Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-time-for-everything dept.

For the first time since President Obama took office in 2009, Congress has overridden his veto.

The U.S. Senate voted 97-1 to override President Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which would allow victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. The lone dissenting vote was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who has "always had the president's back":

In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked "damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries" and "could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts." Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto. CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill's "grave implications for the national security of the United States" in a statement Wednesday.

The House of Representatives voted 348-to-77:

Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

See also: The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 by the New York Times Editorial Board and this article in the Saudi Gazette.

Previously: President Obama to Veto Bill Allowing September 11 Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:15PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:15PM (#407906) Journal

    The precedent is terrible, but that's long term consequences and this is congress. They're like... complete opposites.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:48PM

    by isostatic (365) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:48PM (#408006) Journal

    The precedent is terrible, but that's long term consequences and this is congress. They're like... complete opposites.

    I thought the opposite of congress was progress?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:52PM (#408171)

      I thought the opposite of congress was progressive?

      ftfy

      despite obama's rhetoric, the purpose of congress isn't too "compromise" at all but to put the brakes on over-regulation

      if someone wanted to invade your home, would you compromise with the invader?

  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:04PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:04PM (#408099)

    I agree that the precedent is economically terrible for the US government, and by extension us as the tax payers. But, I'm not so sure it's actually terrible going forward - having to face, say, hundreds of thousands of private lawsuits for our crimes in the Middle East might serve to discourage reckless military and covert interventions in the future. Both by the US and other nations. Why should governments get a free pass for committing crimes that would send any private individual through the wringer?

    • (Score: 2) by tynin on Friday September 30 2016, @12:39AM

      by tynin (2013) on Friday September 30 2016, @12:39AM (#408185) Journal

      You and I came to the same realization. No amount of lawsuits will amount to the kind of treasure we burn through every week waging our little wars all across the globe. I hope this ends up being a net positive and not just the new cost of "business as usual". Oh fuck... I think it might just be the new cost.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday September 30 2016, @05:05PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday September 30 2016, @05:05PM (#408442)

        It may indeed just be the new cost - but every increase in cost discourages partaking in more marginal activities, so it's still a win. And the course of the world is change by many small victories - for all the hoopla, the large victories usually prove to be more form than substance.

  • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday September 30 2016, @08:12AM

    by driverless (4770) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:12AM (#408283)

    The precedent is terrible

    The current precedent isn't really that bad, if you consider the precedent before home, or whichever of Trump or Hillary will be the next precedent.