Obama Vetoes Bill - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By Tailz
#14721976
Godstud wrote:Yes. The very idea of suing the government of Saudi Arabia is stupid. There is no true enforcement of international law, and whose court would it be in? Would the Saudis or Americans recognize that court?

Don't forget that Obama was an attorney, so he probably has a good idea of the legalities.

Does America recognize the International Criminal Court? Last I heard, America does not, and even has the ICC listed as a part of the UN that American donations to the UN are not permitted to be used to fund. I believe this is so, to void nations taking the USA and it's soldiers to the ICC for war crimes.

So given this, do you think sueing Saudi Arabia is going to even work?
User avatar
By Zagadka
#14721987
Worse than the US not supporting the ICC, the ICC probably wouldn't handle litigation. There is just no framework for it, and there is no reason for countries to open themselves up to being sued. It is completely un-enforceable unless you put a military or trade threat, at which point it isn't litigation at all.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#14722436
Obama couldn't shield his Saudi masters:

The House and Senate voted Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that will allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.

Senators overrode the veto in a 97-1 vote. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was the only one in the upper chamber to oppose the override.

The House overrode the veto in a 348-77 vote later in the day.

This marks the first time Congress has successfully overridden a veto from Mr. Obama. He has vetoed 12 pieces of legislation and Congress has unsuccessfully tried to override five of them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-ov ... suit-bill/
User avatar
By Scamp
#14722609
Well it seems like the US Senate and the House disagree with Obama on this issue...Since they Both voted overwhelmingly to override President Obama’s veto on this. :lol:
#14723975
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday the law could have “unintended ramifications” and needed “further discussion.” But he blamed the White House for not making a forceful argument about the threat posed by the legislation to to U.S. officials.

“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationships,” said McConnell, who voted to override the president’s veto.

Their comments infuriated White House officials who contend the dangers posed by the bill were obvious and articulated well ahead of the votes to pass the bill and then to override the veto.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said lawmakers’ recent comments are a “deeply embarrassing” display of “rapid-onset buyer’s remorse.”

“The suggestion on the part of some members of the Senate was that they didn’t know what they were voting on, that they didn’t understand the negative consequences of the bill,” he said Thursday. “That’s a hard suggestion to take seriously.”

Congress went full Republican. Never go full Republican.
#14724007
Why? International law only has as much teeth as your country is willing to submit to or other countries can impose their will on you. Since we're not submitting and nobody is going to make us... The bombs will drop all over everywhere and the powers that be will laugh and laugh.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's what will happen.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#14724071
I'm not referring to international law (how can there be IL without a higher power to enforce it?) which frankly doesn't exist. I refer to the image and reputation of your country gucci. That is relevant in practical ways. Yes wealth and military power help prop up reputation positively (even if it is infamy and fear) but there will come times, and situations, where those don't apply. Then you end up looking like a jerk, and somebody else steals the limelight and turns your allies against you slowly, but surely. Long term it begins to matter, if you consistently shit in everyone's general direction.
#14724078
Sure, which is why I don't necessarily support interventionist foreign policy. Ironically though, because of how much ISIS really wants the West dead and lumps us all together, it has really been a unifying force in terms of everyone knows who our enemies really are. And America doesn't tend to do shitty things to other big countries, we tend to use our power to go after smaller countries that piss us off. That will stave off what you are talking about for a long while, especially if people think that America could beat the rest of the world by itself in a military conflict (which it likely could right now, but who wants to see that?).
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yale course on Ukrainian history: https://www.yout[…]

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]