Senate votes to override Obama’s veto of 9/11 bill

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

The Senate on Wednesday voted to override President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged support for the terrorists who carried out the attacks.

The vote was 97 to 1.

The House is expected to vote Thursday and if successful, it will be the first time Congress has overridden a veto during the Obama administration.

“Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who co-authored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said in a statement. “I hope the House will quickly follow suit tomorrow so that the families can have the day in court they deserve.”

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/27/senate-poised-to-vote-to-override-obamas-veto-of-911-bill/

---

They've been talking about how 9/11 families can sue Saudi Arabia, but on the flip side, this opens up the possibility that Iraqi citizens can sue the United States for war crimes.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Now we wait for the unintended consequences.

[onehandle]

2. Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki suing the U.S. for war crimes?

Could be.

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Vietnam and Cambodia, North Korea, Every country in South America

Bosnia, China, the list is endless.

[closeupready]

16. Fine with me. Why ever not? Let defense contractors pay.

[Agnosticsherbet]

25. That won't be defense contractors that pay, but the US government.

This is not about taking foreign corporations to court, but about governments.
It will make for interesting times.

[closeupready]

30. I just sort of threw that in there - I'm fine either way.

If they were harmed, the 'richest country in the history of the multiverse' can well pay whatever judgment is warranted.

[Agnosticsherbet]

37. "Multiverse" is wrong. The United States is the 9th wealthiest country on earth

The richest countries on earth.

Enough judgments against us could cause considerable harm to our economy, which would lead to lost jobs and income for the poor and middle-class.

Unintended Consequences.

[closeupready]

40. Should have thought of that before. Anyway, we aren't talking about that.

We're talking about lawsuits against KSA.

If you want to talk about unintended consequences that MIGHT arise but have NOT yet arisen, then do so and I MIGHT respond in THAT thread. I'm done here with this sub-topic.

Cheers.

[geardaddy]

38. African-Americans, Native Americans, Chinese-Americans...

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. Actually, the UN just said that the US should pay reparations to African-Americans

and I agree that we need to do this with the descendants of all these groups.(Ad Japanese Americans to the list.)

[geardaddy]

42. Yeah, I saw that.

And yes add Japanese-Americans to the list. But I thought the families/survivors of the interment camps were compensated. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Agnosticsherbet]

43. Anti-Japanese and Anti-Chinese exclusion laws were common in the late 1800's

World War II was just a continuation of that.

[geardaddy]

49. Oh yes. I know about that.

The Chinese Exclusion Act didn't allow Chinese people to be naturalized until it was repealed in 1943

And Native Americans weren't officially U. S. citizens until 1924.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

[BumRushDaShow]

63. Japanese-Americans WERE given reparations

thanks to the tireless work of Ron Dellums (D-CA). The appropriation allowed for $20,000 per surviving citizen detainee as of 1988 and ~$5,000 for each native Japanese survivor taken from South America and detained in the U.S.

Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (PDF)

[geardaddy]

66. Thank you.

I thought I remembered that right.

[still_one]

8. I don't think that is likely. I do think that Iraq, Syria, Lybia, etc. are very real possibilities

though

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. Yes, this could be a very real consequence.

American citizens are not the only country to have suffered casualties.

[still_one]

46. The drone strikes alone open up a huge bag of worms

[christx30]

9. We were in a recognized war, one that Japan started,

at the time we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so no, that wouldn't be the same.

[closeupready]

17. Further, does Japan want the full extent of their atrocities proven in court?

?? Don't think so.

[Agnosticsherbet]

54. And we were in the same war when the firebombing of Dresden killed between 25,000 and 500,000.

Civilian Casualties are not the same as deaths of soldiers. Certainly, both of those attacks would be considered war crimes today.

[christx30]

55. As would the Rape of Nanking.

But hardly anyone ever talks about it.

But let's face it: If you're fighting the Axis powers, trying to stop Hirohito, Hitler, and Mussolini from taking over the world, and killing probably billions of people post war, pretty much anything you feel you have to do to the enemy can be justified.

[Agnosticsherbet]

62. The Nuremberg trials found your premise to be in error.

Going forward, it will be interesting to see how this evolves. In a very real way, this sets up a system similar to the Israeli quest to hunt Nazi War criminals and bring them to justice. We could see any group of agreed people, anywhere in the world seeking to holds other nations responsible.
Interesting times may be ahead.

[Tempest]

13. The most likely first one will be Saudi Arabia cancelling military contracts with the US

Contracts and agreements with the military will be the first casualties.

A closer alignment with Russia and China will also most likely occur.

[closeupready]

15. ... said the person who lost no loved one on 9/11.

[Ohioblue22]

27. Only people who lost loved ones are allow to speak on the issue?

[Midnight Writer]

64. Even the bill's sponsors say there might be "unintended consequences"

This is a pure political move. There is no way to prove that the government of Saudi Arabia are responsible for the attack.

There is, however, incontrovertible proof that the USA government is responsible for drone strikes and bombings of wedding parties, hospitals, civilian housing, etc., all without a declaration of war (thanks again to spineless Congress).

They killed three thousand of us on 9-11, and I have a personal belief that members of the Saudi royals were culpable. But try to prove it. Meanwhile, we destroyed the whole country of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands, with no declaration of war, no imminent threat, no reliable evidence of WMDs, no justification other than the newly minted "Bush Doctrine".

And then there are our "dirty little wars" and political assassinations in Central America, South America, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, Cambodia, Laos.

We are far more likely to pay, and pay dearly, than to obtain justice for the wrongs against our fellow citizens.

[Agnosticsherbet]

65. Very good assessment.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. WAPO updated their story link for the override (vote 97-1)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/27/senate-poised-to-vote-to-override-obamas-veto-of-911-bill/

[jalan48]

4. We killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and tortured many others.

Maybe we need to be sued so American's can see how their government operates.

[ffr]

7. And that there's a price lying leaders

I agree.

We caused this mess. Money talks to people, especially hawkish rethugs.

[Coolest Ranger]

6. When other countries

starts suing us, don't come on here complaining.

[LisaM]

11. Yeah, I agree with you.

I agree with Obama on this one.

[closeupready]

19. Why would I? Every country can have its day in court,

as far as I'm concerned. So no, there is ZERO risk I will come on DU to complain that another country is suing the US.

[yeoman6987]

21. And how do you think we will pay for these lawsuits which will be in 10s of trillions

Not good.

[closeupready]

22. These lawsuits will be in the 100s of quadrillions, which absent evidence,

is easy to claim as "fact".

[JDC]

10. I think this veto was calculated to begin with

It allows Hillary and Senate Dems to "separate themselves" from at least some of the "policies of Obama" in an immediate and harmless way. Now anytime it is brought up from here moving forward, they can all say, "But look at this vote...."

[phylny]

24. I agree. I think Obama gets to "save face" for America (*I* certainly didn't want this!)

and senators get to look good at home.

I don't worry about our country being sued. If we do stupid stuff, we should pay.

[asiliveandbreathe]

12. Okay - so does this mean those who sue (US citizens) SA, will also

sue Bush and Cheney and Rice for not doing due diligence when the threat of using airplanes was reported...???? Why NOT! Can US citizens sue US government officials - the likes of Bush and CO? Just asking...

As well as - this opens up the possibility that Iraqi citizens can sue the United States for war crimes.

[closeupready]

14. Excellent! K&R

Very happy about this. Who says Congress is broken?

[global1]

18. I'm Sure If The President Asked The Senate Dems To Back Him That They Wouldn't Have Voted...

to overturn this veto. They wouldn't openly go against the Prez. I believe that this is the way he wanted this to play out.

Good Cop - Obama. Bad Cop - Congress/Senate

I believe that this provides him cover and still a decent relationship with the Saudi's.

[closeupready]

20. Thank you for this. This hadn't occurred to me, but I think you are correct.

Saudi Arabia waited until 1962 to outlaw human slavery. (If you find that unbelievable, know that other Arab countries banned it even AFTER 1962.)

That fact speaks to how this played out, IMHO.

[lamp_shade]

45. I wholeheartedly agree.

[former9thward]

59. Do you think the Saudi's would not also know this?

You think only internet bloggers could figure it out? Your theory makes no sense.

[Ron Obvious]

23. Good!

Obama is on the wrong side of history here protecting the vile Saudis.

For those who worry about blowback from other countries suing us, I also say: Good! Let the payouts come from the profits of the military-industrial complex, and maybe we won't be so quick to go to war on spurious grounds next time.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. Bad!

as much as I dislike their culture and religious crap, they are a sovereign nation. This opens up the US to war crime charges and suits. And lest we forget, with our drone programs, we are committing crimes every day. it just doesn't show up in Time or Newsweek like Viet Nam or even IraqNam did.

[Ron Obvious]

31. The fact that this opens us up to those lawsuits is part of why I like this.

I loathe our drone programmes and won't surrender my principles because corporate profits might be at stake.

Feel free to call me an idealist.

[closeupready]

34. Amen.

[metroins]

29. I'm disappointed

Not a good idea.

[The_Casual_Observer]

32. This looks like misguided flag waving to me.

How would one go about investigating and building a case against that government?
How would such a case be tried? How would damages be collected?

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. Fantastic!

What was Obama smoking? It should have been a solid front.

Still doing his friend Hillary favours by placating the Clinton's friends the Bushes and their families ties to the Saudi Monarchy? Just a wild guess, but there has to be some reason.

[Ohioblue22]

35. I wonder if this might put a damper on the US going

Around the world doing whatever it wants

[lsewpershad]

36. Maybe

Not such a bad idea as it might cause US to be more circumspect about creating such havoc in other countries.

[Mamajami]

39. Now it's on them. But they will be sure to blame Hillary for the fallout.

[malthaussen]

44. Harry Reid was the only "nay"

Guess his party wasn't interested in listening to him.

-- Mal

[Vilis Veritas]

47. If it backfires they can blame President Obama for tricking them into overriding his veto...nt

[Auggie]

48. Well, this is an election year for many senators (n/t)

[still_one]

50. A bunch of cowards. The argument they give is the victims of 9/11 should have their

day in court. What about the victims of the drone strikes? and I don't mean the terrorists, but the civilians killed by those drone strikes, do they deserve their day in court?

What about our invasion of Iraq? Do they deserve their day in court? As a reminder, Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

What about the bombing of Syria or Libya? Do they deserve their day in court?

President Obama had the courage to take the heat for this, and the Senate demonstrated just how spineless they are

[Turbineguy]

51. Oh good job republicans!

ISIS has been running low on funds and had to cut back on recruiting and pay.

[philosslayer]

52. Grandstanding nonsense

From a primarily conservative bunch who don't understand a thing about the complexity of the world we live in.

[FigTree]

53. Standard tactical move from the WH.

It was obvious that the veto was going to be overridden. The net result is to create more grounds for compromise, in a way or in another, or at least to break the appearance of unanimity. Unless an administration takes the case to La Hague. Where a crime of the magnitude of 9/11 would seem to belong.

[Osakagreg]

56. My Uneducated Take

My initial reaction is based on the fact that I have such an immense respect for Obama, and very little for Congress.

I feel that if Obama thought the plan was worth a veto, there must be some extremely good reasons.

Time will tell... I'll read up about it in the meantime.

[atreides1]

57. With what evidence?

Any evidence showing a connection, if it still exists, is probably top secret and redacted, so heavily that only every 10th word is readable!

All congress has done is to give false hope to the victims families, and created jobs for law firms!!! Of course this being an election year and with a good portion of congress up for re-election, this will play well back home!!!

[Blue_Tires]

58. Something strange about this...

https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/781211656227545088

[beachbumbob]

60. Obama had to veto knowing full well it would be overridden...

That's a no brainier for the president...international politics with Saudi Arabia

[Spitfire of ATJ]

61. The Saudis own a big chunk of Wall Street....

Not to mention a big chunk of FOX "News".

It's like a junkie bailing out his pusher.