Instant Senate Remorse - WSJ editorial

[question everything]

Sometimes even politicians admit mistakes, though usually they wait longer than the same day they voted. Yet that’s what 28 Senators did when they signed a letter to Senators Chuck Schumer and John Cornyn expressing what amounts to regret for overriding President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Jasta) this week.

(snip)

The Senate letter warns of the “unintended consequences” Jasta would have for “the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” And it notes, correctly, that if foreign governments were to reply in kind, “then the United States could face private lawsuits in foreign courts as a result of important military or intelligence activities.”

Yet every Senator who signed this letter voted to override the veto. This is what happens when legislation sails through the House and Senate in an election-year rush with little debate.

(snip)

The Senate’s remorse brigade is now hoping that Jasta can be fixed in the lame-duck session after the election, but good luck with that.

More..

http://www.wsj.com/articles/instant-senate-remorse-1475276162

======

Yes, the editorial did not miss the opportunity to crap on Schumer and the "trial lawyers lobby."

Still..

[benld74]

1. United States could face private lawsuits in foreign courts

Gee, forward thinking by our glorious representative as usual

[panader0]

2. In their headlong effort to look tough,

the Senate and the House ignored the consequences of their vote.
The U.S. will be inundated with law suits for a multitude of actions overseas.
Only Harry Reid did not vote to override. (In the Senate)

[Algernon Moncrieff]

3. As much as I love Barack Obama, I'm not sure that Congress didn't get this one right

RE: We could be sued: Hey, that's probably a good thing. Perhaps it will make us think more before we run halfway around the world to play cop. Conservatives love to lecture people about accountability. This is what it looks like.

RE: The WSJ (read: Rupert Murcoch) editorializing about buyer's remorse: When Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal sold his nearly $200 million dollar stake in News Corp, I bet that made some waves over in Consevativeland. I would still highly recommend Craig Unger's House of Bush, House of Saud to anyone who doesn't understand how deeply in-bed our politicians are with foreign oil interests -- particularly the so-called "Moderate Arab States." It occurs to me frequently that if we hadn't sent troops to defend an absolute monarchy from invasion a military dictator, the world might be a better place.

RE: The lawsuits: In 2003, we were sold a bill of goods that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq were the "Axis of Evil" and that we'd bee seen as a shining light of freedom by invading Iraq. What the invasion of Iraq ended up accomplishing was sending the message to Iran and North Korea that they'd better get nukes ASAP or suffer the same fate as Iraq. Meanwhile, it seems like our "allies" in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan may have been the root of the Al Quaida problem all along. So I say let the lawsuits proceed and let's bring the evidence to the courtroom and see how it plays out. The Saudi royal family can buy the best legal minds available, so I have no worries about their ability to stage an adequate defense.

[question everything]

4. These are interesting thoughts. Thank you for them

The irony, I think, is that the Republicans would be the last ones to reconsider "running halfway around the world to play cop."

They still lament our exiting Iraq after accomplishing nothing, except chaos and misery.