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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:46PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:46PM (#407895) Journal

    They're an oil buddy, not a friend. If they were really friends, they would:

    be a democracy
    separate church and state
    practice equality for women
    not be the homeland of most of the 9/11 terrorists

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Disagree=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:22PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:22PM (#407912) Journal

    The U.S. doesn't even have the first 3 on that list (or all 4 if you are a "truther").

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:23PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:23PM (#407913)

    Now that we don't need their oil can't we just tell them to STFU and GTFO. If other countries want to buy their oil let them deal with the sadistic barbarians.

    --
    Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:38PM (#408038)

    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

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:55PM (#408095) Journal

      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

        by Immerman (3985) on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:25PM (#408139)

        > 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.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @12:32AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30 2016, @12:32AM (#408181)

    They're an oil buddy, not a friend. If they were really friends, they would:

    be a democracy
    separate church and state
    practice equality for women
    not be the homeland of most of the 9/11 terrorists

    So it's "Friends don't let friends run repressive regimes," eh? That makes so much sense! I see a *huge* pay raise coming your way!

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday September 30 2016, @01:16PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday September 30 2016, @01:16PM (#408356) Journal

      It does make sense! Why did the US side with the Allies instead of the Central Powers in WWI? Ideology played a large part in that decision. The Central Powers were monarchies, the Allies were democracies. We didn't have anything particularly against the Germans, or at that time any special love for the Brits. Many of our citizens were of German descent, including my grandparents. The feds put the entire county where my grandparents lived under surveillance during WWI because it was so heavily populated with German immigrants.

      The thinking is that a democracy is a more enlightened, wiser nation, less prone to violence and making trouble. And especially, less prone to resorting to war as a solution. Why did Europe have WWI? Because one heir to one monarchy was assassinated? Talk about going way, way over the top. The Emperor of Austria didn't even like the Archduke and was actually not displeased that he was dead! But he was very old and left the official response to some younger, less experienced nobility, and they concocted an ultimatum that the Emperor thought very strong, perhaps too strong. He was also concerned that the Russians would intervene, as indeed they did. What a hell of a way to go to war-- bumble and stumble into it. The Tsar wasn't particularly smart, but the Kaiser of Germany was a hotheaded war enthusiast. If they had been democracies, perhaps they would not have gone to war. Not to say that democracies can't blunder-- consider George W. Bush going to war in Iraq-- but it is less likely.