downside is potentially huge." ..." - bbc news Click the link! Also Thoughts?
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
quote:Reacting to the congressional vote on Wednesday, Mr Obama told CNN: "It's a dangerous precedent and it's an example of why sometimes you have to do what's hard. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Obama's right
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Congress is dumb
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
I like the linked WSJ article blaming Obama not doing enough to stop the bill
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
lol loving Schumer demanded it be open to all countries when the imbecile could have just limited it to terror-land
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:lol loving Schumer demanded it be open to all countries when the imbecile could have just limited it to terror-land Schumer is um, not smart He's also going to be the next senate majority leader
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I hope the world sues us for all the terrible poo poo we did. It'd be nice for some accountability to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
It's great we finally have a Congress that is unified on something. Too bad it's meaningless pandering to emotions and will probably hurt the country in the long run. No wait that's actually par the course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
someone should forcibly stick food in the CIA directors arse imo. obama seems too nice for it but i reckon hillary would be for it
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
My hours got reduced after 9-11 when do I get my oil well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
That comments section is epic
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
noooooo people will be able to sue countries for war crimes propagated against them noooo
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
quote:"He said the bill would set a "dangerous precedent" for individuals around the world to sue the US government. incredible self-own
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:noooooo people will be able to sue countries for war crimes propagated against them noooo the thing is that this also applies in reverse and the US has done an awful lot of war crimin' basically: Homework Explainer posted:incredible self-own
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Elephanthead posted:My hours got reduced after 9-11 when do I get my oil well?  Gone Baptizin posted:That comments section is epic Yeah, you're not kidding 
Princess Di has issued a correction as of 20:58 on Sep 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Gone Baptizin posted:That comments section is epic Symbolism features heavily in the occult The Matrix #1 film (1999) is full of symbolism NEO's driver license dob is 11th September 2001, the scene is revealing
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
the fact the press secretary said this was the worst decision the senate has made in 20 years was pretty awesome
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
This is cool and good both so people can sue the Saudis and people can sue the USKarl Barks posted:the fact the press secretary said this was the worst decision the senate has made in 20 years was pretty awesome Literally worse than Iraq
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
When was clinton impeached, was that more than 20 years ago because if less than daaaaaaamn bill slam
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I choose to believe that vetoing the bill most likely to deter us from committing war crimes was the actual 12th dimensional checkmate by Obama. Gonna be hard to walk it back when the legislative "Are you SURE you want to do that" was responded to with a legislative "gently caress yeah"
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
I haven't done enough research to really get a good idea of whether this will be a net negative or positive in the long term but Saudi Arabia is really pissed so for now I'm happy about it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Raiad posted:I choose to believe that vetoing the bill most likely to deter us from committing war crimes was the actual 12th dimensional checkmate by Obama. Gonna be hard to walk it back when the legislative "Are you SURE you want to do that" was responded to with a legislative "gently caress yeah"  Awesome if true!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
How do I even go about filing a lawsuit against Turkey for any wrong doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
935 posted:How do I even go about filing a lawsuit against Turkey for any wrong doing? Gülenist account spotted
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
just a reminder that there was never anything more than circumstance and speculation linking the Saudi government to 9/11 so letting people sue them would set a precedent that it's totally cool to sue entire governments based on your conspiracy theory about how the Swiss are putting chemicals in your drinking water to make your dick smaller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
It'll be worth it if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld get dragged into court and have to pay damages to the families of Iraqi civilian casualties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Blind Pineapple posted:It'll be worth it if Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld get dragged into court and have to pay damages to the families of Iraqi civilian casualties. They won't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
No they won't... But you can imagine what it'd be like if they did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:just a reminder that there was never anything more than circumstance and speculation linking the Saudi government to 9/11 so letting people sue them would set a precedent that it's totally cool to sue entire governments based on your conspiracy theory about how the The alt-right will take their crusade to save the white race to the true battlefield, civil court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
So if the Syrian branch of my family is blown up by an errant U.S. missile strike, will I have standing to sue the U.S.?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:So if the Syrian branch of my family is blown up by an errant U.S. missile strike, will I have standing to sue the U.S.? That depends, does president trump pack the supreme court full of ultraconservatives hand picked by the heritage foundation and ted cruz like he's planning to do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Everyone should sue everyone. Lawyering is the only government stimulus allowed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:just a reminder that there was never anything more than circumstance and speculation linking the Saudi government to 9/11 so letting people sue them would set a precedent that it's totally cool to sue entire governments based on your conspiracy theory about how the Swiss are putting chemicals in your drinking water to make your dick smaller. discovery is a hell of a thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Raiad posted:I choose to believe that vetoing the bill most likely to deter us from committing war crimes was the actual 12th dimensional checkmate by Obama. Gonna be hard to walk it back when the legislative "Are you SURE you want to do that" was responded to with a legislative "gently caress yeah" have any gitmo detainees sued the u.s. govt yet under this bill?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:have any gitmo detainees sued the u.s. govt yet under this bill? Not yet as its a new bill, or law rather.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Somebody help me out here. This sets a dangerous precedent because if the US government allows US citizens to sue foreign governments in US courts, foreign governments will allow foreign citizens to sue the US government in foreign courts? What was stopping these foreign governments from allowing their citizens to sue the US government before this? Just the idea that we would retaliate by allowing our citizens to sue their governments in the future? Are there any governments which have allowed their citizens to sue the US government in the recent past, and we're just ignoring them? Is this the same general idea behind Democrats keeping the filibuster completely intact because if they weaken it now, what's to stop the next Republican majority from abolishing it completely?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Somebody help me out here. This sets a dangerous precedent because if the US government allows US citizens to sue foreign governments in US courts, foreign governments will allow foreign citizens to sue the US government in foreign courts? What was stopping these foreign governments from allowing their citizens to sue the US government before this? Just the idea that we would retaliate by allowing our citizens to sue their governments in the future? Are there any governments which have allowed their citizens to sue the US government in the recent past, and we're just ignoring them? Is this the same general idea behind Democrats keeping the filibuster completely intact because if they weaken it now, what's to stop the next Republican majority from abolishing it completely? I have no idea, but these are very smart questions that apparently people in the senate did not ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
I don't have a problem with foreign citizens suing the united states for war crimes, that seems totally logical cool and good I guess if I was the one causing the war crimes I would be like noooo don't let them do that, because I'd be the sort of person committing war crimes so presumably I'd want to get away with it. I think committing war crimes is definitely bad though, so people probably shouldn't be doing them at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:16
|
|
