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: 4, Insightful) by termigator on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:10PM
IANAL, but is the bill more symbolic than practical? How can those who were affected by the 9/11 attacks receive any compensation from a foreign, sovereign state?
This seems more political in nature where congress critters gets brownie points with the electorate, but they know there will be no real effect to Saudi Arabia. Obama veteos the bill as a message that the U.S. government has folks that will still work with Saudia Arabia. Obama loses no local political capital with the veto since he is a lame duck.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:16PM
The Saudis have a large number of assets in the US that could be seized by court order.
The really question here is whether or not the appellate courts would accept US courts as the appropriate venue for these cases. But, the sticking sticking points are typically jurisdiction and the ability to enforce the order. They can definitely enforce it as the Saudis do have a ton of investments in the US.
Still, it seems a bit short-sighted. The correct way to get vengeance against them would have been to fix our energy policy and get us off of oil. Let them return to poverty if they refuse to adhere to some semblance of reason.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:21PM
To follow up on that, Saudi Arabia is apparently threatening to start selling off those assets in advance of the lawsuits... to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by fnj on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:39PM
Threatening? WTF? Am I supposed to be afraid? Who in the hell cares who owns the assets? Let them run like scared rabbits.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:27PM
Well in the case of buildings, they just sell. But if they have businesses, they might shut them down and move them, and a lot of Americans could lose their jobs in the process. I'm not too well informed on what the Saudis own in the United States, so you'll have to look around to find out how potent the threat is.
They could also seize U.S. assets in Saudi Arabia in retaliation for any seizures here. I don't think they can do anything with oil that would particularly hurt the U.S., especially without disrupting their focus on Iran.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:42PM
This bill doesn't just name and shame the House of Saud, it won't stop with them. What happens when China starts divesting. I'm afraid, though it burn my lips to say it, that Obama is right on this one. I'm about tired of the 9/11 widows and orphans wanting ever more payout. When is it enough? We have already fought two wars, killing maiming far more good people in revenge for a few thousand banksters.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @09:02PM
The Chinese can't sell their assets fast enough to hurt us without destroying their economy. They'd have to find investments elswhere as repatriating the money would result in massive inflation and civil unrest.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:29PM
The question then becomes who would buy them? People are kind of dicks and I'm sure there would be plenty who want to see them get screwed.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:18PM
I'm sure China will take them.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:32PM
it also conveniently keeps the families from asking too many questions about their own government's involvement or suing for answers and compensation. Also, why would you(not you, but a person) blame some camel humpers for 9/11 when you're the one letting planes get hijacked and flown wherever and into whatever by any monobrow with a box cutter. Or letting buildings get rigged with military grade explosives (that takes time, expertise and money). If you can't protect your buildings from your own (or allies) black ops demolition teams then suing the monarchy of some random pawns is not going to make a difference. This is just a smoke screen to keep the old dumb ass bootlickers believing the government lies so said dumb asses don't realize their government is complicit in the death of their loved ones. Even if Saudi Arabia was involved they were not alone and not without major help (or direction) from elements within the US. Clean up your own backyard before you go knocking on your neighbors door.
(Score: 1) by OrugTor on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:25PM
Finally, someone gets it. The bill is about re-election. It's a feel-good measure that few congressmen have the confidence to vote against. The ayes will present their vote as a "a vote against terrorism."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:40PM
The better way: sue US government instead.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:16PM
You need the governments permission to sue them. The US govt. could just refuse to allow itself to be sued in a US court.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:24PM
Which means you fire them. Easier said than done, I suppose.