|
Princess Di posted:I have no idea, but these are very smart questions that apparently people in the senate did not ask. Well I'm not sure if the Senate is just pushing legislation unwisely or if Obama is concern trolling.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
rabble rabble posted:I don't have a problem with foreign citizens suing the united states for war crimes, that seems totally logical cool and good This is why the bill is in fact Very Good and I am shocked that it passed. Nobody is getting any money out of Saudis because they probably didn't do anything, but there is about to be a whole lot of unpleasantness directed the pentagon's way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Well I'm not sure if the Senate is just pushing legislation unwisely or if Obama is concern trolling. Obama is not concern trolling. This law could potentially make it difficult for him to travel abroad in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Obama is not concern trolling. This law could potentially make it difficult for him to travel abroad in the future. Isn't dick Cheney banned in a few countries or is that an Internet myth?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Isn't dick Cheney banned in a few countries or is that an Internet myth? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/17/facebook-posts/are-george-w-bush-dick-cheney-unable-visit-europe-/
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Isn't dick Cheney banned in a few countries or is that an Internet myth? I believe this started when Rumsfeld left France to go to Germany after some advocacy group asked a judge to arrest him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Rand alPaul posted:I believe this started when Rumsfeld left France to go to Germany after some advocacy group asked a judge to arrest him. Yeah I don't know why I thought it was only Dick Cheney too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
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? Are there no good answers to these questions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
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? If we allow our citizens to sue sovereign nations in civil court then we are going to look like shitbirds when we inevitably don't allow other nations to do likewise to us. Nothing is stopping other countries from passing similar laws besides strong international norms. Norms which we have just broken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:we are going to look like shitbirds I have bad news
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
you can always look more shitbird
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Yeah it's not like America is at a net zero for international esteem, we aren't North Korea; It can definitely get worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
litigation will stop all wars from now on
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
I haven't decided if this bill passing is a good thing or not. But I'm glad Obama vetoed it since he is obviously against it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:litigation will stop all wars from now on In the year 2001 all wars will be fought in courts. *gets out laser gavels and death rays*
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I haven't decided if this bill passing is a good thing or not. But I'm glad Obama vetoed it since he is obviously against it. It is very good if you like things that gently caress over the US State without killing anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
I want to see Dick Cheney brought before a jury of his peers. The Not Guilty verdict will be read in the most monotone Kissinger voice ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Obama is not concern trolling. This law could potentially make it difficult for him to travel abroad in the future. Yeah I'm sure Obama is really scared that a government is going to publicly detain a former President of the United States of America, thus literally starting a war, but only because this bill passed which allowed someone to sue the Saudis "Putting the former US President on trial for war crimes against his will" is like killing Franz Ferdinand times a billion, if you're insane enough to do it, you're almost definitely not the head of state of an important country and you'd do it regardless of whether or not this bill passes This is ignoring the fact that this bill allows private citizens to sue countries, not former heads of state, so it doesn't set anything like the precedent required to put Obama on trial Nothing in your post is true at all, Obama isn't concerned about his personal well-being and ability to travel freely, he's concerned about his reputation and legacy Civilized Fishbot has issued a correction as of 06:34 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
First off these are civil suits that we are talking about. Second, it's hardly a far stretch from suing governments to suing chief executives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:First off these are civil suits that we are talking about. Second, it's hardly a far stretch from suing governments to suing chief executives. Exactly, they're civil suits against countries. Going from civil suits against countries to suits against former heads of state is an immense leap. A government detaining a former foreign head of state in order to facilitate those trials is an even huger immense leap. When that head of state is the former President, still operating under the protection of the American government via the Secret Service, it's a huge leap that lands in getting your country invaded. The action you're proposing Obama fears (a foreign government detaining him in order to try him for war crimes) is so incredibly far from the precedent set by this bill that any country willing to do so (maybe North Korea) would still do so regardless of this bill's passage or failure. Something Obama actually does have to worry about is a bunch of people suing the US government for droning innocents during his Presidency, doing damage to his public reputation. Also, how long until the first 'Let's sue the Saudis' kickstarter Civilized Fishbot has issued a correction as of 16:00 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Robot assassins are cool and good but civil suits against a sitting government, that's a dangerous precedent right there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Something Obama actually does have to worry about is a bunch of people suing the US government for droning innocents during his Presidency, doing damage to his public reputation. noooooo not his public reputation
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Robot assassins are cool and good but civil suits against a sitting government, that's a dangerous precedent right there. i like how it's cool and good that even the police are using robot assasins
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Thread title should really read: "You too can sue America for any legitimate reason!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:noooooo not his public reputation breaking news: politicians puts reputation above public good
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
somehow I doubt that obama secretly believes that this is actually in the public interest but wants to stop it for his reputation's sake
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:somehow I doubt that obama secretly believes that this is actually in the public interest but wants to stop it for his reputation's sake my point is that he certainly doesn't want to stop it because he's worried that he's going to be arrested for war crimes, which would be like the assassination of franz ferdinand times a billion
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:somehow I doubt that obama secretly believes that this is actually in the public interest but wants to stop it for his reputation's sake I disagree. There are so many potential lawsuits that could be brought against the US that Obama was trying to save the country billions if not trillions of dollars, plus XXXXX hours of court preparation. Eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
FuhrerHat posted:I disagree. There are so many potential lawsuits that could be brought against the US that Obama was trying to save the country billions if not trillions of dollars, plus XXXXX hours of court preparation. It's unclear what the Bhopal disaster has to do with people potentially suing the US for acts of international terrorism
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Bhopal? I love drag race!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Al! posted:Bhopal? I love drag race!!!!!! You're confusing Bhopal with Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It's unclear what the Bhopal disaster has to do with people potentially suing the US for acts of international terrorism Overstepping international courts to sue individuals or governments from other countries gives precedent to cases like Bhopal which have traditionally been using the exact same counterargument as to why they can not be prosecuted/extradited.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
But you're also right that a lot of drone strike victims may suddenly find themselves mysteriously contacted by internationally recognized lawyers who smell a lucrative opportunity. And then there's the whole "Illegal Invasion" of Iraq thing. Sounds pretty expensive to defend in court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
FuhrerHat posted:But you're also right that a lot of drone strike victims may suddenly find themselves mysteriously contacted by internationally recognized lawyers who smell a lucrative opportunity. First those foreign countries have to pass their own laws to allow suing the US in their own courts, which they always could've done if they'd wanted. They haven't, and they won't, because passing a "gently caress the United States" bill (which such a bill obviously would be) is a really really bad idea so long as the United States remains the world's most powerful and important country As someone who would love to see the United States get sued for terrible military actions across the globe, even with rich people to play the Peter Thiels to the Hulk Hogans of Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems very unlikely for the same reasons that the United States hasn't faced international repercussions in the past
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:somehow I doubt that obama secretly believes that this is actually in the public interest but wants to stop it for his reputation's sake Well, it probably would ruin his reputation at Davos if people started thinking he secretly believed in something as fuzzy headed and ridiculous as "the public interest".
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well, it probably would ruin his reputation at Davos if people started thinking he secretly believed in something as fuzzy headed and ridiculous as "the public interest". This 'public interest' thing doesn't sound very pragmatic to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Are there no good answers to these questions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103#Compensation
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Nice, another nail in the coffin of American hegemony
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Are there no good answers to these questions? The worry is more about American diplomats, businesspeople, spooks, agents, etc running into legal trouble rather than the government proper E.g. US security contractors botching a job will have to worry about litigation in multiple countries now As with many other aspects of the Congress, it is a bit embarrassing to see it legislate away the norms that the US had built and got the rest of the world onboard with..
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:31
|
|