Obama to Veto Bill Allowing 9/11 Lawsuits Against Saudi Arabia

[Coventina]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — The White House said on Monday that President Obama would veto legislation approved by Congress that would allow the families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot, escalating a bipartisan dispute with lawmakers over the measure.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said Mr. Obama “does intend to veto this legislation,” and would work to persuade lawmakers in both parties to change course. If he cannot, the measure could lead to the first veto override of his presidency, as the legislation drew the backing of lopsided majorities in both the House and Senate.

“The president feels quite strongly about this,” Mr. Earnest said of the legislation, which Mr. Obama has said could dangerously undermine the United States’ interests globally, opening the country to a raft of lawsuits by private citizens overseas.

“The concept of sovereign immunity is one that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world,” Mr. Earnest said, referring to the rationale behind a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members, or even U.S. companies, into courts around the world.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/us/politics/obama-veto-saudi-arabia-9-11.html?_r=0

---

Disappointing....

[forest444]

1. Please don't do this, Mr. President.

Besides being the wrong thing to do (no matter what the lobbyists tell you), this will be political gold both for Trump and GOP candidates all the way down the ticket. We'd be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with this.

[atreides1]

14. And when citizens of foreign countries

Decide to sue the US for torture, illegal imprisonment, murder of civilians via the US military...will you support them as well...or are you like the Republicans a one sided finger pointer????

[forest444]

20. And when Trump wins thanks to this misguided veto, with GOP majorities in the House and Senate,

who will you point fingers at, my dear artreides?

[YankmeCrankme]

21. I thought you were being sarcastic

Of course I'd want the US to be sued for torture, illegal imprisonment and murder of civilians! Are you saying you think the US should get away with doing those things???

If you're going to argue that anyone can make those accusations, anytime without proof. Well, that's what the court will decide, whether they are baseless or, if indeed, the US did comment those crimes.

All good to me.

[forest444]

28. Well said. Because besides being wrong, this veto is just pointless.

With or without this veto, many U.S. nationals - including most figures in the Bush national security council - will continue being under multiple indictments in any number of countries. Indeed, many of them have outstanding international arrest warrants overseas - including the EU, which they can't even set foot on without being arrested on the spot.

They're still walking free only because we coddle them, as do certain other counties such as Colombia, Switzerland, and (of course) Saudi Arabia.

This bring us back to the veto.

Perhaps our friend artreides felt I was being unsympathetic to Obama's predicament. Far from it.

The Saudis, true to form, are obviously extorting our President with threats of dumping dollar-denominated securities and U.S. investments, of switching all oil contracts to Euros, and God-only-knows what else.

They know that, while we would eventually recover (just as we recovered from the Bush debacle), the shockwaves from news like those would throw the U.S. into a temporary - but very sharp - recession. That our country is being extorted in this way, that is what should be infuriating people. Instead, it will be the veto itself.

If that translates into a Trump victory, the consequences would be as bad or worse than any amount of economic retaliation the dirty Saudis could throw at us.

[democrattotheend]

33. If the lobbyists wanted the bill to fail, it wouldn't have passed overwhelmingly

Lobbyists have WAY more control over Congress than they do over the president, particularly a term limited president with 4 months left in office.

[asiliveandbreathe]

2. Wait - think about this for a moment - listen -

Mr. Earnest said -

referring to the rationale behind a 1976 law that gives other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members, or even U.S. companies, into courts around the world -

This is exactly what the republicans want - for trump to run away with this veto - which makes sense in the context of the 1976 law...

I am with DU 99.9% of the time....I don't like the TPP either - this veto is the right thing to do...I just hope it is veto proof...which I think it is....

[metroins]

4. I agree

The USA is a safe place for investments. We should handle international matters at a governmental level, not civilian.

I'm not super knowledgeable in the topic, but I don't like civilians bringing lawsuits against sovereign nations.

[asiliveandbreathe]

6. I just hope it is veto proof - reading the

article again..who knows??

I'm not super knowledgeable re subject either - but for the reasons in the 1976 law..makes perfect sense..so what could come out of this -

Just like what you said - "I don't like civilians bringing lawsuits against sovereign nations." - It is a two way street that could be paved - look what we did in Iraq and elsewhere - imagine the civil lawsuits from what the previous admin did to those people...

This law of 1976 gives us immunity..in return foreign lands have immunity -..be well..

[cprise]

16. The selectivity of Globalization right there.

[underthematrix]

3. It's all about understanding the impact of such a law

President Obama is expected to veto a bill Congress approved without objection that would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian government, a White House spokesman said Monday.

The president has opposed the bill, which would let courts waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in cases involving terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, over fears that foreign governments might exploit the move to drag American officials into court.

Yet the White House's effort to stop the widely-popular measure from becoming law might be short-lived: congressional leaders have already suggested they would try to override a veto, and probably have sufficient support in both chambers to do so. and here's the linkhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/12/aiming-to-avert-shutdown-obama-to-meet-with-congress-leaders-at-white-house/

The President has to think about the intended and unintended consequences of a such a bill in the long term.

I agree with the President on this one.

The Congress may have enough votes to override veto. In 3 years, politicians who voted for this are going to deny it.

[grahamhgreen]

10. He needs to understand the impact of 2 747's into the sides of buildings, funded and manned by Sauds

[cstanleytech]

15. Just because some involved were citizens of that nation does not mean the nation is at fault.

It would be like the parents of Meredith Kercher suing the US rather than Amanda Knox in court for their daughters death.

[YankmeCrankme]

23. Well, that's what a suit will determine

Were the Saudi government or people in the Saudi government involved in supporting those that flew the planes into the buildings? If they weren't they win the suit and don't have to pay, but if they were involved they need to be held accountable.

[cstanleytech]

30. No, this law would let the people sue the Saudi government regardless and thats why it needs to be

vetoed and thats why it was a bad law.

[JonLP24]

36. Ambassador Bandar was the point man for all

I'm on a phoene but there is so much evidence of this, including the Saudi cables.

This was the wrong move here. The Saudis are the original Wahabbis, not Al Qaeda.

[underthematrix]

17. He does. However he's takes the long view on how it would impact Americans

especially our military.

You know some people just can't anticipate the consequences and that's understandable but really I think the President is making the right call.

[grahamhgreen]

40. This administration has unintended us into 8 more years in Iraq. We know Iraq was innocent in 9-11,

but we can't even allow a law suit against those who we know funded it?

This whole war thing has been a scam from the get go.

I want my 6 trillion back, and the lives of my soldiers.

And I know who has the money.

[underthematrix]

41. Talk to the white GOP President who got us into this mess

not the black DEM President who has had to clean it up. There are lots of moving parts in wars and much of it is corporate interference and sabotage.

[vadermike]

5. Ok

Maybe we should just hand the GOP this election ??

[asiliveandbreathe]

9. Oh, now don't say that - we have laws on the books

that have held for years.....I'm not super knowledgeable re the law of 1976 - so we should have sued the people who bombed 13 embassy abroad during Jrs admin? - No, they have immunity - just as we do....be well..

[underthematrix]

18. My life is literally on the line

so I won't be voting for Trump.

[Jason1961]

7. Obama will not have to answer for this...

HRC will and make no mistake, this will be used as a wedge to divide her support. We must remain strong and by her side because the Republicans have been given a lot of ammunition in the past two weeks; let's just hope they're dumb enough to shoot themselves first.

[treestar]

8. How can Congress decree such lawsuits?

What about international law? Are they to be sued in the US and how does the US have jurisdiction?

How could the Statute of Limitations not be long passed? How could they make out a claim and prove it by a preponderance of the evidence? That would be at this point a mere CT.

[marble falls]

37. There is no

Statute of Limitations on murder. However, I agree with the President.

[treestar]

38. Murder as a criminal charge

But a civil case for damages would be what they'd sue a country for. That will have a Statute of Limitations. Still they'd have to prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence in some court and that would be pretty hard to do. It was OBL and Al Qaeda and the Saudis had kicked OBL out. Really unlikely they actually helped plan it.

[ColemanMaskell]

42. "Such lawsuits" would enable them to grab Saudi assets held in American banks (to answer treestar)

[treestar]

44. they'd be civil and there is always a statute of limitations

and then the problem of trying to prove it. The courts are not going to just give them a judgment and let them take assets.

[deathrind]

11. There is no way he.

Cannot veto this. Unfortunately the last paragraph explains clearly why.

[Auggie]

12. Asinine, embarrassing bill. It should have never been sent to the Presidents' desk.

[Jake Stern]

13. Yet Obama has no problem with lawsuits against Iran for the same thing

He shouldn't be a hypocrite, if he's going to allow Iran to be sued in the name of "justice" then he should allow the victims of Saudi funded terrorism to seek the same "justice"

[cstanleytech]

19. Except the Iranian government was providing aid back then and thus is culpable but in this case

there is no shred of evidence that proves that the Saudi Arabian government supported the 9/11 attacks.

[Jake Stern]

31. Then let the families have their day in court

and get a chance to provide their evidence.

[cstanleytech]

32. So your expecting Saudi Arabia to prove it had nothing to do with it? Its not up to them to prove

they are innocent its up to the people to prove they are guilty and there is zero, zip, zilch as far as any evidence that would support such a case at this time.

[ColemanMaskell]

43. Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal cases. Preponderance of evidence for civil cases.

cstanleytech, Remember the OJ trials? He was freed on the criminal case, because he had not been proven guilty. Then they brought a civil case against him, and he lost that, because the rule there is different: the preponderance of evidence. So this proposed law applies to Civil lawsuits, where the plaintiffs don't really have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt; they only have to prove that the premise is more likely than not.

[stupidicus]

24. yep

http://www.winderfirm.com/library/9-11-lawsuit-federal-court-awards-7-billion-in-final-judgment.html

He figures that he and others will have enough trouble passing through the Pearly Gates without leaving the financial burdens behind for others to deal with.

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. A moronic, grandstanding bill

I'm glad we have a President with foresight and courage.

Mr. President.

[truthisfreedom]

26. I totally agree. The President is almost always several moves ahead when it comes to complicated

issues. This is one of those. He's protecting Americans, not protecting Saudis. There are other methods.

[stupidicus]

25. well, that's what being a rogue state with a history of war crimes should result in

is at the least the victims being compensated for their losses.

That's likely what and all that 1976 law is all about -- protecting our collective asses from the high price we should be compelled to pay in reparations through reciprocity. We'd owe more than the next 20-30 countries combined no doubt.

[forgotmylogin]

27. The Republicans want this?

Wouldn't it open Bush/Cheney to those war crimes tribunals some other countries threatened?

[Bradical79]

35. I would think so

I can imagine a lot of them, particularly the tea party lot, haven't really thought about the full implications.

[Little Tich]

29. A sensible veto of not so sensible legislation. n/t

[Bradical79]

34. It makes sense as President of the U.S.

He knows it will open up a huge can of worms.

Personally, I can't decide if it's good or bad. It's certainly complicated.

[William Seger]

39. Well, Obama probably knows more than we do how exposed the US would be

It would be great if the US could say that we're always on the side of justice, however the chips may fall. It's actually kind of depressing that Obama is going to veto the bill for fear that the US will get the worst of it.