Obama overturned by Senate

I too am somewhat worried about the true ramifications of the override. Have not agreed with Obama much but, this might be one time I think he may be right.

Another example of too many stupid people eager to bash the president of the US. Like him or not it was correct and this override will come back to haunt us.

And there you have it ! Not even a week later Congress is regretting overriding the president's veto for this stupid, purely political bill that puts our troops at risk. And guess who Mitch is blaming for his bill
....wait for it
.....Obama!

Its Obama's fault for not stopping Congress from overriding his veto.


"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."

Yes - you got that right. And Mitch McConnell agrees with you....see my last post

I'm from the school of who's going to collect from us? Unless you have an idiot President who forks over Billions with a B to Iran, of all folks. You can bet that not one cent of that money was his, that's for sure.

I wouldn't have given Iran one cent. I'm not in the habit of funding my enemies fight against me, but then leftist mileage may vary.

Not all of us can be keyboard commandos.
In real life, we are a nation of laws and of treaties. If someone gets a legal judgement against us, of course we are going to pay it. It is what separates us from the League of Lesser Nations. Something I wouldn't expect you to understand.

Again I'll ask: Can ANY nation unilaterally create a law that is binding for any/every other nation?

If a suit were to be filed, what jurisdiction would have the authority to hear the case? Would it be within the nation being accused, or within the nation filing suit?

Again, bill runs out of reason and resorts to his favorite.....insult. Same, old, boring playbook bill....try something new.

The current law (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act or JASTA) just passed by Congress amends a previous law (Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or FSIA). The FSIA granted immunity from U.S. Lawsuits to Foreign States WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.

Here are the previous exceptions (from Wiki):

"The exceptions are listed at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605, 1605A, and 1607. The most common exceptions are when the Foreign State waives immunity (§ 1605(a)(1)) or agrees to submit a dispute to arbitration (§ 1605(a)(6)), engages in a commercial activity (§ 1605(a)(2)), commits a tort in the United States (such as a common traffic accident) (§ 1605(a)(5)) or expropriates property in violation of international law (§ 1605(a)(3)). The FSIA also excludes immunity in cases involving certain counterclaims (§ 1607) and admiralty claims (§ 1605(b)). In addition, exceptions for torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, and hostage-taking were added by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008."

Note also that in addition to these exceptions, US citizens can also sue for an act of terrorism perpetrated by any of the 3 nations listed on the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Beyond that, "the Act does not extend immunity to a government official acting on behalf of a state....the Supreme Court found that there is nothing to suggest that "foreign state" within the FSIA should be read to include an official acting on behalf of that state."

The JUSTA adds "any foreign state's critical support for one's act of international terrorism against a U.S. national or property regardless if such state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism or not" to the list of FSIA exceptions."

So...To answer Bob's questions..and other key points:

1. The US has already (1976) created a law that allows it's citizens to sue any Foreign Government as long as they are suing for one of the exceptions to Sovereign Immunity. It is 'binding' on those nations to the extent that the nation's assets are 'within reach' of the US citizen should he prevail in a lawsuit. This is why Saudi Arabia is threatening to withdraw their investments from the US...To put their money beyond the reach of potential lawsuits.

2. The lawsuit would be heard in US Federal Court. Although I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia will be vindicated in a Federal Lawsuit and this whole exercise will be one of futility.

Now...As to whether or not the sky is falling and the JUSTA will expose the US to lawsuits based on new reciprocal laws...The answer is...The Sky is not falling. It may cost US taxpayers some money....but maybe it's money well spent if it compensates someone our government has really wronged.

3. JUSTA will not provide any additional exposure to INDIVIDUALS working for the US Government. That's because according to our Supreme Court in 2010, immunity never extended to individuals anyway.

4. If foreign citizens will have greater ability to Sue the US government in their own courts...Reciprocity demands that the law should be narrowly applied to an act of terrorism that our Government has knowingly facilitated. Maybe we deserve to pay for those kinds of operations....Just like our citizens deserve to collect from Saudi Arabia should they be found guilty of knowingly facilitating terrorism on US soil.

5. Can it be applied to 'The Iraq War'? Doubtful. Funding Terrorist Groups we like because they're against Terrorist Groups we Don't like? Possibly. Drone strikes that kill innocents? Unlikely.

Bottom line is that there were always exceptions to Sovereign Immunity...like torture and hostage taking. Adding Facilitating Terrorism on US soil to the list of exceptions doesn't seem like a bad thing or seem like it's going to change much...except maybe our relationship with Saudi Arabia. I can see how some in the executive branch of Government wouldn't want to open the door to potential lawsuits. Believe it or not, sometimes even the good old USA stretches the bounds of International Law and if we're actually facilitating terrorism on foreign soil, maybe we should rethink that. If we aren't facilitating terrorism, then we've got nothing to worry about....at least nothing more to worry about than before JUSTA was passed.

The first lawsuit has been filed:
STEPHANIE ROSS DESIMONE, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Patrick Dunn and as the Parent and Next Friend of ALEXANDRA DESIMONE, a minor, Plaintiffs, v. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA Defendant


Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleges the kingdom provided material support to al-Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
She is suing for wrongful death of her husband, Navy Commander Patrick Dunn, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter; DeSimone was two months pregnant when her husband was killed.