Obama Gets Rocked by House

>>75345
>DEMOCRATS ARE FOR THE PEOPLE GUISE
>Well I'm just thinking about our relation with Saudi Arabia.

How anti-american can you get? Unanimous support, helping Americans, and the fucking president doesn't want to hurt the feelings of the 9/11 orchestrator.

>>75353
I don't think that Obama is worried about staying on Saudi Arabia's good side so much as it is that he doesn't want there to be legal precedent for suing the leaders of nations that bomb your shit.

>inb4 massive class action against the US for drone strikes in the middle east

>>75361
>legal precedent
This Anon is wise.

>inb4 Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld all get sued for war crimes

I find the notion of suing bizarre. If these individuals have grounds to sue Saudi Arabia, wouldn't that be because Saudi Arabia has engaged in acts of war? It's as if the government is saying "You know that thing that has defined our foreign policy for the last 15 years? That thing that we used as justification to invade half a dozen countries? We can actually point to a nation-state now and say 'here's someone to blame' instead of aimlessly swatting nearby dictators. Are WE going to do anything about it? Hell no! Get a lawyer!"

It's completely out of character for the group of people who prop up revolutions in order to pad their fucking resumes.

>>75364
Yeah man! Fuck government accountability!

>>75361
>he doesn't want there to be legal precedent for suing the leaders of nations that bomb your shit.

But this would be a good thing.

>>75410
It's all fun and games until the war crimes trials begin, Anon.

>>75413
No, that's where the fun starts.

>>75364
>>inb4 Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld all get sued for war crimes
can't fucking wait

>>75412
Until it leads to full scale war.

Can someone explain this law to me? Namely what courts do the lawsuit? American courts? International courts??

>>75345
Americans, you owe it to your friends in the military to tell them to leave and come home.
American immunity from real or imagined war crimes is about to end.
I am going to stock up popcorn, bbq meat and beers. This is going to be much see tv.

You gotta hand it to the US legislature, they will never miss an opportunity to garner votes regardless of the consequences.
(Ofc with the exception of when they pander to big business)

>>76115
I would also like some clarification. I'm assuming it means American courts because national officials can be tried in international court?

>>76144
Americans can't be tried in international courts because it refuses to be part of the international courts ("Can't have our blue-eyed boy being tried for shit we asked them to do")

Also, they can't be tried in countries where the US military is hosted.
"A status of forces agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a host country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country."

The US insists that the host country sign this fucking big SOFA document. As long as I can remember there have been reports of US service personnel, when tired of raping their female colleagues, rape Japanese school girls.

It would be rare if ever that a US serviceman has been charge with his crime.

>>76144
The action would be a civil action rather than criminal one.
To take a nation to the international courts would require an action from a party with more authority and weight than 9/11 families.
If they can sue named individuals then the best would be in a US court - but chances are that the individual would be tried in absentia and a guilty verdict would mean nothing because of that.
When it comes to suing a nation then you have a more difficult job, sovereign immunity and all that.

>>76147
ooops, I meant, State Immunity which is different from Sovereign Immunity.

"The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country."

"The argument is made that fundamental human rights such as the right to life and the prohibition against torture should take precedence over rules of state immunity. The argument goes that these rights have a higher ranking and importance (in technical terms, they constitute norms of jus cogens) than a rule of state immunity"

The other side of the exception argument:
"Ending immunity should not be at the expense of proper conduct of relations between states; one country's perception of abuse may not be another’s; civil actions for a state agent's atrocities should be brought in the courts of that state, not in a foreign court; prosecution of crime lies in the hands of the state, whereas civil proceedings are brought by individuals for their own ends; civil actions brought by disgruntled individuals in one country against another state can have grave political and economic repercussions for both states; and civil proceedings can raise difficult issues of enforcement and extraterritorial jurisdiction."

>>75400
>half a dozen countries?
nop

I've read a number of articles here, but I have yet to see a single one that explains how exactly this law would work.
How does a civil court give a guilty verdict against an entire country any weight? How does the law propose to coerce the "defendant" into complying? Full-scale war is the least likely option. Are we just going to gouge tariffs for that country? That also doesn't seem likely.

If this law truly comes into effect, I can't imagine that a guilty verdict will be anything other than an empty political label. We'll tell the Saudis, "Hey, our courts say that you need to pay x amount of money for 9/11". The Saudi's will reply, "yeah lol okay" and ignore it entirely. And that'll be the end of it.

Obama fears this because many of the countries leaders will be sued for war crimes.

>>75345
so obama got denied? cry me a river....he failed to help the muslim brotherhood

the saudis paid for the 9/11 attacks...let them pay again

>>76159
It could have consequences:

Courts Rule in favor of families. Gains momentum for Congress members to openly denounce Saudi for popular support.
Pushes national positioning against Saudi like we have still against all those other BAD GUYS.

>>76151
cite?

>>75361
Beyond setting a legal precedent, how the fuck would you even enforce this? It's the same as Trump's BS about making Mexico pay for the wall. You can't force a sovereign nation to abide by rulings made in a different country.

>>76146
SOFA doesn't mean service members get diplomatic immunity or something, dumbass. Raping locals definitely ends in prosecution. Japan in particular is super strict about that shit and almost always gets to prosecute in Japanese courts which are always heavily biased against US service members. We get warned about that shit as soon as we arrive in Japan. Not sure what nonsense news sources you're reading.

>>76146
Uhh we literally have had threads about that before. I have friends stationed in japan before. Yes they do get charged

>>75345
Obama was absolutely correct in this point. There are so many problems with this bill.

>what court can sue another country and why would that country agree
>in the event of a citizen victory, how does the court make the Saudis pay when they refuse
>what about when diplomatic relations break down with the Saudis after a few suits

>>76549
Saudi Arabia has assets in the U.S. These assets can be frozen for the duration of the lawsuit, and if the American people win against the Saudis, then those assets may be confiscated.

>>75345
>>Obama says that law will compromise US safety and international law
>international law
Since when has the US paid any regard for international law or treaty in its own borders?

>>75345
Gotta keep the oil flowing goyim