So Obama of course says it was a mistake to do this:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-calls-congress-veto-override-a-mistake/ar-BBwLoPu?li=BBnb7Kz
Notice this line though:
"The concern that I’ve had is -- has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia per se or my sympathy for 9/11 families, it has to do with me not wanting a situation in which we’re suddenly exposed to liabilities for all the work that we’re doing all around the world, and suddenly finding ourselves subject to the -- the private lawsuits in courts where we don’t even know exactly whether they’re on the up and up, in some cases.”
Exposed to "sudden liabilities" for all the "work" we're doing. Now you see that almost sounds like he is saying that he doesn't want this because if we can sue another country for shady shit then other countries can sue us for our shady shit we have done to them.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
Apparently, congress backing a military intrusion automatically justifies any and all atrocities that the military subsequently commits. 🙄
Except that isn't actually what he said. All he did was point out the bill won't let you do things like sue over the type of thing Robtard brought up.
There was literally no talk about the justification of any of these acts.
Originally posted by Surtur
Plus remember just giving them the option of suing doesn't guarantee a 100% chance of winning those lawsuits.
Obama needs to help the Saudi's out as much as he can, after all they are lazy ass people who use foreign workers to do their dirty work and don feed them or pay them. The liberals love these people.
Tens of thousands of foreign workers – mainly Indian, Filipino, and Pakistani – are stranded in Saudi Arabia where they haven’t been paid for seven months, and in some cases even longer. They are employees of the construction giant Saudi Oger, which is facing financial turmoil linked to the fall of oil prices. The situation for these employees has now turned into a humanitarian crisis, after the company stopped providing them with food or collecting trash at the camps where most of them live.
Originally posted by RobtardAll the drone strikes we commit against terrorists could certainly be tried in court, for example. We aren't "at war" with ISIS (or the insurgents in Afghanistan) because a country can't officially declare war against non-state entities.
The one part I read thst raised an eyebrow, it would be a two-way street. Where people from other countires could start suing the US. eg Any Iraqi citizen that suffered during Bush. Jr.'s war.
So every person who's family member got blown up accidentally because they were within proximity of a terrorist at the time of a drone strike could, potentially, have a case.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
All the drone strikes we commit against terrorists could certainly be tried in court, for example. We aren't "at war" with ISIS (or the insurgents in Afghanistan) because a country can't officially declare war against non-state entities.So every person who's family member got blown up accidentally because they were within proximity of a terrorist at the time of a drone strike could, potentially, have a case.
No proof😂
Isn't your king Obama the king of drone strikes😂
Didn't he say he would end both wars, and now he is sending back more troops every month😂
You got lied to and you ate it up like candy, still are.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Taxpayers. Iirc it ranged from a quarter grand to millions. Congress and the Bush war machine ensured that they were taken care of. I just dont understand why they need MORE money. Seems like a greed thing more than anything else.
Maybe instead they could have just paid the government directly money. That way the extra money isn't going into the peoples pockets if they have already gotten paid.
On the other hand, the taxpayers weren't responsible for these attacks. We picked up the tab for something this other country did.
Originally posted by Surtur
Wait they kill people for witchcraft? As in, recently?
Yes.
Also stuff like this: In 2004 a bunch of teenage girls died in a burning building; the religious police wouldn't let firefighters rescue them, because it would have been indecent.
Go take a look at Saudi Arabia's human rights record. There isn't much difference between how ISIS polices the cities under its control, and Saudi law.
Originally posted by Surtur
Maybe instead they could have just paid the government directly money. That way the extra money isn't going into the peoples pockets if they have already gotten paid.On the other hand, the taxpayers weren't responsible for these attacks. We picked up the tab for something this other country did.
Yea i get all that. Im just not seeing the victims side. I dont understand the NEED to sue SA for anything oher than personal gain and a symbolic win seems petty. Plus all our clandestine activities could be brought to light. The trade off isn't worth it