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This discussion has been archived.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 Runaway1956 on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:24PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:24PM (#407914) Journal

    We do all understand that the House of Saud is no ally of the United States? Saud is an ally of Saud, and no one else.

    That blowback? Maybe it's time, or even past time for some blowback. "We the People" have little to no interest in killing brown people scattered around the world. Every bit of that is done for corporate interests, and shady government interests. Blowback. If Dick Cheney could be prosecuted for his idiotic justifications for torture, I'd be behind that 100%. Put Bush on trial for being a malleable idiot, and for invading Iraq. Get all the executives of Haliburton too. We're to stupid to clean house for ourselves, so let the world have our criminals. Let them go after the entire military industrial complex. Maybe it's time for us to do some penance.

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

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:39PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:39PM (#407924) Journal

    No disagreement here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:32PM (#407990)

      You know what they say about a broken clock...

      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:02PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:02PM (#408013)

        The kind that display 88:88:88, the kind that displays nothing, or the kind that would fetch just enough at the pawn shop to afford on last hit?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:07PM

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:07PM (#408018) Journal

    If Dick Cheney could be prosecuted for his idiotic justifications for torture, I'd be behind that 100%. Put Bush on trial for being a malleable idiot, and for invading Iraq. Get all the executives of Haliburton too. We're to stupid to clean house for ourselves, so let the world have our criminals. Let them go after the entire military industrial complex. Maybe it's time for us to do some penance.

    There's a difference between criminal trials and civil suits. No country at present is going to try to indict a major U.S. leader for war crimes or something. Maybe it could be possible in a few decades, if trends keep going the way they are. But for most countries business interests will hold sway even if there was some political will to try something like that.

    And that latter point goes for civil suits too. Most countries have a lot more to lose by attacking U.S. business interests than they'd get in return for attacking them legally. I could potentially see a well-targeted lawsuit aimed at a U.S. corporation (which makes clear that the blame is being placed solely on clearly illegal actors of that corporation, to avoid spooking other business interests). But suing people like Bush and Cheney? It might get cheers from lots of people, but again, most countries would probably lose a LOT more financially than they could ever gain in a lawsuit.

    So, unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be the way to bring down the "entire military industrial complex." Not when the U.S. continues to wield so much political and corporate power. Eventually, that may change, but it's not likely to be soon.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:33PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:33PM (#408033) Journal

      Well, of course we'll just ignore any judgements against us, anyway. But, I do look forward to getting sued next time we accidentally drone-bomb a wedding.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:02PM

      by Arik (4543) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:02PM (#408066) Journal
      "It might get cheers from lots of people, but again, most countries would probably lose a LOT more financially than they could ever gain in a lawsuit.

      So, unfortunately, I don't think this is going to be the way to bring down the "entire military industrial complex."

      Which means the objection was disingenuous BS now doesn't it?
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:11PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:11PM (#408159)

      No country at present is going to try to indict a major U.S. leader for war crimes or something.

      And that's a problem, because according to treaties the US has signed, the US should be indicting major US leaders for war crimes. The simple fact is that the US is effectively a "rogue nation" that cannot be trusted to hold to any of its agreements.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @06:25PM (#408055)

    The US loves to suck Saudi cock because it's the only way they can keep the Cash ---> Oil Weapons ----> Cash pump going. If Saudi stops buying expensive US military toys OR decides not to sell oil to the US again like in the 1970's the US is royally fucked.

    • (Score: 2) by weeds on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:13PM

      by weeds (611) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:13PM (#408074) Journal

      Top 5 US oil imports:
      Canada................40%
      Saudi Arabia.........11%
      Venezuela..............9%
      Mexico...................8%
      Colombia................4%

      http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [eia.gov]

      But it's way more fun to just spout off about Saudi Arabia and guns and the corruption of the US government. All the while we were paying $140 for a barrel of oil, it was our best buddies in Canada that were making all the $$.

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:06PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday September 29 2016, @08:06PM (#408100) Journal

        Is it sustainable? A lot of Canada's oil is in oil sands, which is only economic at high oil prices. And fracking in the U.S. is similar. Saudi Arabia and OPEC have been keeping prices low in order to hurt Iran or the United States, depending on who you ask. It was only a couple days ago that OPEC agreed to the possibility of a tiny production cut.

        U.S. oil, gas industry sheds 100,000 jobs in slump: Kemp [reuters.com]
        Oil companies face worker shortages after 350,000 layoffs [usatoday.com]
        Texas has lost 84,000 oil and gas jobs in the oil bust [fuelfix.com]
        Cheap oil has killed nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs [cnn.com]

        Women make up vast majority of those leaving Alberta, Statistics Canada data suggests [www.cbc.ca]

        Before the recession hit, many women were moving into the construction industry as men filled the plentiful jobs in the oil and gas sector, said Pallavi Banerjee, a sociologist at the University of Calgary. "Now, with the economy tanking, men who have been laid off from oil and gas are re-entering construction. Jobs are anyway scarce in construction, so women are probably being driven out of the industry," Banerjee said. Many immigrant women who came to Alberta and Calgary during the boom for jobs in the service industry are also now probably returning to Ontario, B.C. and Quebec, she added.

        Canadian hiring rebounds but 'economic lethargy' still a concern [theglobeandmail.com]

        Weak oil prices and wildfires in Alberta have contributed to Canada’s sluggish economy and tepid job creation. The country’s economy shrank 1.6 per cent in the second quarter, its worst performance since the Great Recession.

        OPEC production deal greeted with skepticism in Canada [thestar.com]

        But many analysts noted that the deal by the 14-member Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Algeria on Wednesday was merely an agreement to look at possibly cutting production to between 32.5 million and 33 million barrels a day. That would be down from August’s production rate of 33.2 million barrels a day – but it would shave only 700,000 barrels a day, some 2 per cent of overall production. Crude oil was selling for more than $100 (U.S.) a barrel in the summer of 2014, before bottoming out below $30 a barrel in January. That fall largely came from a boom in U.S. shale oil production and countries like Saudi Arabia choosing to continue to pump to hold onto market share.

        The economies of oil-producing provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland have suffered amid persistent low prices. Oil producers have shuttered projects and eased off on production. Workers have been laid off, with tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs lost. Alberta’s current recession looks like it will be the longest and worst in the province’s history.

        Petronas to review Canada project [nst.com.my]

        Early this year, Petronas announced it would cut spending by up to RM50 billion over four years in response to the oil price slump. On the possible second wave of layoffs in Petronas, Wan Zulkiflee said: “We always look at the business and the opportunities for optimising, and of course we will do that.” In March, Petronas announced the layoff of about 1,000 employees whose positions were made redundant under its transformation exercise. It was the first major decision it made since oil prices began to plummet in June 2014. It is learnt that the company is undergoing another manpower restructuring exercise involving its non-performing staff in coping with the prolonged low oil prices.

        So maybe users should be spouting off about Saudi Arabia.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 30 2016, @02:09AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 30 2016, @02:09AM (#408204) Journal

          Is it sustainable? A lot of Canada's oil is in oil sands, which is only economic at high oil prices.

          Well, are low oil prices sustainable?

          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 30 2016, @02:23AM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday September 30 2016, @02:23AM (#408207) Journal

            Possibly. Production is very high, and demand growth is weak [cnbc.com]. Green energy mandates and emissions targets could drive demand down even further. Places like Alberta will experience a yo-yo effect with any price increase/decrease cycle.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 30 2016, @02:47AM

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday September 30 2016, @02:47AM (#408216) Journal

            Saudi Arabia could also play a little game where they keep production high enough to price out certain sources like the oil sands and U.S. fracking, with the intent of eliminating all of their oil reserves over a certain timeframe.

            Let's say that Saudi Arabia has about 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil in reserve. That is their proven oil reserves and a little extra undiscovered. Production has fluctuated between 8-11 million barrels a day over the years. At 15 million barrels per day of production, they would have just under 55 years of supply. If they can get that supply out of the ground and invest the profits in solar, fusion, playgrounds for the rich, land, etc. then they may be able to get out of the oil business around the time demand has hit rock bottom. 2071 is a pretty aggressive target for the world to be using lots of electric cars, solar, and fusion, but it's not completely unrealistic. Apparently, Saudi Arabia wants to try 12.5 million barrels a day. That would yield 65.7 years and another decade to wean the world off oil.

            The gamble is to not leave any oil in the ground by the emergence of a post-oil planet, while forcing Alberta, Canada and others to leave their oil in the ground throughout. Strategic investment can help the Saudis or others buy a stake in the next energy boom. The obvious problem here is that you have to believe fusion, etc. will become viable within 50 years. The situation should become more clear soon. [nextbigfuture.com]

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2) by weeds on Friday September 30 2016, @12:46PM

          by weeds (611) on Friday September 30 2016, @12:46PM (#408351) Journal

          Your point is that when oil prices are low those who produce a lot of oil are hurt.
          OK, but you forgot - when oil prices are high, those who produce a lot benefit.
          This applies to the US, Brazil and any other oil producing country (don't forget Russia). The ups and downs are controlled by a cartel, not a free market and certainly not by a perfect market.
          The fact that Canada has been financially disadvantaged by low oil prices doesn't change that fact that they send us the huge majority of our oil. They made gobs of money selling oil to the US when prices were high. I don't begrudge them that, hey, it's a free market, oh wait, no it's not, it's a cartel. You don't like the cartel, don't buy their oil. We don't! we buy Canadian oil and guess what? They charge cartel prices. I might have some sympathy for them if they sold us oil under the cartel rate, but they didn't. If your are going to play in that sandbox, then be prepared.