SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM
Don't be naive.
The US has helped overthrow more democracies and install military and other dictatorships than anyone.
This includes in Iran where they replaced a democracy with Sharia law to help Saddam (who they praised at the time) for fucks sake, so there goes your church and state.
Equality for women? Are you high?!
But good on the BRAVE and HEROIC politicians for stand up against the saudis at this time when 99.9% if the public hate them.....and the US no longer needs their oil.
Very brave...I guess they are the good guys now....
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:55PM
Yes, you're right, the Shah of Iran was the doing of WWII allies determined to never suffer another oil shortage in time of war by overthrowing a democracy of an oil rich nation and installing a monarchy of all things, to be Western puppets. The US has screwed with Latin America time and time again, even both Iran and Latin America in the same act with the whole Iran-Contra scandal. I really winder about the folly of our leaders for so often choosing an expedient course that values immediate "stability" and profit over our stated values of freedom, equality, and justice. The explanation is typically a sordid story of corruption, with some special interests who stand to benefit from a regime change bribing the politicians to hoke up whatever excuses they can for a violent overthrow. Every time, the consequences of such venal stupidity have haunted us.
Iraq pushed it too far, and perhaps things are changing. During the Arab Spring, the US stood with the people of Egypt and not Mubarak, whereas in the past our leaders would have opted to back our puppet.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:25PM
> whereas in the past our leaders would have opted to back our puppet.
Maybe. Depends on how loyal the puppet is, and how good a chance he has of staying in power. If things have destabilized too far, too fast, then the expedient course would be to let the puppet fall, and throw your effort into tying some strings onto whoever's going to replace him.