New York Times Article
Summary:
For the first time during his two terms in office, Congress has overridden a veto made by President Obama against a bill that would allow families of victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian Government. Although it has been stated by the 9/11 Commission that the government had no involvement in the tragic events, the royal family is in question for having funded the Al Qaeda organization that orchestrated the attacks. The unanimous vote to override the presidential veto allows the bill to pass into law, effectively amending a 1976 law that grants foreign national governments immunity from lawsuits in US federal courts. This event poses a threat to the US government because it has set the precedent for foreign citizens to sue the US government under similar circumstances. Families of those killed by American soldiers in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries may attempt to sue American soldiers for killing their family members in their respective countries. All these potential threats beg the question: Was the override a mistake?
Questions:
What could be some domestic consequences of the Congressional Override?
How might the Saudi Arabian Royal Family have contributed to the events of 9/11?
To what extent does this bill set a "dangerous precedent"?
To what extent does this bill represent a setback for the Obama Administration?
This bill can potentially cause a great set back for the Obama Administration due to the increase in court cases that might be made against the USA. Because the USA is now allowed to sue the Sadi Arabian government for potential terrorist attacks, Sadi Arabia can also potentially sue the USA government as well. Our troops used to have immunity on their soil while fighting, however with this new law it could potentially be seen as a "terrorist attack" if an American soldier shoots a civilian. Do to the increase in potential court cases made against the USA government, the USA could their in debt. This debt can then hurt the Obama Administration because someone will have to be blamed for what is happening.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The US interacts with so many countries that we set the precedent. Once we decide to sue, other countries could sue us as well. The US always has justifications for our actions, but we are not innocent. The US often commits what we deem as "necessary evils" and if we are now able to sue Saudi Arabia, this opens many doors for countries that do not like the US.
DeleteI agree and think that this could cause major problems especially under the future administration. If Trump decides to sue, which he most likely will, there are so many terrible consequences that could occur and the US would get into deep water. I do not think that this was a good idea on behalf of our government. This bill represents a setback for the Obama administration because it proves he wasn't able to agree with congress on yet another issue and this affects his legacy.
DeleteI agree, with a chain reaction of other countries suing the United States, the US government could be seeing years of court time for its actions. Despite our own misguided justifications, what we do isn't legal in some parts of the world and likely could lead the US into disputes with many world powers.
Delete1. A domestic consequence of the Congressional Override would be that a lot of the families of US soldiers could get sued for killing innocent Saudi Arabian families they think are involved in the war.
ReplyDelete2. They funded the Al-Qaeda organization and those involved in the 9/11 attacks.
3. This bill is a dangerous precedent because it could invoke a lot of additional court cases, increased hostility, and possibly even more terrorist attacks by terrorists groups residing in Saudi Arabia.
4. This bill can be seen as a setback for the Obama Administration because it created a lot of additional problems such as more court cases and increased hostility between the two countries.
The key concept here is immunity - for example there is the idea of "sovereign immunity." This is often simplified as the "king can do no harm" and results in the fact the government cannot be sued unless it allows it and Congress cannot be sued for the laws it makes.
ReplyDeleteThe potential consequences of this decision are immense. In their decision to override this veto, Congress has effectively removed a privilege that governments around the world enjoy and rely on. The domestic consequences of this decision could mean countless lawsuits against the United States government. This could include lawsuits against US citizens working for our country in foreign nations as well as our government as a whole. If we begin allowing US citizens to sue other nations, those other nations may feel the obligation to allow their citizens to sue the US. The question quickly becomes: when does it stop? The consequences of this decision far outweigh the potential benefits. The sovereign immunity of nations is a necessity and should be protected for the good of the order.
ReplyDeleteThe Bill will bring anger out on both sides; American's who have lost loved ones in 9/11 can sue Saudi Arabia and bring peace to themselves, while families of those lost to the American Military in the Middle East can sue America and bring peace to themselves as well. However, as there is a possible threat of America being sued, most civilian causlities in Iraq or Afghanistan have been followed by payments to the families of those who were lost; the American military tends to pay off civilians, and most of them, if they wanted to sue the American government, would not have the resources to do so. The bill opens up this new threat, but it is most unlikely.
ReplyDeleteThe Bill will bring anger out on both sides; American's who have lost loved ones in 9/11 can sue Saudi Arabia and bring peace to themselves, while families of those lost to the American Military in the Middle East can sue America and bring peace to themselves as well. However, as there is a possible threat of America being sued, most civilian causlities in Iraq or Afghanistan have been followed by payments to the families of those who were lost; the American military tends to pay off civilians, and most of them, if they wanted to sue the American government, would not have the resources to do so. The bill opens up this new threat, but it is most unlikely.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think that the lawmakers who overrode Obama's veto on this bill were emotionally blinded by the threat of terrorist activity. Thus, they feel obligated to pin the blame on another country in an attempt to place accountability on a tangible and internationally recognized sovereign state, rather than trying to negotiate with illegal terrorist groups.
DeleteI think that this bill, to be honest was a mistake. We've learned that Congress leaves it up to the bureaucracy to decide exact rules and regulations. There are too many questions to be asked with a bill like this: Which courts hear the cases of us suing a foreign government or vice versa? What qualifies as suable or not suable? Who will represent the defendant and the plaintiff? What happens if a foreign government will not pay?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as David alluded to, the bill will bring out anger on both sides. The purpose of a bill like this is to provide peace for both sides- but it in fact,may just create more animosity. I believe, although I do not know how practical this is, that a better option is to provide financial support for those who have had loved ones die in wars or terrorist attacks.
As a country that serves as a leader in international affairs, if we decided to sue than we would influence other countries to do the same. America would be sued for events that transpired in our past that we would consider u fair so there is no point in putting another nation through that. Furthermore, an entire nation is not to blame for the action's of the government so punishing that country would be cruel and unfair to its citizens.
ReplyDelete