Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill

[XXL]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/senate-votes-to-override-obama-veto-on-9-11-victims-bill.html?_r=0

Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill

 

WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority in Congress on Wednesday overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, the first successful override vote of his presidency.

The 9/11 override is a remarkable yet complicated bipartisan rebuttal, even as some its supporters conceded that they did not fully support the legislation they had just voted for. Mr. Obama and his allies vowed to find a way to tweak the legislation later.

In recent days, Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto.

The law “could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members,” Mr. Obama wrote, “and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities.” The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future.

Yet most of Mr. Obama’s greatest allies on Capitol Hill, who have labored for nearly eight years to stop most bills he opposes from even crossing his desk, turned against him, joining Republicans in the remonstrance.

“This is a decision I do not take lightly,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and one of the authors of this legislation. “This bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker, because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice, finally giving them a legal avenue to pursue foreign sponsors of the terrorist attack that took from them the lives of their loved ones.”

Only one senator, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, siding with the president as 97 others voted Wednesday to override. In the House, the veto override was approved a few hours later, 348 to 77.

The bill succeeded not with significant congressional debate or intense pressure from voters, but rather through the sheer will of the victims’ families, who seized on the 15th anniversary of the attack and an election year to lean on members of Congress. That effort was aided by the waning patience of lawmakers with the kingdom in recent years.

The Senate vote also represents another White House miscalculation on Capitol Hill, where it was once again slow to pressure members and to see the cracks in its firewall against the bill.

Further, the veto override, while thrilling to many Republicans, came on a bill that was far from the Republicans’ priorities of unraveling the health care law and pushing back on government regulations. Nor was it a measure they had hoped to secure with the president’s help, like overhauling the tax code or passing a major trade agreement.
 

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, gave voice to the unusual ambivalence that many members of Congress have expressed since they together unanimously passed the bill.

“I do want to say I don’t think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation,” said Mr. Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who presumably could have played a role in the hearings and debate he said went lacking. “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote,” which he then cast.

The measure would amend a 1976 law that granted other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits, allowing nations to be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil.

For several weeks this summer, a handful of Republican senators blocked the bill as they worked to soften its impact.

They managed to add a provision that would allow the executive branch to halt the litigation if the executive branch proved in court that good-faith negotiations for a settlement with a nation were underway. This would preserve the executive branch’s purview over foreign policy while still giving a pathway for family members to sue.

The Senate then voted unanimously to pass the bill and send it to the House, with many lawmakers and many White House officials believing that the House would never take up the legislation. Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin has made skeptical remarks about the measure, and Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the House Judiciary committee, did little with it.

Then earlier this month, Mr. Ryan, who had encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island, reversed suddenly his usual position of bringing no major bill to the House floor that had not passed muster with the relevant committee, and put the bill on a fast track. The House voted hastily and overwhelmingly in favor, sending it to Mr. Obama’s desk.

This led to some of the bill’s co-sponsors to express fear that it would actually become law.

The bill’s path reflects a growing desire to re-examine Washington’s alliance with Saudi Arabia, which for decades has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Middle East, and deep ambivalence, especially among Republicans, of how to move forward.

Shortly before the vote to override, for instance, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, fast-tracked a vote on a measure that sought to block the sale of some tanks to the kingdom, which failed, signaling to Saudi Arabia that Congress had not turned its back on the nation.

 

Saudi Arabia has warned the Obama administration and members of Congress that the law could force them to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets to avoid them from being seized in court settlements. Next came the argument, made by the kingdom’s phalanx of lobbyists, that the law would expose the United States to lawsuits abroad and possibly cause complications for its armed forces.

 

That view was rejected on the Senate floor Wednesday. “This is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and one of the biggest champions of the measure, noting how divided Congress is generally along partisan lines. “All of us have come together and agreed that this is appropriate and the right thing to do,” he said.

The Senate vote was less a swipe at Saudi Arabia, he added, and more about giving victims a voice. “When our interests diverge and it’s a question of protecting American rights and American values, I think we should do that,” he said. “This is not about severing our relationship with any ally. This is simply a matter of justice.”
 

 

[ULIZOS]

They have the U.S. by the balls 

[Skin]

I don't know what the hell to make of this.  Part of me thinks this will open Pandora's Box.

[ULIZOS]

Why, Skin? Saudi Arabia won. The U.S. lost. The powers that be ALWAYS win. 

[Moka]

The idea of an individual suing a country is ridiculous. Can you imagine suing the UK because one british guy killed people in NY? And in terms of international laws it makes no sense either. What happens if a federal court convicts a country? The US will declare war against that country to arrest the country leaders? Ridiculous.

[VogueMusic]

Saudi Arabia is the WORST...but c'mon, suing a country?  These people are beyond incompetent.

[Guest]

Could you imagine chilean people, i mean, All citizen of the country, using US government?

[Skin]

11 hours ago, ULIZOS said:

Why, Skin? Saudi Arabia won. The U.S. lost. The powers that be ALWAYS win.

 

 

But I thought the override of the veto now allows Americans to sue governments like Saudi Arabia?

[runa]

3 hours ago, Moka said:

The idea of an individual suing a country is ridiculous. Can you imagine suing the UK because one british guy killed people in NY? And in terms of international laws it makes no sense either. What happens if a federal court convicts a country? The US will declare war against that country to arrest the country leaders? Ridiculous.

I agree. This is kinda dumb. And no matter how dirty Saudi Arabia is, how can they be held responsible for their citizen's act ? (we all know they are, but still...!)

[ULIZOS]

3 hours ago, Skin said:

 

 

But I thought the override of the veto now allows Americans to sue governments like Saudi Arabia?

You're right! 

Saudi Arabia LOST. I read this wrong: 

An overwhelming majority in Congress on Wednesday overturned President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001

 

Saudi Arabia and  Obama 

[XXL]

20 hours ago, Skin said:

I don't know what the hell to make of this.  Part of me thinks this will open Pandora's Box.

 

We're getting there

I think we are witnessing the destruction of the US from within. The US government, with the complicity of the dodgy Federal Reserve and their equally dodgy quantitative easing policy adopted by the European Central Bank and the Bank of England as well, has been gradually setting up the country for permanent failure on multiple levels. A financial crisis is coming, or more accurately said, it is in its final stages of preparation, an engineered financial collapse that will make 2008/2009 seem like a pleasant diversion. What is going on between the US and China is probably even more alarming than the manipulated confrontation between the US/EU/NATO and Russia

Terrorism, the MIddle East chessboard, rumblings of a new Cold War are all aspects very much tied to this global financial reconfiguration. Of course US media are too busy selling people the Kardashians to actually do what they are supposed to, being an independent verifer and reporter of all that is going on.

 

One aspect of the Pandora's Box you have mentioned Skin:

 

[Moka]

6 minutes ago, XXL said:

If it's a secret trip with terrorist leaders, why is he posing for photos?

[Moka]

The photo was taken during a surprise May 2013 trip McCain took to Syria to meet with rebel leaders in the civil war against President Bashar Assad's regime. Then and now, McCain is a passionate advocate for helping the moderate Free Syrian Army, which has been battling both Assad's forces and the extremists.

McCain's photo with the Syrian rebels misidentified as ISIS fighters has caught fire on social-media platforms such as Twitter. It was distributed in a VoteVets fundraising e-mail dated Tuesday, the same day that ISIS released a grisly video documenting Foley's murder.

Asked by The Republic for documentation or a source for its claim that the McCain photo included ISIS militants, VoteVets could not provide any evidence, but did pass along an Aug. 18 Washington Post column by Souad Mekhennet that makes the point that some "factions" of the Free Syrian Army have joined ISIS.

A representative of the Syrian Emergency Task Force called attempts to link the men in the photo to ISIS "fairly ridiculous."

"None of those people worked for, or has since worked, ever, for ISIS," said Joel Bombardier, a program officer with the task force.

August 23, 2014 - http://www.azcentral.com/story/azdc/2014/08/24/mccain-photo-isis-terrorists-syria/14475207/

[XXL]

1 hour ago, Moka said:

If it's a secret trip with terrorist leaders, why is he posing for photos?

 

It doesn't look like he's posing at all. We have been here before Moka  and I know we disagree but I'll try to explain myself once again

I realise that, partly because we live in a society trapped by labels and an oversemplification of the unfolding of events, it's not easy to accept that there is an overbearing amount of evidence that indicates our Western countries are behind both Alqaeda and ISIS (who made his sudden appearance just what ... 3 years ago?)

Last but not least former US General and NATO Commander Wesley Clark  and a former Labour MP who spoke very clearly about the origins of the terrorism threat propaganda we have been bombarded systematically since 9/11 and before actually.

If anyone still thinks it's normal that 9/11 was squarely blamed on Al Qaeda and then, four years afer 9/11 in the aftermath of the London 7/7 bombings, a top ranking British politician gave a detailed account of how  AlQaeda was a CIA brainchild from the word go and nobody in those same top ranking circles bothered to contradict him, fine then. Pity Mr Cook is not here anymore to elaborate on his July 2005 statements. That assertion alone is tantamount to declaring 9/11 itself to be a CIA child

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

 

The 2000 Project for A New American Century protocols which aimed at redesigning the entire Middle East area, gave us 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, the illegal invasion of Iraq, Libya (six months prior to being taken down Gaddafi was being received with top military honours in Rome, Paris and London, talk about political schizophrenia), the destabilisation of Egypt, Tunisia etc under the guise of the so called Arab Spring "Revolution" (Giulio Regeni paid with his life in this sinister game of deception). Same thing the US and EU have deceptively achieved in Ukraine in regards to Russia by the way, the aim is exactly that, to provoke Russia into a conflict which is mainly what the Syrian conflict is at this stage ALL about too

 

Now, before someone accuses me of saying terrorism doesn't exist or that there aren't form of extremism in the Muslim world or that Putin isn't a dictator, I am not saying this in the least, I am saying that all global terorrism is geopolitically motivated and serves as a tool to reconfigure the balance, or imbalance I should say at this point, between the US/EU, and the Western World in general and emerging colosses in areas of the world that have been once raped and pilfered to no end by those same Western Countries

 

And even conceding that 9/11 wasn't CIA made and as such, a tool that allowed and justified the action that has been undertaken since 2001 all over the world to begin with, we must at least admit that what has been going on in the proximity of Syria in the past 12 months alone is bizzarre and nonsensical to say the least, Turkey, Russian intervention (achieved in three days what the US military didn't seem to be able to achieve in months and we're talking about the US military here), then the sudden Russian withdrawal back in March but Washington still complaining and whining about Russia, the Palmyra story, the downing of a Russian jet by the Turkish military with subseqent Erdogan's mea culpa to Putin shortly before a mysterious coup "threatens" his hold of Turkey, a NATO puppet as much as a state with a political elite prone to more extremist unsecular degenerations and an endless list of odd facts which simply do not square with the official version of events

 

 

 

 

 

 

And this is the reason why the Obama administration has expressed an interest in preventing 9/11 victims from suing Saudi Arabia

 

 

 

Because repressive, brutal, Sunni Saudi Arabia (and ISIS is not a terrorist organisation in general but a Sunni terrorist organisation) is a fundamental tool against Shia countries like Syria and Iran, who represent a strategic threat to the West in that region, the only remaning one and that's why Russia has a keen interest in preventing that stage to be reached. So the irony in saying they want to free the Syrians from a dictator when they are bending over backwards to an entity such as Saudi Arabia

People have not learned anything from Iraq and Libya, just yet, until the lie is too big and obvious to be dismissed or ignored.