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
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:16PM
Your point would be? The Arab world was again on the losing side in WWII, so the victors were free to dispose of the losers territory in any way they saw fit. So to solve everyone's problem they gave the Jews a homeland, it being clear they would never be at home anywhere else. And whadda ya know, they are fleeing Europe yet again as the old hate begins to flow and the Arabs come pouring into Europe. So if not there, where exactly do you want them?
I'm a Nationalist, so why would I oppose the Jews being Nationalists in their own land? I do wish a few here in the U.S. (Soros, Bloomberg, half the staff at National Review, most of the Weekly Standard....) would go there. I don't care if the Arabs are Nationalists in their lands, they can do their thing, oppress all they want so long as they keep it in their borders. I'm all for that kind of Diversity.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:06PM
Hypocrite much? Did you just forget what I said in middle of the paragraph? What is this? Are you talking to a mirror? Arabs don't care what you "Nationalists" do in your land either. Hey hey - you can ponder the 'great question' all day long about what to do with jews, and sell the nazis all your tech while they get rid of the 'pests' too. The problem is that you think you own the world because you were on the winning side of WW2. "we won why are people not just bowing to my majestic appetite for their stuff"? Yeah and they plonked your twin towers why won't you accept that, why are you suing saudi arabia then, Mr. Judge and Jury? What are you doing in Iraq or Syria or Israel for that matter anyway?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:58PM
I'm assuming you were in a hurry or something? I'm the one who was agreeing with Obama.
But yea, at the end of WWII the Allies pretty much did own most of the world. That is what War is all about. Two sides enter, one side leaves and their view is then the only one that counts. After enough time passes the sides can shift as new disputes arise.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:38PM
You own up, you mess up, you lose. If you want to raise metaphysical points, you can have them and then come back to the original point. Which is this - either you debate on logic or you debate on power. There is no such thing between lit and unlit and the same way if you raise the point of power even once, you lose the argument on point of logic. That's the deal. Now you bring up the issue of Allied winning wars hence they get to chose where will their problems (jews) go and live. Great. But you can't then turn around and say Arabs are fighting Israel on a illogical basis.
No. The disputes remain same, and the kind of disputes USA has created you are going to pay for it for many hundreds of years. And so are millions of people.
And war is not a reality of life, it is a failure of foreign policy. And USA has the worst possible foreign policy because of the arrogance of power it has. Fucking Russia has better foreign policy than that and Russia is a dictatorship. Imagine that. The only country that is going to be worse than USA is China.
(Score: 2) by jasassin on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:30PM
Yeah. Maybe they just blow shit up for no reason.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday September 30 2016, @08:29AM
Depends what you mean by Arabs and where they blow things up. Could we just agree than some issues are simply more complicated than easy one-liners of propaganda?