Miscellaneous News

BILL ALLOWING 9/11 VICTIMS TO SUE SAUDI ARABIA BECOMES LAW
BY REUTERS ON 9/28/16 AT 3:53 PM

The U.S. Congress on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama's veto of legislation allowing relatives of the victims of the September 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, the first veto override of his eight-year presidency.

The House of Representatives voted 348-76 against the veto, just hours after the Senate rejected it 97-1, meaning the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act" will become law.

The vote was a blow to Obama and to Saudi Arabia, one of the United States' longest-standing allies in the Arab world.

Obama's 11 previous vetoes were all sustained. But this time almost all of his strongest supporters in Congress opposed him in one of their last actions before leaving Washington to campaign for the November 8 election.

"Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts," Senator Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said in a statement.

Schumer represents New York, the site of the World Trade Center and home to many of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the 2001 attacks, attack survivors and families of victims.

He led the fight for the legislation in the Senate, with Senator John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York's other senator and also a Democrat, cast the 67th "no" vote, the number needed to override the veto in the Senate.

Obama had argued that the bill, known as JASTA, could expose U.S. companies, troops and officials to lawsuits, and alienate important allies at a time of global unrest. He called Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and wrote a personal letter to him explaining that he strongly believed enacting JASTA into law would be detrimental to U.S. interests. Reid became the only senator to side with Obama.

A White House spokesman slammed the Senate's vote.

"This is the single most embarrassing thing this United States Senate has done possibly since 1983," spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

The Saudi government financed an extensive lobbying campaign against the legislation.

Major U.S. corporations including General Electric Co. and Dow Chemical Co. also opposed it, as did the European Union and other U.S. allies.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter urged lawmakers to sustain the veto, and in an unusual move, CIA Director John Brennan issued a statement before Wednesday's votes saying the bill had "grave implications" for national security.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's vice presidential running mate, and Bernie Sanders, an independent and former Democratic White House contender, did not vote.

Click to expand...

PanAsian said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Franklin said:

This bill is against international law and sets a dangerous precedent regarding sovereign immunity and it could be used against the US in the future.

Click to expand...

Franklin said:

This bill is against international law and sets a dangerous precedent regarding sovereign immunity and it could be used against the US in the future.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

I too worry about such a law because unforseen circumstances could lead this very law to be used against US interests and corporations in the future.

People need to vote with their minds not their hearts which is why you should never enact laws when emotions are high. The relatives of 9/11 victims are certainly very emotional no doubt and there is certainly compelling circumstances where some at the highest levels of Saudi government are involved however this lawsuit wouldn't mean much in reality other than opening a can of worms.

They should sue individuals as current laws allow but not necessarily nation states when it comes to intentional and brutal acts of violence like 9/11. That's what declaration of war is which leads me to my confusion about the much bigger question at hand here which is the actions on 9/11 is nothing short of an attack on the US basically a declaration of war AND it would be extremely trivial not to mention weird if the Saudi government is found guilty in 'civil' courts via punitive and monetary lawsuits etc but not culpable from a standpoint of war. If they are indeed guilty of 9/11 then the US should NOT consider them allies but rather an enemy state.

You can't sue someone monetarily by saying they are guilty of killing a bunch of your friends and family yet still be buddies with them because they are criminally innocent .. but I guess you can apparently.

So Americans (people) and her politicians agrees that the Saudi government is guilty in part for 9/11 .. an attack on the sovereign United States and files lawsuit in civil courts BUT the US government and those very same politicians considers them allies and sells them a bunch of F-15E Strike Eagles in return and American corporations pump millions of barrels of oil there for profit!

does this make sense to you?

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Well, we should be careful to not get too political here about this law and veto.

I will say this. The representatives of the people of the United States in the Senate and the House OBERWHELMINGLY vetoed this President...and for the first time since he came to office.

It was the most bi-partisan thing that has happened in the last eight years.

Most of them have read the parts of the report on 911 and its ties to various people and countries...and they voted OVERWHELMINGLY for this.

That should tell us all something.

And with that, let's no go into any more of the politics of it.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Franklin said:

Relationships between nations are not the same as relations between individual people's. Individuals can afford to act out their emotions 100% and the decision and consequences are their own. But nation states have much broader interests and many more stakeholders.

For example let say we both own a small business and we have a very profitable relationship. But if one day I ended up killing your family you wouldn't hesitate for a second to end that relationship.

But in that same scenario you are instead the head of a multi-billion dollar corporation with many shareholders and a board of governers you may want to end the relationship but your shareholders and board of governers may not. And therefor the very profitable relationship would just continue.

With nation states the stakes are even higher and the situation is even more complex as there are many more stakeholders in that relationship compared to a company.

Nation states don't have "friends" like people's do. But rather they have a series of shared interest that binds them together. At least that is how I see it.

And that's why moral high standing in international relations is such a disaster. Nations are willing to for go a mutually beneficial relationship for the sake of "principles" that in reality are none existent anyway. And many people on all sides gets hurt and lose out in the process. The higher the stakes are the less "principle" that we understand on a individual level has to do with it. And perhabs the Star Trek quote "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few" is the best way I can discribe it.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

But that's exactly my point Jeff! If those who knows more than I do at least .. and finds the government (not individuals) of S.A guilty in playing an active role in 9/11 then we SHOULD go to war with S.A, period!

No ifs, ands and but. No measly punitive lawsuits. This is an attack on American soil,. An act of war. 9/11 wasn't some small event .. It's like saying the government of the USA suing Japan after Pearl Harbor! Instead of doing what we did.

Click to expand...