The "9/11 Bill" Veto Override

[zoogs]

Thought I'd start the thread on this. A veto override, an overwhelming one, and the first of Obama's presidency (yes, first). And so the bill comes law, allowing the families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

 

There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

 

...John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, released his own statement saying, “Any legislation that affects sovereign immunity should take into account the associated risks to our national security.”

NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/senate-votes-to-override-obama-veto-on-9-11-victims-bill.html

 

Corker is one of several members who argue the bill is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts.

 

He complained that if the bill becomes law “what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers,” adding that U.S. personnel might find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.

WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/27/senate-poised-to-vote-to-override-obamas-veto-of-911-bill/

 

The enduring power of "9/11" when it comes to votes in Congress. One can only hope it is an emotional appeal used judiciously, with restraint, and productively. I think I lean towards the president's instincts on this one. Call me cynical, but it seems we're inviting tit-for-tat and creating long-term uncertainty in how international law is supposed to work -- potentially weakening the United States' position -- so that congressmen can score political points back home.

[huKSer]

Hate to say this but I am on Obama's side on this

[JJ Husker]

Just heard about this today for the first time. Seems very odd. Can't Saudi Arabia simply ignore being sued by individuals from another country? And what legal basis is there for them to be sued? I'm no lawyer but it seems like quite the stretch. But then again, many of our politicians are lawyers, stands to reason that this would seem like a reasonable course of action for them. Gotta love our lawsuit happy society. Seems to be the solution for everything anymore.

[C N Red]

Ya, this law seems very stupid. Sure glad there arent any more pressing issues the congress has to worry about.

[NUance]

Yea, more lawsuits. Just what we need.

[Moiraine]

This seems pretty silly to me.

 

Now any time an American does something bad in another country do we get to pay for it when that countrt makes a similar law?

[Red Five]

This is our government in a nutshell. One senator casts dissenting vote to the override, but then as soon as it passes almost 30 other senators come out questioning it? WTF?

 

 

 

Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts “as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

[Fru]

This seems like symbolic justice to me, more than anything. Getting the right to sue the government of a country we think had something to do with 9/11?

 

Could family members of innocent Iraqi civilians killed during the Iraq war sue the US government under the same precedence?

[TGHusker]

Sponsored by American Bar Association. I don't know how they would collect. Seems mostly symbolic to me.

Biggest surprise is that this is the 1st veto override. Although the senate has been fairly evenly split & very partisan during 8 years and it takes 60 votes to override the veto.

 

Here is an interesting Senate veto web page showing the veto counts of each president and the overrides.

Note surprising, if you know anything about American History, Andrew Jackson leads the way wt overrides - 15x the Senate said no to his no.

In recent times Harry Truman (250 vetos) and Gerald Ford (66 vetos) were both overridden 12x. GHW Bush also had just one veto override (out of 44 vetos). Obama only has 12 total vetos.

Amazingly, but not surprising during the time of change and 3 full terms and a very short partial term, FDR had 635 vetos and was overrode 9 times.

In comparison Reagan had 78 vetos and was overridden 9 times as well.

 

http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

[zoogs]

Part of the reason it's the first is Obama has only used the veto 12 times.

 

This is our government in a nutshell. One senator casts dissenting vote to the override, but then as soon as it passes almost 30 other senators come out questioning it? WTF?

 

Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts as a result of important military or intelligence activities.

 

That Senator is retiring, and doesn't have to worry about re-election ever again. How liberating.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

This is very bad look for us. This is going to impact treaties, trade agreements, diplomatic corps, foreign service, espionage, you name it. We would have been better off refusing to recognize the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia first. Now, we are throwing the entire history of modern International Law out the window. Ultimately, the USA has way more to lose here than most any country. If the US courts now ignores the status of even 1 other country, why would any country need to treat US or it's representatives any differently? My practical fear is we created an avenue to legitimize the kangaroo courts of the Iran/Beirut hostage situations...

[zoogs]

We talk a lot about corrupting influences in politics. Here's the People, at least in perception, at work.

 

We're a handful of weeks away from the election, and *nobody* wants to be seen as voting against the 9/11 families.

 

The Obama administration is furious, but they knew the vote deficit was far beyond bridging. Here in this thread we seem basically against it, across the aisles, but we're talking about sovereign immunity and international law. On its face, this is just the "9/11 Families" bill. Congress couldn't do "what's hard", but that's probably a fair reflection of the public. Not all corners, but the political calculation made in the face of the election seems both probably accurate, and driven basically by popular sentiment.

 

No corporate lobby groups here.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

When this type of stuff happens, I think back to early writings of our Founder's and feel like we have come full circle. The Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine, Franklin, J. Adams, etc. writings feel as applicable today as when they were written. They understood the problems inherent with governing effectively more than our best political leaders today.

 

If having an educated citizenry is the biggest protection our Republic, we are definitely going the wrong way...

[zoogs]

Bloomberg: Congress weighs rewrite after veto override

 

But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.

 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called the episode an “abject embarrassment” and said that officials warned lawmakers about the possible consequences multiple times.

 

Chuck Schumer of New York, the likely next Democratic leader and sponsor of the bill, said he wouldn’t accept changes that would weaken the bill.

This is a hell of a thing. (Emphasis mine)

[Red Five]

What a bunch of clowns

 

 

Obama's veto message -> https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/23/veto-message-president-s2040