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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:56PM (#407937)

    who want to shoot Israeli citizens for no reason

    no reason? the land is occupied and disputed. I don't know for sure but from what i've seen it seems palestine is actually the true "owner". Just because the controlled media wants to act like god gave it to his chosen people and some terrorists are killing his children doesn't meanm you have to believe it.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:30PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday September 29 2016, @03:30PM (#407954)

    Disputed how? The entire Arab world declared war and lost, when you lose wars you tend to lose lands. By every law we recognize that regulates how Nation States behave, that land is now Israeli. Because the U.N. is an anti-Semetic Parliament of Tyrants with more than a few allies in the Democratic Party here in the U.S. we are required by P.C. to pretend there are two legitimate sides because they are still butthurt over the outcome of that war. They have every right to do like all of those Arab states did at time when they forcibly ejected every Jew they could lay hands on from their lands without compensation and simply toss the so called "Palestinians" out, thus ending this long festering low level war. Which is the solution I recommend since it is pretty obvious this thing won't end until one side is gone and genocide is so out of fashion these days. Since the Jews are currently pretty rich, they could even offer a fair price for the developments on the land.

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by JNCF on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:03PM

      by JNCF (4317) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:03PM (#407971) Journal

      Because the U.N. is an anti-Semetic Parliament of Tyrants with more than a few allies in the Democratic Party here in the U.S.

      TIL: Palestinians aren't Semitic.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:05PM (#407972)

      You do realize that Jews are there in Israel because *EUROPEANS* threw them out? Something about a genocide, may be, could have been a reason, you think? You know, the actual jews are supposed to be brown people, not the fake jews of europe who think speakig yiddish gives them the right to land they have not seen in several thousand years.

      In fact, jews don't think that - and that is the point. It was the Christian White Majority that told jews in clear terms - get lost and we will help you defeating the brownies, or else.

      • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:16PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:16PM (#407977)

        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

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:06PM (#408017) Homepage Journal

          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.

          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

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:58PM (#408047)

            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

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday September 29 2016, @07:38PM (#408087) Homepage Journal

              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.

              After enough time passes the sides can shift as new disputes arise.

              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.

              That is what War is all about.

              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

            by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Thursday September 29 2016, @10:30PM (#408140) Homepage Journal

            Arabs don't care what you "Nationalists" do in your land either.

            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

              by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday September 30 2016, @08:29AM (#408291) Homepage Journal

              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?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:36PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:36PM (#408035) Journal

      Disputed how? The entire Arab world declared war and lost, when you lose wars you tend to lose lands.

      So basically, all Arabs have to do to get their land back is kill and drive off the Israelis. Got it.

      Maybe they should get better at doing that.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:55PM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday September 29 2016, @05:55PM (#408045)

        Exactly. We live in a world governed by force. Accept that. The only laws governing sovereign nation states are force and self interest. But the Arabs do not have the power to win another war with the Jews any more than they could win the several attempts made since the Allies refounded Israel. And if they try again they should be prepared to lose a lot more land and possibly have their capitals reduced to radioactive wastelands. The Jews went easy on em before because they couldn't afford to lose our support. If, just saying, a President Trump took the choker chain off em there probably isn't much in the Middle East could stop them. And when it was over there would be peace in the Middle East because the surviving Arabs would be, to borrow a line, satisfied with less.

        Sooner or later somebody will figure out that intractable problems can only be solved when one side loses badly enough that they can't afford to care about the problem anymore. Sometimes you just have to give war a chance.

        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:34PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 29 2016, @11:34PM (#408166) Homepage Journal

          Heinlein was, as usual, correct in his assessment [goodreads.com] that "violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.”

          That said, just because it's true, that doesn't mean that violence is a positive or desirable thing.

          As Salvor Hardin [wikipedia.org] pointed out, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." With all due respect to the memory of Mr. Asimov, I'll go the same way as Ambrose Bierce [bartleby.com] did with Samuel Johnson [samueljohnson.com] regarding patriotism, and submit that it is the first.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr