Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on December 30, 2007, 01:04:01 PM
-
George W. Bush intends to veto a $700bn defence spending bill because it includes a provision that would give Americans the right to sue state sponsors of terrorism.
The White House issued the surprise veto threat after Iraqi officials discussed pulling $20bn-$30bn of Iraqi funds out of US banks if the legislation became law, according to a senior administration official.
At the centre of the administration's latest spat with Congress is section 1083 of the Defense Authorisation Act, a measure that would allow American victims of state-sponsored terrorism the right to sue countries and, according to the White House, would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to freeze assets in the amount of damages claimed in their lawsuits.
The veto threat caught US lawmakers off guard. They expressed disappointment at the last-minute veto threat over a provision that had won strong support in the Congress from Democrats and Republicans. "It is a shame that the White House has taken this step to satisfy the demands of the Iraqi government for whom our troops have sacrificed so much," said Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House armed services committee.
Frank Lautenberg, a Democratic senator who sponsored the provision, said the measure was intended to help US victims of terrorism and their families, including those killed in the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut.
Way to support the terrorists and not the troops. You go George! Mission Accomplished!
-
what exactly is:
"state sponsors of terrorism"
?
-
i way i heard it was it would allow the victims of saddam to sue the new Iraq govt in american courts, that is why the Iraq govt said they would pull the money out of american banks.
Do you want to cripple the new Iraq govt with years of suits and tie up the money for years? That money is to be used to rebuild Iraq.
You and the democrats want to help the terrorists and hurt the Iraq govt.
-
LMAO ~ funny that you'd put a snappy little title, then pick & choose a few para that would seem to support that entire 'line.' Awe, come on. :lol
-
Bush vetoes defense bill allowing Iraq lawsuits
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush yesterday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he disapproved of a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.
Mr. Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."
The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were increases in military pay and veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.
Mr. Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.
The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief — often seconds-long — pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Mr. Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.
Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said, "The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto."
When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications — such as veto messages — from the White House during the monthlong break.
A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Mr. Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.
_____________________________ ________________________
And even more...
History debunked:
Three of the four previous presidents have vetoed defense authorization bills, despite claims by top Democratic senators that President Bush would be taking an unprecedented step by fulfilling his vow to veto this year's version.
Two Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton, and President Reagan, a Republican, all refused to sign into law defense authorization bills for various reasons.
"Clearly they haven't bothered to check the historical record, which would show that they're flat out wrong," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Mr. Bush has said he will veto the $648 billion defense authorization bill, which sets out Pentagon policy but does not actually spend the money, because of concerns over provisions in the bill.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose hate-crimes amendment is the most controversial part of the measure, said last week that "the president of the United States has never vetoed, in the history of the United States, a defense authorization bill."
"For this reason and for many others ... the defense authorization deserves to be passed [into law]," said Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, backed Mr. Kennedy up, saying that "there has never, ever been a veto of the defense authorization bill."
Mr. Reid's office declined to comment on the majority leader's statement.
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/momof3terrors/OhSnap.gif)
_____________________________ _____________________________ _
-
Okay, after reading this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George W. Bush intends to veto a $700bn defence spending bill because it includes a provision that would give Americans the right to sue state sponsors of terrorism.
The White House issued the surprise veto threat after Iraqi officials discussed pulling $20bn-$30bn of Iraqi funds out of US banks if the legislation became law, according to a senior administration official.
At the centre of the administration's latest spat with Congress is section 1083 of the Defense Authorisation Act, a measure that would allow American victims of state-sponsored terrorism the right to sue countries and, according to the White House, would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to freeze assets in the amount of damages claimed in their lawsuits.
The veto threat caught US lawmakers off guard. They expressed disappointment at the last-minute veto threat over a provision that had won strong support in the Congress from Democrats and Republicans. "It is a shame that the White House has taken this step to satisfy the demands of the Iraqi government for whom our troops have sacrificed so much," said Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House armed services committee.
Frank Lautenberg, a Democratic senator who sponsored the provision, said the measure was intended to help US victims of terrorism and their families, including those killed in the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this:
i way i heard it was it would allow the victims of saddam to sue the new Iraq govt in american courts, that is why the Iraq govt said they would pull the money out of american banks.
I myself see some interesting questions. How would one sue something like Al-Queda, which is supposedly stateless? And in what court do these suits' get settled in? Will the decisions' be honored by entities' outside the U.S.?
And I would also ask as to what john9001 put out, Is how can a provision in an American Defense spending Bill, allow a foreign national to sue their own goverment? Would'nt that be a matter solely decided by the Iraqi Gov't.? Iraq isn't a state or territory of the U.S., they are their own sovereign nation, so I don't see where something we pass in our own gov't., pertaining to our own citizens, could even remotely apply to Iraqi citizens.
-
Originally posted by Tac
what exactly is:
"state sponsors of terrorism"
?
He's protecting daddy's Saudi friends...
-
Originally posted by Tac
what exactly is:
"state sponsors of terrorism"
?
That's a good point, too. How would a state sponsor of terrorism be defined in a court? What court would decide what a "Sponsor of Terrorism" would be?
-
Sounds to me like a money scam being supported by lawyers. Will need to study this further.....
-
New thread title: "Dems insert poison pill into fence funding bill"
-
Originally posted by texasmom
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/momof3terrors/OhSnap.gif)
-
What this bill did was set up a clause that would freeze ALL Iraqi money if any Joe Schmoe ANYWHERE simply sued Iraq, for any reason.
You can imagine the list of Democratic Joe Schmoes who hate victory line up around the block to keep the lawsuits constant.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Bush vetoes defense bill allowing Iraq lawsuits
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush yesterday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he disapproved of a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.
Mr. Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."
The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were increases in military pay and veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.
Mr. Bush's decision to use a pocket veto, announced while at his Texas ranch, means the legislation will die at midnight Dec. 31. This tactic for killing a bill can be used only when Congress is not in session.
The House last week adjourned until Jan. 15; the Senate returns a week later but has been holding brief — often seconds-long — pro forma sessions every two or three days to prevent Mr. Bush from making appointments that otherwise would need Senate approval.
Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said, "The House rejects any assertion that the White House has the authority to do a pocket veto."
When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications — such as veto messages — from the White House during the monthlong break.
A Democratic congressional aide pointed out that a pocket veto cannot be overridden by Congress and allows Mr. Bush to distance himself from the rejection of a major Pentagon bill in a time of war.
_____________________________ ________________________
And even more...
History debunked:
Three of the four previous presidents have vetoed defense authorization bills, despite claims by top Democratic senators that President Bush would be taking an unprecedented step by fulfilling his vow to veto this year's version.
Two Democratic presidents, Carter and Clinton, and President Reagan, a Republican, all refused to sign into law defense authorization bills for various reasons.
"Clearly they haven't bothered to check the historical record, which would show that they're flat out wrong," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Mr. Bush has said he will veto the $648 billion defense authorization bill, which sets out Pentagon policy but does not actually spend the money, because of concerns over provisions in the bill.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, whose hate-crimes amendment is the most controversial part of the measure, said last week that "the president of the United States has never vetoed, in the history of the United States, a defense authorization bill."
"For this reason and for many others ... the defense authorization deserves to be passed [into law]," said Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, backed Mr. Kennedy up, saying that "there has never, ever been a veto of the defense authorization bill."
Mr. Reid's office declined to comment on the majority leader's statement.
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd34/momof3terrors/OhSnap.gif)
_____________________________ _____________________________ _
The silence from rpm is deafening :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q37/acfireguy26/funny/troll_21.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Octavius
He's protecting daddy's Saudi friends...
Bingo! We have a winner!!
Sorry to disappoint you Drippy. I had to work today.
Not quite the "Oh Snap" you were hoping for. Sorry for the Reader's Digest version but the Skuzzmeister said not to post walls of copied text, also commonly known around here as a "Rip-n-paste"™.
Now, why would'nt you want victims of the Beruit massacre to be able to sue the sponsors of the attack? How about 9/11?? (oh wait, Octavious already answered that one) After Khadfi had to pay up for the PanAm bombing he has been very quiet. A coinky dink? I think not.
You Bushbois (and gurlz) will do anything to keep from admitting he's covering for the Saudi's and screwing the troops.
Oh, and that's 2 snaps and a circle up back atcha.
(http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/KevinGilvear/ILC2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Oh, and that's 2 snaps and a circle up back atcha.
(http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/images/KevinGilvear/ILC2.jpg)
:rofl :aok :lol
-
Originally posted by rpm
You Bushbois (and gurlz) will do anything to keep from admitting he's covering for the Saudi's and screwing the troops.
ummm
cia
afghanistan
taliban
just one example :)
-
sounds like two examples and a provocateur
-
once again Bush does the right thing and the left tries to twist it to sound wrong
-
Checked the Trans fluid on the scoot yesterday and it was about 2 ounces low.
I am compiling a formal list of grievances to send to Bush about this now.
:p
-
Everyone puts their own twist on things don't they. Besides, What is a terrorist state?. In some countries the US is considered a terrorist state.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
once again Bush does the right thing and the left tries to twist it to sound wrong
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
once again Bush does the right thing and the left tries to twist it to sound wrong
That depends on your perspective; For some people, the question is whether or not the right thing was done in the first place.
And to this:
Origanally posted by lasersailor184
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What this bill did was set up a clause that would freeze ALL Iraqi money if any Joe Schmoe ANYWHERE simply sued Iraq, for any reason.
You can imagine the list of Democratic Joe Schmoes who hate victory line up around the block to keep the lawsuits constant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if those Iraqi monies' are held in a bank outside U.S. territory or influence? How does a verdict or order passed in a U.S. court apply to a foreign institution or national? What do we do, Appeal to the U.N.???