100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama vetoes 9/11 bill | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, setting up showdown with Congress
President Obama on Friday vetoed a widely supported bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia – setting up a showdown with Congress where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aim to override the president’s decision. Obama, vetoing the legislation just hours before it was set to become law, cited the potential for the bipartisan bill to backfire against the U.S., its diplomats and military personnel. While saying he has “deep sympathy” for 9/11 victims’ families, Obama said the bill “does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.” But Congress was expected to move rapidly to try to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. A successful override would be the first of Obama's presidency. With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign ahead of the November election, a vote could come as early as Tuesday. Even House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, an Obama ally, indicated support this week for an override, saying members believe the families “should have their day in court.” Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called the veto a “disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would take up the override "as soon as practicable in this work period." The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act sailed through both chambers of Congress by voice vote, with final House passage coming just two days before Obama led the nation in marking the 15th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. The legislation gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, strongly objected to the bill. Obama long had objected, too, warning that if U.S. citizens are allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries could do the same to the United States, its diplomats and its service members. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a longstanding yet difficult relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis as a counter to Iran's influence in the region as well as to help combat the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East. It remains unclear whether the White House has peeled off enough votes to avert a veto override, which would be a major defeat for the president. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, setting up showdown with Congress President Obama on Friday vetoed a widely supported bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia – setting up a showdown with Congress where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aim to override the president’s decision. Obama, vetoing the legislation just hours before it was set to become law, cited the potential for the bipartisan bill to backfire against the U.S., its diplomats and military personnel. While saying he has “deep sympathy” for 9/11 victims’ families, Obama said the bill “does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.” But Congress was expected to move rapidly to try to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. A successful override would be the first of Obama's presidency. With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign ahead of the November election, a vote could come as early as Tuesday. Even House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, an Obama ally, indicated support this week for an override, saying members believe the families “should have their day in court.” Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called the veto a “disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would take up the override "as soon as practicable in this work period." The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act sailed through both chambers of Congress by voice vote, with final House passage coming just two days before Obama led the nation in marking the 15th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. The legislation gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, strongly objected to the bill. Obama long had objected, too, warning that if U.S. citizens are allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries could do the same to the United States, its diplomats and its service members. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a longstanding yet difficult relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis as a counter to Iran's influence in the region as well as to help combat the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East. It remains unclear whether the White House has peeled off enough votes to avert a veto override, which would be a major defeat for the president.
I dunno, Saudi Arabia is a key ally of our against Iran. Maybe one or two members of the royal family supported Al Qaeda, but there are literally thousands of members of the royal family. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
isaac_dede
on
Sat 09/24/16 01:26 PM
|
|
While I'm not a fan of Obama I do agree with him on this, and I hope this doesn't get overturned.
This bill is based on irrational emotions, and he is right. If we allow our citizens to sue a foreign government, then we are opening up our government to being sued by other countries citizens. Do we really want a Muslim citizen suing our government for making alcohol legal in our country? Of course this would need to be fought in courts...by lawyers paid for by our tax dollars... The bill is a bad idea, and I'm glad he can see that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iraqi citizens suing our military for property damage caused by U.S air strikes.
Terrorist suing our CIA for violating their privacy by tapping their phones. The list could be endless. ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, none of us are legal experts here. So I looked up what I could, and I learned that the reason for the now vetoed bill, was to create a special exception for the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Here's what I read, for others to check: http://articles.philly.com/2008-06-02/news/24990158_1_foreign-governments-federal-court-foreign-sovereign-immunities-act What I'm seeing there, if I'm reading it right, is that the previous exceptions have been made, because there was evidence to show that the foreign governments were directly involved with the crimes that they were sued for. If that's accurate, then, so far at least, since there is no evidence that anyone in the Saudi government was involved, there shouldn't be an exception made here. I just hope that if Congress does vote to override, that they do so for the right reasons. They have a reputation of late for doing things, even ignoring their Constitutional duties, simply to get one over on the President they don't like. The other bad reason to override, is for individual political propaganda purposes for each Senator and Congressman who votes to do so. Trying to get extra votes by playing blindly self-righteous 9-11 victim supporter, isn't respectable for anyone. Republicans and Democrats each have their signature fake concern games that they could play with this, and it would be despicable if any of them do so. JMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The veto will be over-ridden.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, none of us are legal experts here. So I looked up what I could, and I learned that the reason for the now vetoed bill, was to create a special exception for the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Here's what I read, for others to check: http://articles.philly.com/2008-06-02/news/24990158_1_foreign-governments-federal-court-foreign-sovereign-immunities-act What I'm seeing there, if I'm reading it right, is that the previous exceptions have been made, because there was evidence to show that the foreign governments were directly involved with the crimes that they were sued for. If that's accurate, then, so far at least, since there is no evidence that anyone in the Saudi government was involved, there shouldn't be an exception made here. I just hope that if Congress does vote to override, that they do so for the right reasons. They have a reputation of late for doing things, even ignoring their Constitutional duties, simply to get one over on the President they don't like. The other bad reason to override, is for individual political propaganda purposes for each Senator and Congressman who votes to do so. Trying to get extra votes by playing blindly self-righteous 9-11 victim supporter, isn't respectable for anyone. Republicans and Democrats each have their signature fake concern games that they could play with this, and it would be despicable if any of them do so. JMO. I think you know where I stand on Obama, but I agree with him on this and I think there's a lot more to it then just what you posted...... It could also cost a key ally in the Middle East who are against Iran. We don't want to burn that bridge. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can't be suing the country of Oblowme's king! He cares more about their rights and welfare than ours I guess 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly, none of us are legal experts here. So I looked up what I could, and I learned that the reason for the now vetoed bill, was to create a special exception for the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Here's what I read, for others to check: http://articles.philly.com/2008-06-02/news/24990158_1_foreign-governments-federal-court-foreign-sovereign-immunities-act What I'm seeing there, if I'm reading it right, is that the previous exceptions have been made, because there was evidence to show that the foreign governments were directly involved with the crimes that they were sued for. If that's accurate, then, so far at least, since there is no evidence that anyone in the Saudi government was involved, there shouldn't be an exception made here. I just hope that if Congress does vote to override, that they do so for the right reasons. They have a reputation of late for doing things, even ignoring their Constitutional duties, simply to get one over on the President they don't like. The other bad reason to override, is for individual political propaganda purposes for each Senator and Congressman who votes to do so. Trying to get extra votes by playing blindly self-righteous 9-11 victim supporter, isn't respectable for anyone. Republicans and Democrats each have their signature fake concern games that they could play with this, and it would be despicable if any of them do so. JMO. I think you know where I stand on Obama, but I agree with him on this and I think there's a lot more to it then just what you posted...... They are too invested in the US to let a few million $$$ get in the way of any business or political dealings. They could care less how our people feel about much of anything. It's about their image to their own citizens and the damage that could cause. Totally different "kind" of news and internet access there in the Kingdom but some things you can't hide..... like your country being sued for terrorist acts... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He is playing a dangerous game now......some one know what I'm meaning......don't try to scence me something about go calm those boy what the hell is current situation is.......I bet 1dollar that will be solution of kan what Obama still getting no **** to it.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well since 9/11 created 3-4 wars and more than a decade of misery, I think the Saudis need to be brought up to the responsibility table and get their azzes handed to them.
Perhaps the Americans SHOULD also get sued on their end for causing such destruction based on lies and deception, maybe next time they won't act so rash. 2 allies are responsible... fess up! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something which most people here are entirely ignoring, in favor of whichever personal agenda of the moment they enjoy feigning intensity about, is that the situation and various interacting nations of the Middle East is extremely complex, and those complexities date back to long before the existence or even the conceptualization of the United States.
The story of how and why the Saudis behave as they do, has never been discussed or explained as deeply and thoroughly as it needs to be, for Americans to be able to talk about these particular details in any informed way. People who know nothing of the past of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of Putin, can, and have been easily fooled into admiring Putin's actions and speeches, to the point even of praising Putin as doing what Obama should do. That sort of ignorant crap infests this subject area as well. The Saudis have been, and still are, making a variety of strategic mistakes, but the reason why they do whatever they do, is NOT REMOTELY as simple as what those who point fingers at them here understand. What they do to keep themselves in power, and to try to guide their people along in a world that is NOT under their control, is complicated as well. They haven't tolerated terrorist financing amongst their people because they hope to disrupt and destroy the world they make their greatest profits from, and it's more than foolish to assume they have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, setting up showdown with Congress President Obama on Friday vetoed a widely supported bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia – setting up a showdown with Congress where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aim to override the president’s decision. Obama, vetoing the legislation just hours before it was set to become law, cited the potential for the bipartisan bill to backfire against the U.S., its diplomats and military personnel. While saying he has “deep sympathy” for 9/11 victims’ families, Obama said the bill “does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.” But Congress was expected to move rapidly to try to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. A successful override would be the first of Obama's presidency. With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign ahead of the November election, a vote could come as early as Tuesday. Even House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, an Obama ally, indicated support this week for an override, saying members believe the families “should have their day in court.” Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called the veto a “disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would take up the override "as soon as practicable in this work period." The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act sailed through both chambers of Congress by voice vote, with final House passage coming just two days before Obama led the nation in marking the 15th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. The legislation gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, strongly objected to the bill. Obama long had objected, too, warning that if U.S. citizens are allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries could do the same to the United States, its diplomats and its service members. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a longstanding yet difficult relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis as a counter to Iran's influence in the region as well as to help combat the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East. It remains unclear whether the White House has peeled off enough votes to avert a veto override, which would be a major defeat for the president.
I dunno, Saudi Arabia is a key ally of our against Iran. Maybe one or two members of the royal family supported Al Qaeda, but there are literally thousands of members of the royal family. The Saudi's have never been a reliable ally to the US. They have just used the US to protect their own interest. Some of the most anti-western hate is fermented in their mosque with the Royal families approval and endorsement. I could care less if this bill is over-ridden or not but looks like it will be. We will see how good of an ally they really are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 09/25/16 04:57 PM
|
|
I am not going to claim to know much about this sue topic, but I do know that after 9-11 every first responder that worked there during and after (and their family) was offered a " financial package" I know this for a fact as I had two brothers there working that day. and both were offered the package. 1 took it. 1 did not. I also know that every family that lost a loved one who worked for the city of N.Y. on that day was financially cared for.. and still is. To include free college for their children. I also had 3 friends who were working in the towers and who were all killed. All worked for companies doing business in the twin towers. Fact is they never found even a shred of them... nothing.. vaporized. But their families are also well cared for. So, I really don't understand how anyone could be suing anyone on this.. at this point. But maybe I am wrong. The story is not the same for all concerned or involved that day or in the aftermath sadly I have friends, survivors and responders, who are still not getting the care or recognition they should be. One is still having surgeries he has to fight for every time, and he helped over 30 people out of the towers and was one of those found under the crushed fire truck buried under the rubble 2 days after the event. He was even on the news doing interviews in recovery and later when he had to fight for his continued medical care. He was a survivor, not a responder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something which most people here are entirely ignoring, in favor of whichever personal agenda of the moment they enjoy feigning intensity about, is that the situation and various interacting nations of the Middle East is extremely complex, and those complexities date back to long before the existence or even the conceptualization of the United States. The story of how and why the Saudis behave as they do, has never been discussed or explained as deeply and thoroughly as it needs to be, for Americans to be able to talk about these particular details in any informed way. People who know nothing of the past of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and of Putin, can, and have been easily fooled into admiring Putin's actions and speeches, to the point even of praising Putin as doing what Obama should do. That sort of ignorant crap infests this subject area as well. The Saudis have been, and still are, making a variety of strategic mistakes, but the reason why they do whatever they do, is NOT REMOTELY as simple as what those who point fingers at them here understand. What they do to keep themselves in power, and to try to guide their people along in a world that is NOT under their control, is complicated as well. They haven't tolerated terrorist financing amongst their people because they hope to disrupt and destroy the world they make their greatest profits from, and it's more than foolish to assume they have. Something you clearly don't understand is that their religion trumps all. Yes the royal family may want their palaces and their Ferrari sports cars, but it is control of Mecca and Medina that matters more than any. What they do has everything to do with protecting those cities. Why do you think they are enemies of Iran? Because Iran wants those cities. The control of the Islamic world is Mecca and Medina. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obama vetoes 9/11 bill, setting up showdown with Congress President Obama on Friday vetoed a widely supported bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia – setting up a showdown with Congress where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aim to override the president’s decision. Obama, vetoing the legislation just hours before it was set to become law, cited the potential for the bipartisan bill to backfire against the U.S., its diplomats and military personnel. While saying he has “deep sympathy” for 9/11 victims’ families, Obama said the bill “does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. interests.” But Congress was expected to move rapidly to try to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. A successful override would be the first of Obama's presidency. With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign ahead of the November election, a vote could come as early as Tuesday. Even House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, an Obama ally, indicated support this week for an override, saying members believe the families “should have their day in court.” Democratic New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called the veto a “disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would take up the override "as soon as practicable in this work period." The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act sailed through both chambers of Congress by voice vote, with final House passage coming just two days before Obama led the nation in marking the 15th anniversary of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. The legislation gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, strongly objected to the bill. Obama long had objected, too, warning that if U.S. citizens are allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries could do the same to the United States, its diplomats and its service members. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a longstanding yet difficult relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis as a counter to Iran's influence in the region as well as to help combat the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East. It remains unclear whether the White House has peeled off enough votes to avert a veto override, which would be a major defeat for the president.
I dunno, Saudi Arabia is a key ally of our against Iran. Maybe one or two members of the royal family supported Al Qaeda, but there are literally thousands of members of the royal family. The Saudi's have never been a reliable ally to the US. They have just used the US to protect their own interest. Some of the most anti-western hate is fermented in their mosque with the Royal families approval and endorsement. I could care less if this bill is over-ridden or not but looks like it will be. We will see how good of an ally they really are. Just like we have used them for our benefit and to protect our interests. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hehehehehehe......never draging the kid to force it growth up.......then you do so those bone will gona "CRAK!!!"
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hehehehehehe......never draging the kid to force it growth up.......then you do so those bone will gona "CRAK!!!"
I was going to say that. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hehehehehehe......never draging the kid to force it growth up.......then you do so those bone will gona "CRAK!!!"
I was going to say that.
Hey ya....... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seems the Senate over-rode Obama's Veto!
How dare they to besmirch Obama's "Legacy" like that? 
|
|
|
|
|
