US House of Representatives votes to let 9/11 victims' families sue Saudi Arabia

[rooster59]

US House of Representatives votes to let 9/11 victims' families sue Saudi Arabia

 

 

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill to allow 9/11 victims’ families sue Saudi Arabia for damages.

 

It comes after the Senate passed the ‘Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act’ unanimously in May.

 

However, the White House threatens to veto the measure, saying it could strain relations with Saudi Arabia and lead to retaliatory laws against the US around the world.

 

The bill needs two-thirds of the votes in both the House and the Senate to override a presidential veto.

 

Families of the 9/11 terror attack victims have been trying to sue the Saudi government, for their alleged support for the men who hijacked the planes which were flown into the twin towers in New York. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi.

 

Saudi Arabia opposes the bill and denies any involvement in the attack.

 

The vote came after House members sang ‘God Bless America’ on Capitol Hill to commemorate 9/11, just as they had immediately after the attacks on New York in 2001.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2016-09-10

[Ulysses G.]

It will be most embarrassing for Obama if he vetoes this. Too many Americans already do not trust him concerning Islamic terrorism.

[Pimay1]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

It will be most embarrassing for Obama if he vetoes this. Too many Americans already do not trust him concerning Islamic terrorism.

If he does veto the bill the world will know where his priorities lie.

[derator01]

No conspiracy theories, please.

[ChrisY1]

http://www.habiru.de/Dirk_Gerhardt/TheBigLie.pdf........

Why are the Americans worried........and the Saudis know all.??

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

It will be most embarrassing for Obama if he vetoes this. Too many Americans already do not trust him concerning Islamic terrorism.

It appears veto override votes are there so what's the point of a veto? 

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Pimay1 said:

If he does veto the bill the world will know where his priorities lie.

There are actually very good and not sinister reasons to oppose this bill. I can see why it's so popular though. It would be political suicide to oppose it. Obama isn't running for anything so he might veto it, but politically I hope he doesn't as that vote may be used to smear Hillary Clinton who IS running. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Jingthing

[dick dasterdly]

This story reminds me of Trump declaring that he would make the Mexican govt. pay for a dividing wall.....

 

i.e. -  its never going to happen.

[Jingthing]

I suppose a reason for Obama to veto it even with the override is to make nice with Saudi Arabia, which horrible that they are, remains an important U.S. ally. Like it or not. It's true. That may soften the push back from them that at least the president was against it. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by Jingthing

[Naam]

in any other country a ridiculous lawsuit like this one would cause roaring laughter.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Naam said:

in any other country a ridiculous lawsuit like this one would cause roaring laughter.

Well, I think there are other nations with ridiculous politics but right now the USA is goin' for the gold! 

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I suppose a reason for Obama to veto it even with the override is to make nice with Saudi Arabia, which horrible that they are, remains an important U.S. ally. Like it or not. It's true. That may soften the push back from them that at least the president was against it. 

Quite.

 

The US have been friends with the Saudis for a long time.

[clockman]

The Saudi pilots, were trained in America. And the security forces. Did not question them. When they said the only wanted to know how to take off. Not how to land!

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, clockman said:

The Saudi pilots, were trained in America. And the security forces. Did not question them. When they said the only wanted to know how to take off. Not how to land!

Yes, that is true. Don't see your point related to this thread though. They were Saudi nationals, not Saudi government operatives. U.S. intelligence should have stopped them then. Asleep at the wheel. 

[stevenl]

This is not just SA related, it goes against the worldwide justice system when individuals can sue any country in the US for their own reasons.

Just a matter of time before the tables are turned. Very stupid, self centred, short term taking.

Edited September 10, 2016 by stevenl

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

This is not just SA related, it goes against the worldwide justice system when individuals can sue any country in the US for their own reasons.

Yes, and it's not in the U.S. interest to invite that. It's pretty stupid but if the votes were unanimous in the congress then I don't see how it doesn't pass. 

[alanrchase]

So can people who have had family members killed by poorly targeted US air strikes now sue the US?

[stevenl]

Just now, alanrchase said:

So can people who have had family members killed by poorly targeted US air strikes now sue the US?

Yes, as soon as their country adapts a similar law. And no doubt many countries will do that.

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

It will be most embarrassing for Obama if he vetoes this. Too many Americans already do not trust him concerning Islamic terrorism.

When your in your final year as president who cares a hoot about embarrassment. His legacy for better or worse is established its time to move on to get the really big money not this presidential chump change. Being president was the equivalent of Kindergarden. Next is the consulting services the fake foundations the sky is the limit. With all the American "forays" into foreign countries it could really open up a can of worms. America could receive 10 fold in return. If he does veto it I hope the senate and the house can override it. For once close ranks you self serving jerks. Hang the Saudi's out to dry. Then there is the 9/11 conspiracy theory. 

Edited September 10, 2016 by elgordo38

[nausea]

Dangerous precedent. Does anyone seriously believe the Saudi government would have supported a terrorist sttack on the US. This was the work of a few errant individuals. As has been pointed out, this opens the door to counter-claims by those innocent victims damaged by US interventions. What are they thinking - the H of R.

[Srikcir]

The bill only permits US citizens to sue the SA government. It doesn't guarantee that a court will accept the lawsuit or that it will be successful, particularly if the plantiffs require on depositions and documents within Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if the bill passes both the House and Senate by 2/3's majority, the bill becomes law without the President's signature. No veto required or necessary.

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The bill only permits US citizens to sue the SA government. It doesn't guarantee that a court will accept the lawsuit or that it will be successful, particularly if the plantiffs require on depositions and documents within Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if the bill passes both the House and Senate by 2/3's majority, the bill becomes law without the President's signature. No veto required or necessary.

As I understand this law is aimed at SA but formulated generally and in application not limited to SA.

[xineohp]

Interesting to note "for their alleged support".  One has yet to see anything that supports the notion that the Saudi Arabian government actively played a role in supporting these individuals.  Waiting anxiously for you know who to respond...    

[Andaman Al]

All US politicians know that a vote in favour of these law suits would lead to untold diplomatic AND economic problems. There is no way this vote would ever normally be passed. Why now? This is a huge stirring of the pot and a calculated ploy by the republicans. They know that Obama (as ANY President would have to do) must oppose it. The Saudi's have all ready threatened to call in sovereign debt and cancel investments in the US. It will affect directly the US presence in Saudi in terms of forward military bases in the Middle East. Obama must oppose it IF his priority lies with the interests of the USA (not as some suggest he is a muslim sympathiser which is nonsense).

 

The problem is that the republicans are playing so dirty that any effort to oppose the bill will be advertised and exploited by the GOP as being a weakness by Democrats and implying they are muslim sympathisers. This is not the case but the Trumpeteer's will swallow the story whole (they are already doing it on this thread). Obama should call the republican's bluff and let it go through. Loss of investment, recalling of hundreds of billions of debt, cancelation of oil programs and no more use of prime ME military bases. This has been a calculated and irresponsible move. The fact is these folks should be allowed to sue their own Government.

[vaultdweller0013]

It will be interested to see if the courts allow the clause making the law retroactive to Sept. 11 2001 to stand.  The constitution explicitly prohibits Ex past facto (retroactive) laws, but the courts have allowed this in general for non-criminal cases. However, this law could be sufficiently different as one of the parties is a sovereign nation that could argue a right to own property outside of the implicit "social contract" that would govern disputes between individuals. There is also the time gap -- 15 years, which could potentially be viewed a a violation of due process.

 

Now for the Civics lesson:

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

The bill only permits US citizens to sue the SA government. It doesn't guarantee that a court will accept the lawsuit or that it will be successful, particularly if the plantiffs require on depositions and documents within Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, if the bill passes both the House and Senate by 2/3's majority, the bill becomes law without the President's signature. No veto

required or necessary.

 

Even with a unanimous vote, it still must go to the president for signature, and he can still veto it. It is then up to congress to override the veto. However, in such a circumstance, the president may choose the do nothing to avoid having the negative press of having a veto overridden and then the law will go into affect the same as if he had signed it.

 

Quote

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

[RaoulDuke]

The TPP allows corporations to sue governments for infringing on their profit margins, such as if a governing body shuts down a factory due to gross pollution or negligence. I see no reason why such an absurd right should not be passed down to the citizens, as well. We are entering a disturbing time when national sovereignty and wealth is being eclipsed by corporate sovereignty and wealth due to globalization and trade laws written by corporations that are rubber stamped by elected officials that are beholden to these very same interests. Many of these conglomerates are amassing net worths that dwarf smaller countries, and they will be calling the shots in the 21st century. The importance of national borders will continue to diminish, and decisions like this will become quite commonplace.

Edited September 10, 2016 by RaoulDuke

[RaoulDuke]

duplicate

Edited September 10, 2016 by RaoulDuke

[Johnpound46]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

This is not just SA related, it goes against the worldwide justice system when individuals can sue any country in the US for their own reasons.

Just a matter of time before the tables are turned. Very stupid, self centred, short term taking.

 

Now we wait and see how many countries vote in laws that let their citizens sue the US government for bombing their houses and families to dust. Iraq comes to mind, about 100,000 (conservative estimate) innocent civilians killed by US army.

[Pib]

Well, this Texas mattress store didn't seem to concerned about 9/11...but have quickly changed their minds.  Read the news article below...and view their TV commercial below (the store has since been pulled the commercial).

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/09/09/texas-mattress-store-under-fire-for-911-twin-tower-sale-commercial.html

 

 

[Kasset Tak]

Please let it go thru!!!

Then:

Vietnamese sue US for the use of Agent Orange.

Japan sue for the radiation and increased cancer and birth defect rate in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Afghanistan sue US us arming and sponsoring Al-Qaeda.

The Philippines sue US for sponsoring Aquino.

Palestine sue US for supporting the Israeli terror state.

UN sue US for breaking the non-spread agreement by giving Israel nuclear weapons. 

Holding foreign nationals prisoners without court sentence (Guantanamo).

Doctors without Borders for the killings of doctors, workers and patients in their hospitals.

Hell US will become a poor country with no friends and no oil...