Obama Vetoes Bill to Let 9/11 Families Sue Saudi Arabia

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Source: NBC

President Barack Obama on Friday vetoed controversial legislation aimed at helping the families of the victims of the September 11th attacks sue Saudi Arabia — a move that sets up an emotionally-charged, election year showdown between an outgoing commander-in-chief and members of his party who supported the bill.

The measure, which was unanimously passed by both the House and Senate, enables the families of victims of the September 11th attacks to sue Saudi Arabia if that country is found legally liable for helping support the deadliest terrorist acts on U.S. soil. Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were Saudi and that nation's leaders have previously opposed the legislation and denied involvement.

The White House is strongly opposed to the legislation out of concerns it will open the floodgates and leave the U.S. vulnerable to similar suits. A bipartisan group of lawmakers backed the 9/11 families bill.

The president, in a statement explaining the veto said he has "deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have suffered grievously. I also have a deep appreciation of these families' desire to pursue justice and am strongly committed to assisting them in their efforts."

Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-vetoes-bill-let-9-11-families-sue-saudi-arabia-n652911

[forest444]

1. Sorry; but: wrong call, Mr. President.

This veto will only hurt the Obama legacy, and for nothing because it will be overriden anyway.

It's also a Trump attack ad that practically writes itself.

[underthematrix]

26. I don't think it hurt his legacy because his reasons have to do with the impact on ME foreign policy

I think if Congress overrides it with 2/3 vote, the chaos that results will probably result in a lot of OH GEE GOLLY we're gonna have to rethink this

[yurbud]

31. supposedly, our whole Middle East policy is about catching terrorists this bill would allow us to

do that.

Obama has done a fair number of extra legal things related to the War on Terror like the drone strikes and our current involvement in Syria, yet when it comes to finding out why operatives of the government of Saudi Arabia gave so much help to the 9/11 hijackers, we can't even risk using LEGAL means to go after them?

Even so, I give Obama credit for declassifying the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report. I just wish he would keep up that level of courage.

[underthematrix]

32. welp when foreign nationals and governments start suing our military and diplomats I think

the unintended consequences of this bill will become clear. BTW President Obama doesn't engage in extra legal acts. The drone strikes are not extra legal. They fall within legal framework of national security and international agreements on the war on terrorism.

[Auggie]

2. Good veto. Absurd bill.

[cpwm17]

3. But Iran is being told they have to pay 9-11 victims in a ridiculous judgement:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-10/iran-told-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.

U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.

[jtuck004]

8. "In Iran and Iraq, a gesture involving exposing only the thumb in a vertical orientation – a thumbs

"In Iran and Iraq, a gesture involving exposing only the thumb in a vertical orientation – a thumbs up – is used in lieu of the finger to express roughly the same sentiment."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_finger

[cpwm17]

10. Oh my!

I gave that gesture once to an Iraqi when I was there with the US Air Force. I think he knew I what I meant by the gesture, but afterwards I wondered if it meant the same thing in their culture. He was with a group on base in Baghdad, Iraq to pick up some pallets of cash that the US had just flown in.

[jtuck004]

14. So you were giving him an American thumbs up, vs an Iranian one?

I bet the pallets of cash distracted him...

[cpwm17]

15. Yes, and he didn't seem upset

Baghdad cash

[LTG]

21. 28 U.S. Code Section 1605A

Permits the bringing of lawsuits for damages by private US citizens against foreign states that are listed by the United States as State Sponsors of Terrorism, as long as certain elements are present.

[davidn3600]

4. They are going to override this

Just FYI...Hillary Clinton supports the bill. And it passed Congress unanimously.

Obama is alone on this.

[Puzzledtraveller]

19. Heavy arm twisting by the Saudis no doubt

I would not have wanted to be the president on this issue where he may well have wanted to sign it but had to protect financial interests. A rock and a hard place.

[NobodyHere]

5. So let's say somebody successfully sues Saudi Arabia

Who's gonna force them to fork over the dough?

[branford]

9. The Saudi government has a lot of investments and other assets

in the USA that can be attached and seized in any litigation. The distinction between certain government officials and the government itself is also often not very clear (recall the royal family essentially is the government). The litigation resulting in attempts by plaintiffs to go after the assets of individual Saudis would also be very embarrassing for both the USA and Saudi Arabia.

As a matter of foreign policy, I certainly understand the president's veto. However, as a matter of politics and public perception, it's is a big loser. A likely veto override during an election, and supported openly or implicitly by Clinton, will additionally diminish the power and influence of Obama in his waning days in office.

The bill was a very shrewd and cynical tactic by the Republican House and Senate. They cannot politically lose as they divide Democrats and the president looks like he's protecting terrorists.

[Botany]

7. President Obama no doubt knows that the Saudis were behind 9/11 but .....

.... he knows a lot more about "things" then I ever will and if he thinks this is the
right thing to do I will have his back.

[moonscape]

29. I'm there with you. n/t

[alphafemale]

11. Horrible precedent to establish.

Though the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 they are nothing compared to the carnage the U.S. government has spread around the world and even on our own soil.

[joshcryer]

22. I wouldn't mind seeing Blackwater and its investors...

...getting sued for their shit.

[alphafemale]

24. It wouldn't be them that payed. nt

[joshcryer]

25. Somebody's culpable.

[jalan48]

12. Our government hid the information about the Saudi's involvement in 9-11 for 15 years.

Last edited Fri Sep 23, 2016, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Now that it has finally been reported to the public we can't sue because of precedent. Seems like there is more to this story than precedent.

[jamzrockz]

28. What exactly did they hide?

I would love to see the smoking gun because I am sure it would lead right back to the US govt. Also I think just like DU, the US govt have no interest whatsoever into opening up this case again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

13. Good

[Thor_MN]

16. Seems to me that if one has unmanned aircraft shooting missles into buildings

setting the precedent of allowing civilian lawsuits against other governments would not be a good idea. I recall lots of stories about wedding parties interrupted by Hellfire missles.

[nikto]

17. The saudis are as pure ...

As The Yellow Snow.




(apologies to Zappa)

[Puzzledtraveller]

18. I am sure American economic interests were threatened by the Saudis

into vetoing this. I can see the president doing this to protect financial interests and perhaps hoping it is overridden.

[Midnight Writer]

20. This stems from American liability from the Bush Iraqi invasion

Under the leadership of the Bush Administration, without a declaration of war, the USA invaded a sovereign nation, under false pretenses, and destroyed that nation. Killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, ruined their infrastructure, and dismantled their society.

Whether you agree we are financially liable for that or not, the rest of the world do not hold such an ambiguous view.

According to them, if the Saudis are liable for their citizens flying jets into our buildings when they have no official beef with us, then we are liable for destroying a country that did not attack us or pose a threat to us.

How much is the country of Iraq and its dead worth, in monetary terms? Much more than we can ever pay.

Does anyone reading this doubt that in the view of the international courts, we will be held liable.

Hell, even Dick Cheney and W himself refuse to travel outside our country in fear of being detained and tried for war crimes.

[joshcryer]

23. I think if you can show financial subterfuge, or political support for something...

...then people should be able to sue. We know the whole Bush Family Empire made bank off of that crap.

We know Saudi princes aided and abetted the 9/11 attackers. Proving it in court, after all this time, of course, is probably not happening to a significant extent.

[FreakinDJ]

27. Sad Disappointing to accentuate his legacy

As with the Banksters responsible for the Great Recession once again moneyed interest win out over the American people