ADVERTISEMENT

Opening a Can of Worms, US service members will pay the price!!!!

Baby Debo

Baby Debo

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jul 23, 2004
3,600
117
63
Congress passed a bill that will allow lawsuits against soverign countries in US courts. This is an attempt to show Saudi Arabia that they were liable for the 9/11 attacks, because all the attackers at one time or another lived in S. Arabia. I really think this is a bad idea, how long do you think it will be before lawsuits against US service members(i.e. pilots, aircrew, convoy drivers, armed guards, etc.).
Is it worth opening a flood gates of litigation world wide???? I'm interested in what others think!!!!!!! I'm of the opinion that those pushing this platform aren't ready for the backlash that's going to occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910 and chick_bleeds_carolina_blue
They don't care about the backlash because they know they'll sleep safely every night in their cozy sleep number bed in an air conditioned home after a full meal and clean water to bathe in. They think with tiny parts and therefore DON'T think or care.
 
tarheel0910 said:
Seems like this has come up before and Obama said he would veto it.
Click to expand...

Congress has said that they have enough votes to override the veto!!!!! In an election year, a lot of lives are set to be destroyed in the pursuit of election pandering!!!!!!! On all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Baby Debo said:
Congress has said that they have enough votes to override the veto!!!!! In an election year, a lot of lives are set to be destroyed in the pursuit of election pandering!!!!!!! On all levels!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
We'll see, but it takes a lot to overide a veto and I would be surprised if they had enough votes. I think they are just bluffing and hoping Obama won't call them on it.
 
tarheel0910 said:
We'll see, but it takes a lot to overide a veto and I would be surprised if they had enough votes. I think they are just bluffing and hoping Obama won't call them on it.
Click to expand...
We can only hope that's their purpose!!!!!!!!!!
 
Baby Debo said:
Congress passed a bill that will allow lawsuits against soverign countries in US courts. This is an attempt to show Saudi Arabia that they were liable for the 9/11 attacks, because all the attackers at one time or another lived in S. Arabia. I really think this is a bad idea, how long do you think it will be before lawsuits against US service members(i.e. pilots, aircrew, convoy drivers, armed guards, etc.).
Is it worth opening a flood gates of litigation world wide???? I'm interested in what others think!!!!!!! I'm of the opinion that those pushing this platform aren't ready for the backlash that's going to occur.
Click to expand...
Smdh
 
Watch the backlash, I now wonder how many of these lawsuits will be filed in the next 30 days. I think the Joint Chiefs of Staff should file a suit stopping enactment of the law.
 
tarheel0910 said:
We'll see, but it takes a lot to overide a veto and I would be surprised if they had enough votes. I think they are just bluffing and hoping Obama won't call them on it.
Click to expand...
He vetoed, and they overrode it.

I don't understand how victims' families are going to be able to prove Saudi Arabia was complicit in state-sponsored terrorism. And I'm definitely not looking forward to all the lawsuits that are going to be brought against the U.S. military for all its, uh, international activity. That's on the table now, right?
 
Raising Heel said:
He vetoed, and they overrode it.
Click to expand...
I was surprised by that. Didn't expect so many in his own party to ignore him.

Raising Heel said:
I don't understand how victims' families are going to be able to prove Saudi Arabia was complicit in state-sponsored terrorism.
Click to expand...
That's the issue. Pretty much everything is classified, so any responsible judge would dismiss the case since there is no evidence. Maybe something will become declassified down the road, but that will take decades probably.

Raising Heel said:
And I'm definitely not looking forward to all the lawsuits that are going to be brought against the U.S. military for all its, uh, international activity. That's on the table now, right?
Click to expand...
That would depend on the other countries. I'm not sure if they have laws that allows their citizens to do that. If they did, the US would just claim sovereignty and ignore it. Much like SA will do.
 
tarheel0910 said:
There isn't even thousands of countries that exist, so that makes no sense. Secondly, what countries have we destroyed?
Click to expand...
I really need a font to identify my sarcasm.

But we've blown up a few in these invasions, wars, interventions we participate in. I thought you knew. Some I guess could be justified but others should have been avoided.

Allowing these lawsuits would have plenty of blow back in some way. If it could bring the dead back it would be one thing but it will not bring closure or justice for that matter. It would create more problems and I wouldn't want my loved ones name associated with that part of it.
 
chick_bleeds_carolina_blue said:
I really need a font to identify my sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Sorry, given your stance on war and killing I thought you were being serious.

chick_bleeds_carolina_blue said:
But we've blown up a few in these invasions, wars, interventions we participate in. I thought you knew
Click to expand...
Sure we have done some damage physically (you could argue mentally as well), but that is a far cry from destroying a country.

chick_bleeds_carolina_blue said:
Allowing these lawsuits would have plenty of blow back in some way. If it could bring the dead back it would be one thing but it will not bring closure or justice for that matter. It would create more problems and I wouldn't want my loved ones name associated with that part of it.
Click to expand...
I believe that, in theory, it could cause a lot of issues but I think in the end it's really only going to be a PR issue. While the legal system isn't perfect I think it gets it right far more than it gets it wrong. If it gets it right in these types of cases it will be dismissed by the court. Even if they were to somehow win, the other country will just ignore it and all these people will have done is wasted their time and energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelmanwilm
tarheel0910 said:
Sorry, given your stance on war and killing I thought you were being serious.


Sure we have done some damage physically (you could argue mentally as well), but that is a far cry from destroying a country.


I believe that, in theory, it could cause a lot of issues but I think in the end it's really only going to be a PR issue. While the legal system isn't perfect I think it gets it right far more than it gets it wrong. If it gets it right in these types of cases it will be dismissed by the court. Even if they were to somehow win, the other country will just ignore it and all these people will have done is wasted their time and energy.
Click to expand...

I was exaggerating the number of places we've blown up.
 
Heres whats so effed up. If a senator were to vote against the bill, which they should for the above named reasons, then hes screwed election time cause his opponent will claim "he voted against compensating 9/11 victims" and the dumass sheeple will just believe that. Thats why they overrode it. Noone wants to be the guy that "refused to hold the muslims accountable".
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
Hey... if a court ruling can be achieved and accepted, maybe it will inhibit future wars. Maybe it will inhibit future corruption of any kind. Settling in a court is more civilized than shooting at each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chick_bleeds_carolina_blue
#1 - This is all about the trial lawyers making all the $. The victims won't see a dime.
#2 - It will be years, if not decades, before the 1st judgment/settlement is issued. You think the wheels of justice turn slowly within the US, wait until you hit international due process. Ugh.
#3 - The same lawyers would also be thrilled to open the litigation door to US citizens. Then they get paid to defend as well. They're all getting drunk right now over this.
#4 - Barry knew he'd get overridden, exactly what he wanted. He looks good for trying to protect US citizens from international lawsuit tit-for-tat (even though, just by merely passing our law doesn't automatically entitle other countries to do this, as someone else mentioned above) and also looks good with his muslim brotherhood buds.
 
KramerDishDawg84 said:
#1 - This is all about the trial lawyers making all the $. The victims won't see a dime.
#2 - It will be years, if not decades, before the 1st judgment/settlement is issued. You think the wheels of justice turn slowly within the US, wait until you hit international due process. Ugh.
#3 - The same lawyers would also be thrilled to open the litigation door to US citizens. Then they get paid to defend as well. They're all getting drunk right now over this.
#4 - Barry knew he'd get overridden, exactly what he wanted. He looks good for trying to protect US citizens from international lawsuit tit-for-tat (even though, just by merely passing our law doesn't automatically entitle other countries to do this, as someone else mentioned above) and also looks good with his muslim brotherhood buds.
Click to expand...
So, it if "Barry" had not vetoed the bill, you'd have been okay with it?
 
strummingram said:
So, it if "Barry" had not vetoed the bill, you'd have been okay with it?
Click to expand...
Stupid law, stupid process to get it passed, big waste of taxpayer money. Just one last big payback to the trial bar. Nothing more, except the political reasons mentioned earlier. That's why it had to go through the veto process. If you think for a second that any Washington polished turd cares about anyone but themselves, including their own mother, then I have some killer swamp land in AZ to sell you. We are used every day. The American public is totally ignorant.
 
KramerDishDawg84 said:
#1 - This is all about the trial lawyers making all the $. The victims won't see a dime.
Click to expand...
No one will see a dime. Even if by some slim chance they would get a court to rule in their favor, no country is going to pay. It will be ignored. The only thing the lawyers will get out of this is the publicity. The victims will get nothing but wasted time and energy.
 
tarheel0910 said:
All of them.
Click to expand...
Well, "destroy" is subjective... but, for starters; Would you say the South was "destroyed" after the Civil War? Would that qualify as a country as being destroyed? I just want a standard before I list them all.

I'll even stay within the last 60-70 years.


Bh58PX_IgAAkmbo.png


And, every American Indian Tribe (nation/country) was almost completely exterminated, as in extinct, in the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
KramerDishDawg84 said:
If you think for a second that any Washington polished turd cares about anyone but themselves, including their own mother, then I have some killer swamp land in AZ to sell you. We are used every day. The American public is totally ignorant.
Click to expand...
Believe me, you're preaching to the choir in this part.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KramerDishDawg84
strummingram said:
Well, "destroy" is subjective...
Click to expand...
I think that's probably the difference here. When I think of a country being destroyed I think of it no longer being in existence or something close to that. A Roman Empire type of thing. In my opinion, war doesn't destroy a country unless it results in an overthrow and occupation of the country.

strummingram said:
Would you say the South was "destroyed" after the Civil War?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that, but it's not relevant to this particular discussion since the South was never a country.
 
tarheel0910 said:
I think that's probably the difference here. When I think of a country being destroyed I think of it no longer being in existence or something close to that. A Roman Empire type of thing. In my opinion, war doesn't destroy a country unless it results in an overthrow and occupation of the country.


I wouldn't say that, but it's not relevant to this particular discussion since the South was never a country.
Click to expand...
Really? the Confederate States of America was never a country? I had no idea. I could have sworn I saw a lot of evidence of having a president, a congress, their own currency, a flag, an army, a navy, the works.

We're going to have a hard time discussing this when your version of history is different from mine. The Roman form of government is gone, but Italy is there! The Nazi regime is gone, but Germany is still on the map! If you don't consider the CSA as having been destroyed, then we can't discuss this. I'm not saying the CSA was good or bad. I'm simply saying that it was destroyed. The whole place was basically in ashes and economic social upheaval was present for decades.

Did you walk around South Vietnam, or Hanoi in 1968, or in 1974? Cambodia? The land masses are all still there, but the civilization is forever changed as a result of American military presence (bombing and killing and bombing and killing... and bombing).

We haven't even begun to discuss the destruction in the Middle East. Would you want to be a citizen of Iraq in 2004 or 2005? I wouldn't! You know why? DESTRUCTION was everywhere!
 
  • Like
Reactions: yrusonvus
tarheel0910 said:
Not a legitimate one in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Well, our opinions differ. I bet I know why it's not a legitimate country in your opinion... because it was destroyed.

I wouldn't want to have been living anywhere near the locations mentioned in the graphic I offered above. I guess you'd be fine living there because there was no destruction taking place, or they weren't real countries, or whatever you can think of to convince yourself that it was justified.
 
strummingram said:
Well, our opinions differ. I bet I know why it's not a legitimate country in your opinion...
Click to expand...
I bet you don't.

strummingram said:
I wouldn't want to have been living anywhere near the locations mentioned in the graphic I offered above. I guess you'd be fine living there because there was no destruction taking place
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want to be there either. Far too dangerous for me.

strummingram said:
whatever you can think of to convince yourself that it was justified.
Click to expand...
Never said it was justified.

Look, there is no need to get all bent out of shape just because my definition of destroying a country is different than yours. It's subjective, don't worry so much.
 
tarheel0910 said:
Sorry, given your stance on war and killing I thought you were being serious.


Sure we have done some damage physically (you could argue mentally as well), but that is a far cry from destroying a country.


I believe that, in theory, it could cause a lot of issues but I think in the end it's really only going to be a PR issue. While the legal system isn't perfect I think it gets it right far more than it gets it wrong. If it gets it right in these types of cases it will be dismissed by the court. Even if they were to somehow win, the other country will just ignore it and all these people will have done is wasted their time and energy.
Click to expand...
Yeah based on her post history and her worshiping at the altar of Strum , I really had no idea it was sarcasm. Sorry but we have built up or saved way more countries than we may have destroyed. I thought people like Chick looked to the courts and government to solve everything and it will be pretty hard to ignore rulings when assets can be confiscated or frozen just like in a civil judgement.
 
tarheel0910 said:
No one will see a dime. Even if by some slim chance they would get a court to rule in their favor, no country is going to pay. It will be ignored. The only thing the lawyers will get out of this is the publicity. The victims will get nothing but wasted time and energy.
Click to expand...
Actually, the lawyers will get paid from a public fund filled with taxpayer $. With or without a verdict or payment from the Saudi's. So the liars, I mean lawyers, will get theirs.
 
strummingram said:
You thought I was worried? About this? Thanks for the concern.

I am curious as to why the CSA was not a "legitimate" country, however. I have a feeling this will be awesome!
Click to expand...

It was a "country" after a fashion but it was never legitimate. No other country recognized the CSA as a self-governing state. If simply having the trappings of a country make it so...hell...I'M a country. I'm my own govt...I'll print my own currency...design a flag...and since I'm a Quaker I have no need for an army or navy. The country of Me!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
tarheelbybirth said:
If simply having the trappings of a country make it so...hell...I'M a country. I'm my own govt...I'll print my own currency...design a flag...and since I'm a Quaker I have no need for an army or navy. The country of Me!!
Click to expand...
Works for me.

If it wasn't a country, then the USA sure spent a whole lot of time, money, effort, and lives to make sure it didn't become one, I guess. I'm sure if you'd asked the people back then, they would have considered it a country, a nation. A nation that was borne out of a need to keep people enslaved, but a nation all the same. It's relative/subjective, but, I guess since it lost its home opener, not a country.

I was using the CSA to establish a standard for what counts as an example of a "country" being destroyed.
 
So we're not going to talk about the flabbergasting incompetence of McConnell in trying to blame Obama for this bill after he vetoed the damn thing and they overrode it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back