Schumer upends 9/11 Saudi suit bill at 11th hour

[Shemp Howard]

I saw this on Facebook, but the only actual article I could find about it was at the (heavily slanted) NY Post. What's going on here? From the Post:

Last week’s unanimous passage of a Senate bill making it easier for 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia and other foreign terror sponsors was widely heralded as a major victory.

It’s more of a cruel hoax.

It turns out that just before the vote, Sen. Charles Schumer and other proponents of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act stuffed an amendment into the final draft allowing the attorney general and secretary of state to stop any litigation against the Saudis in its tracks.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/24/sneaky-schumer-added-loophole-to-halt-911-saudi-suits/

[panader0]

1. IIRC, the bill would have allowed other countries to sue the US and lawsuits run amok.

I'm not sure how to feel about it. I remember a suit back in the Clinton days, I believe,
that the US citizen won, but could never recover the money. Some was finally paid by
US taxpayers.

[moonbabygo]

3. was that the one

Where some high school went on a trip (I don't remember where) and their plane got blown up. It happened in like 1988 and they final got to sue in the 90s

[Fuddnik]

2. Your corporate Democrats at work.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

4. Protecting the co-architects of the 9/11 slaughter, along with bushcheneyco, who MIHOP. nt

[GoneFishin]

5. There are more layers to this "Saudi" matter than appear on the surface. I doubt Chuck Schumer

gives a shit about whether the Saudis get sued or not. But I'll bet there are things that might come out during discovery, or which may get uncovered during the resulting reviews of 9/11 materials and which he would prefer be kept quiet.

[TexasProgresive]

6. Maybe it's Section 5 of the Act.

I would like to note that all the sites I found repeating Schumer upended the act seem to be right wing.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040/text

SEC. 5. Stay of actions pending state negotiations.

(a) Exclusive jurisdiction.—The courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act.

(b) Intervention.—The Attorney General may intervene in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States under section 1605B of title 28, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, for the purpose of seeking a stay of the civil action, in whole or in part.

(c) Stay.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A court of the United States may stay a proceeding against a foreign state if the Secretary of State certifies that the United States is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.

(2) DURATION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—A stay under this section may be granted for not more than 180 days.

(B) EXTENSION.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General may petition the court for an extension of the stay for additional 180-day periods.

(ii) RECERTIFICATION.—A court shall grant an extension under clause (i) if the Secretary of State recertifies that the United States remains engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.

[Shemp Howard]

8. Thanks for the research, Tex.

It looks like the bill really was gutted. Lawsuits can be delayed 180 days at a time for essentially forever.

But I do find it interesting that Saudi Arabia was not mentioned. So I guess the government can delay any case against any foreign government.

So the overall bill is just fancy window-dressing, a bill that really has no teeth.

[Faux pas]

7. Kickin' with disgust