Odumbo didn't get his way so he is whining and crying...

That's it..

Michale

Of course it was... :^/

At least, to someone whose nose is so far up Odumbo's ass, it's tickling his tonsils.... :D

But the safety of US citizens abroad, both physically and legally is a concern of mine

Only when a Democrat is POTUS.. You don't give a rip about Americans when the POTUS is a GOP'er...

If we start carving out exceptions for ourselves in international law, we'll have no moral authority (there's that term again) to complain when any other country does the same. I sincerely hope that this is fixed, so that we are not ourselves the instigators of such a setback for American interests and American citizens abroad.

There is no "exemption".. If the US commits terrorist acts, then it can.. it SHOULD be held responsible...

But as a matter of policy and fact, the US doesn't commit terrorist acts...

So.....

Michale

Yea, sweet cheeks.. Just like he warned the UK of the possible consequences BEFORE the Brexit vote..

Odumbo was wrong then..

He's wrong now...

*LOL* You could save yourself some trouble and start cutting and pasting this phrase I wrote just for you:

It is related to fear-mongering from Odumbo, which is the subject of this particular discussion..

Michale

Revisions to the new law are already hastily being put together, in the hopes that Congress can revise the law during the lame-duck session. - CW

Like you, CW, I'm no fan of the Saudi state. If they weren't swimming in oil and dough they'd likely be international pariahs, like Iran, due to their embrace of religious extremism.

But the safety of US citizens abroad, both physically and legally is a concern of mine, since I once lived overseas, and was oft reminded that I 'wasn't in Kansas anymore'. If we start carving out exceptions for ourselves in international law, we'll have no moral authority (there's that term again) to complain when any other country does the same. I sincerely hope that this is fixed, so that we are not ourselves the instigators of such a setback for American interests and American citizens abroad.

President Odumbo didn't get his way and now he is throwing a tantrum and predicting all sorts of dire consequences that will never come to pass...

No, snowflake. He warned them of possible consequences BEFORE they overrode the veto. Obama sent them his veto message:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/23/veto-message-president-s2040

He also wrote McConnell and Reid a letter and phoned BEFORE their override:

“As I noted in my message vetoing the bill and reiterated on our call yesterday, I strongly believed that enacting [the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act] into law would be detrimental to U.S. national interests.”

Both House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell have stated that JASTA could have unintended consequences — including the fact that it could leave U.S. soldiers open to retaliation by foreign governments — and they're going to have to revisit it. Senator Corker along with several others have said the bill is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts, Corker stating "what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers” and said that US personnel could find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.

Yes it is..

Just like it was "fear-mongering" to claim that a Brexit would end the UK economy and the sky would come crashing down...

*LOL* You could save yourself some trouble and start cutting and pasting this phrase I wrote just for you:

"I GOT NOTHING so I'm changing the subject to an unrelated straw man argument riddled with hyperbole that most likely neither you or anyone else ever posted."

Be glad to. What are their phone numbers..

Look them up yourself, you lazy *flake*. Please do let us all know how your calls go. :D

And, as usual with Left Wingery fear mongering and their THE PLANET WILL BE DESTROYED AND THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! hysteria....

It NEVER came to pass...

Michale

Yes it is..

Just like it was "fear-mongering" to claim that a Brexit would end the UK economy and the sky would come crashing down...

Tell the 28 senators who've already sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer expressing their concerns about amending the law in the future that they're "fear-mongering."

Be glad to. What are their phone numbers..

You really should alert all those Senators in Congress that "there is no worry." *ROTFLMAO*

Like I said, I would be glad to..

It's nothing but fear-mongering..

President Odumbo didn't get his way and now he is throwing a tantrum and predicting all sorts of dire consequences that will never come to pass...

Michale

That's fear-mongering, unsupported by any facts whatsoever...

It's not "fear-mongering" to state that Congress is going to have to address the unintended consequences they've created. Tell the 28 senators who've already sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer expressing their concerns about amending the law in the future that they're "fear-mongering."

The entire point is that the US doesn't do terrorism, so there is no worry about being sued for terrorism..

You really should alert all those Senators in Congress that "there is no worry." *ROTFLMAO*

Is that the same Alicia Machado who is a hooker??

A great match for the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton..

They all frak people for money...

Michale

But we're talking about TERRORISM, not simply being sued..

When other nations decide to alter the terms of our international relationships and/or to redefine their immunity definitions to keep up with the nuthouse that is Congress, they're going to have to address the multiple cans of worms they made with this veto override.

That's fear-mongering, unsupported by any facts whatsoever...

The entire point is that the US doesn't do terrorism, so there is no worry about being sued for terrorism..

Michale

As CW wrote: President Obama was worried about the precedent such a law would set, and how it might be used against Americans in the future.

THAT was my angle in my questions/posts. You said otherwise, but the fact is that United States leaders have already been sued on multiple occasions regarding drone strikes, and the US has actually recently paid $1+ million to families of drone-strike victims' killed outside a declared war zone.

I asked "whose definition" of "terrorist act" because the point was that the veto override of the bill that redefines US foreign immunity will most likely lead to reconsideration by other nations regarding their own immunity laws protecting US diplomats and soldiers. Additionally, the discovery process in these lawsuits generates inconceivable demands for production of sensitive intelligence, and that opens up whole lots of additional cans of worms.

When other nations decide to alter the terms of our international relationships and/or to redefine their immunity definitions to keep up with the nuthouse that is Congress, they're going to have to address the multiple cans of worms they made with this veto override.

McConnell is somehow blaming Obama for the veto override... still busy trying to make Obama a 1-term president. Sad!

Check out Trump's Twitter rants at the link or at least check out the picture of Trump and Alicia Machado circa 1997 wherein Trump displays his man boobs.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-tweets-alicia-machado/502415/

I have said it before, and I'll say it again. Trump really does look like a lot like Fat Bastard. Sad! #SeparatedAtBirth

Oh, behave! *LOL*

42 to 35?

So, we're up to 23% in the neither column.
Good news.

A

My response to your comment on yesterdays post is up.

The neoliberals want Dems to be uninformed... just like the neocons and Repubs which is constantly on display here.

A

If yer so sure that Trump is going to lose.. Put yer pride where your mouth is.. :D

Michale

Clinton has taken a 7-point lead against Trump in Michigan, with 42 percent of the vote to his 35 percent, according to a Detroit News/WDIV poll. In a two-way match-up that excludes third-party candidates, Clinton still maintains her 7-point advantage.

She’s ahead by the same margin in New Hampshire, taking 42 percent of the vote to Trump’s 35 percent, according to a WBUR poll.

And in Florida, Clinton leads Trump by 4 points, 46 percent to 42 percent, according to a Mason-Dixon poll.

So if Cuba launched a drone strike on your house, would the United States not consider that an act of terrorism?

My my my, aren't we pedantic today..

You must still be hurtin' from when I whacked yer wee-wee over the POTUS/TwoManRule issue.. :D

But hay... I'll be your huckleberry... :D

A US Drone Strike conducted by the US Military or one of it's paramilitary branches is, by definition, not a terrorist attack...

If you have any FACTS (look who I am asking for facts.. :^/ ) that refutes this....

"Well, I'm all ears.. "
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

Michale

I am simply saying that I know the definition of terrorism..

Do you??

Why argue a hypothetical laced with conservative rhetoric when it's not really the issue?

As opposed to your Left Wingery hypothetical rhetoric??

So if Cuba launched a drone strike on your house, would the United States not consider that an act of terrorism?

It would depend on why Cuba launched a drone strike on my house.

But I thought we were talking about US drone strikes..

I realize you can't win an argument unless you create a strawman one.. I forgive you..

Later, tater. OAO YOYO I'm TCB. :)

"Brave Sir Robin ran away.. Bravely ran away away...

When danger reared it's ugly head, she bravely turned her tail and fled.."

Michale

Whose "definition"?

The only definition that matters... From those who have been there and done that...

Are you seriously arguing you had anything to do with the promulgation, passage, or alteration of the foreign immunity laws of the United States or any other country?

Given the anti-America fervor that Odumbo has fostered, what's to stop other countries from doing it regardless??

Why argue a hypothetical laced with conservative rhetoric when it's not really the issue? Oh, right. Because that's your MO.

The US cannot be successfully sued for drone strikes.. :D

A $1.2 million payout by the US to a family of a victim killed by drone strike outside a declared war zone makes the filing of a lawsuit quite unnecessary.

A drone strike, by definition, is not a terrorist act

So if Cuba launched a drone strike on your house, would the United States not consider that an act of terrorism?

Later, tater. OAO YOYO I'm TCB. :)

Somebody should alert Panetta et alia that they could not be sued for drone strikes.

'Sides.. I was referring to being sued under a new law that would allow other countries to sue the US for Terrorist Acts..

A drone strike, by definition, is not a terrorist act...

Michale

Michale

Like I said, when it comes to military matters, security matters and LEO matters, my bona-fides are well-established and unchallenged...

Michale

The only definition that matters... From those who have been there and done that...

What is to stop other countries from retaliation by passing similar or even broader waivers of sovereign immunity?

Given the anti-America fervor that Odumbo has fostered, what's to stop other countries from doing it regardless??

Somebody should alert Panetta et alia that they could not be sued for drone strikes.

Yer right, hon.. I should rephrase..

The US cannot be successfully sued for drone strikes.. :D

I could go on, snowflake. :)

As I am sure you will, honey bunch... :D

Michale

A drone strike is not a terrorist act by ANY stretch of the definition..

Whose "definition"? The US Congress' override of the POTUS' veto redefines US foreign immunity laws. What is to stop other countries from retaliation by passing similar or even broader waivers of sovereign immunity?

Ergo, the US cannot be sued for drone strikes.. :^/

Somebody should alert Panetta et alia that they could not be sued for drone strikes.

Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, Civil Action No. 12-1192 (RMC) 2014 U.S. Dist.

While you're at it, tell Obama he can't be sued either.

Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, Civil Action No. 10-1469 (JDB) 727 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2010 U.S. Dist.

I could go on, snowflake. :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-mourn-shimon-peres--and-a-dormant-middle-east-peace-process/2016/09/29/532a1eae-8665-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

Ya gotta admit..

For a man who ya'all believe practically walks on water, he doesn't have much to show for his 8 years in office..

Michale

Absolutely North Korea can..

Lemme know how that works out for them.. :D heh

Michale

A drone strike is not a terrorist act by ANY stretch of the definition..

Ergo, the US cannot be sued for drone strikes.. :^/

Once again, the wisdom of leaving military matters in the hands of military experts is clear...

Michale

Mitch McConnell is blaming Obama, of course, for not preventing Congress from overriding his veto!

No mention of the Saudi retaliation at OPEC?

Anyway, when lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes begin the discovery process, new information has a way of turning up.

"Perhaps it can be written in a way that allows Americans to sue -- but not be sued"

Now there is some American good old fashioned neoliberal thinking... with "justice" for some.

No... that's not a compliment.

A

And here was silly me, thinking that we lived in some sort of moderately-democratic republic, where voters and their congresscritters were supposed to worry about such things too.

Legally, a country is a country. All sovereign entities are theoretically equal. If the US can give its citizens the power to sue Saudi Arabia in US courts, then North Korea can give its citizens the power to sue the US in North Korean courts.