posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:22 AM
As you've probably already heard, congress has passed a bill allowing some victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia. President Obama vetoed the bill on the
premises that it would essentially open up a can of worms, allowing for law suits on many new levels suing for damages that at least loosely are
linked to damages caused by war and terrorism. On September 28, congress overturned Obama's veto with an almost unanimous vote and passing it into
But exactly how closely related are the definitions of war and terrorism? And where are the boundaries set of what someone can sue for when it comes
to these kinds of issues? For example, It turns out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the U.S. spent years there dropping
bombs and occupying the country. There are literally hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries that innocent civilians have suffered in the
Iraq is one example, but there are many others where a blurry line exists somewhere between the ideas of false flags, terrorism and war.. Within each
there are usually innocents being killed or injured. Should the victims of these types of incidents be able to sue for these things years or even
decades later, after the truths are revealed?
If so, how much time can pass before it's too late to sue and where exactly are the lines drawn between something that can or cannot be sued for? Is
this idea something that only works in State sponcered terrorism? If that is the case, would it be possible in the future to change some definitions
to include some of the historical acts of The U.S. to actually be state sponcered terrorism? Things such as the false flags are already common
knowledge now, could they in the future be considered as terrorist acts?
President Obama may be correct in his objection of this bill, and it's effects could be far reaching in the future. I'm wondering what kinds of courts
would be involved in this process, and would the judgements even be effective?.. Or, is there a possibilitiy of new laws and terms being defined with
this type of thing?
I know that this is a lot of questions for one post, but it seems to me that the bill may actually turn out to be exactly what Obama says it will if
it turns out to have any teeth..
What say you ATS?
edit on 29-9-2016 by Quauhtli because: (no reason given)