Obama vetoes 9/11 bill; possible override by Congress looms

[rooster59]

Obama vetoes 9/11 bill; possible override by Congress looms

DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press
JOSH LEDERMAN, Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama rejected a bill Friday that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, arguing it undermined national security and setting up the possibility Congress may override his veto for the first time in his presidency.

 

Obama's move escalates the fight over an emotional issue that has overlapped with the campaign debate over terrorism and the Middle East. The bill had sailed through both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support, clearing the final hurdle just days before the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

 

The president said the bill, which doesn't refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, could backfire by opening up the U.S. government and its officials to lawsuits by anyone accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly.

 

"I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," Obama wrote to the Senate in a veto message about the bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. But, he said, "the JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly."

 

Congress is determined to try to overturn the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. Previous attempts to overturn Obama's vetoes have all been unsuccessful.

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said an override would pass in the Republican-controlled House. Yet the Senate would be the greater challenge. After furious lobbying to try to peel off supporters, the White House said Friday it was unclear whether enough had defected to avert an override.

 

With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign, a vote could come early next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would vote "as soon as practicable in this work period."

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate's No. 3 Democrat and a traditional Obama ally, came out swinging against Obama while predicting lawmakers would reverse it "swiftly and soundly."

 

"The families of the victims of 9/11 deserve their day in court, and justice for those families shouldn't be thrown overboard because of diplomatic concerns," Schumer said.

 

A coalition of 9/11 victims' families, meanwhile, said they were "outraged and dismayed." In a response circulated by their lawyers, the families insisted the bill would deter terrorism, "no matter how much the Saudi lobbying and propaganda machine may argue otherwise."

 

Though the concept of sovereign immunity generally shields governments from lawsuits, the bill creates an exception that allows foreign governments to be held responsible if they support a terrorist attack that kills U.S. citizens on American soil. Opponents say that's a slippery slope considering that the U.S. is frequently accused wrongly by its foes of supporting terrorism.

 

"Americans are in countries all over the world," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican, wrote Friday in a letter urging colleagues to support a veto. "Many of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as ours."

 

Fifteen of the 19 men who carried out 9/11 were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court for any role elements of Saudi Arabia's government may have played. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, strongly objected to the bill.

 

Obama long had objected, too, warning that foreign countries might reciprocate by dragging American government, diplomats and military members before courts. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a difficult yet strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis to counter Iran's influence in the Middle East and help combat the spread of terrorism.

 

Since the bill's passage, the White House has lobbied aggressively to persuade lawmakers to withdraw support, and found some sympathetic listeners. The bill had passed by voice vote - meaning lawmakers didn't have to go on the record with their positions — and the White House was hoping the prospect of a recorded vote would lead some Democrats to reconsider publicly rebuking their president.

 

Debate about the bill has spilled onto the presidential campaign trail, as candidates vie to appear tough on terrorism. The issue is one of a few where Democrat Hillary Clinton, who supports the bill, has publicly disagreed with Obama. Trump, too, backs it, and said Obama's veto was "shameful and will go down as one of the low points of his presidency."

 

The bill had triggered a perceived threat by Saudi Arabia to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy if it was enacted. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir said in May the kingdom never issued threats, but had merely warned that investor confidence in the U.S. would shrink if the bill became law.

 

The House vote on Sept. 9 came two months after Congress released 28 declassified pages from a congressional report into 9/11. The pages reignited speculation over links that at least a few of the attackers had to Saudis, including government officials. The allegations were never substantiated by later U.S. investigations.

 

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-24

 

[Andaman Al]

This whole situation would have very negative consequences for the USA if it were brought into law, HOWEVER in a way I would welcome it, as it would provide the opportunity to present the entire case and display thorough evidence concerning that fateful day as to what really occurred and who is really responsible and liable.

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

This whole situation would have very negative consequences for the USA if it were brought into law, HOWEVER in a way I would welcome it, as it would provide the opportunity to present the entire case and display thorough evidence concerning that fateful day as to what really occurred and who is really responsible and liable.

 

Excellent post on all points.

[Kasset Tak]

Woo Hoo. Just let it pass and wait for:

Afghanistan sue US for arming  Al Quida

Turkey sue US for arming and supporting the PKK

Nicaragua sue US for supporting Contras

and the list will grow

and many many countries with an old grudges after US involvement can finally solve them!

 

[Chicog]

2 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

This whole situation would have very negative consequences for the USA if it were brought into law, HOWEVER in a way I would welcome it, as it would provide the opportunity to present the entire case and display thorough evidence concerning that fateful day as to what really occurred and who is really responsible and liable.

 

It's almost as if you believe the 9/11 commission report was BS....

 

 

[stevenl]

A few quotes from the article say a lot.

 

" The president said the bill, which doesn't refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, could backfire by opening up the U.S. government and its officials to lawsuits by anyone accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly. "

Exactly right.

" "Americans are in countries all over the world," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican, wrote Friday in a letter urging colleagues to support a veto. "Many of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as ours." "

Don't always agree with the 'measured and narrow as ours' part, but for the rest he is spot on.

 

This is all in all a very dangerous law that, if the veto is overturned, will backfire in a big way.

 

[manfredtillmann]

11 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

It's almost as if you believe the 9/11 commission report was BS....

 

 

you, i and thousands of others know: it was!

there is so much more to this incident...

 

[williamgeorgeallen]

wish the family of the person killed in the bombing of the rainbow warrior could sue the french government. nz police caught 2 of the bombers but then just handed them back for fear of loosing the sale of nz produce to the french markets.  second time i have said this today. people and governments should be accountable for their actions. maybe it would make the saudis think again about financing another 9/11 incident if they were going to be kicked in the wallets.

Edited September 24, 2016 by williamgeorgeallen

[Scotwight]

52 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A few quotes from the article say a lot.

 

" The president said the bill, which doesn't refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, could backfire by opening up the U.S. government and its officials to lawsuits by anyone accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly. "

Exactly right.

" "Americans are in countries all over the world," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican, wrote Friday in a letter urging colleagues to support a veto. "Many of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as ours." "

Don't always agree with the 'measured and narrow as ours' part, but for the rest he is spot on.

 

This is all in all a very dangerous law that, if the veto is overturned, will backfire in a big way.

 

That's why Hillary is in favor of the bill.  

 

Clinton Campaign: Hillary Would Sign 9/11 Bill if She Were President

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-911-bill-sign-saudi-arabia/2016/09/23/id/749885/

[stevenl]

9 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

That's why Hillary is in favor of the bill.  

 

Clinton Campaign: Hillary Would Sign 9/11 Bill if She Were President

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-911-bill-sign-saudi-arabia/2016/09/23/id/749885/

Both Clinton and Trump are in favour (sorry, favor). What is your point?

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

Woo Hoo. Just let it pass and wait for:

Afghanistan sue US for arming  Al Quida

Turkey sue US for arming and supporting the PKK

Nicaragua sue US for supporting Contras

and the list will grow

and many many countries with an old grudges after US involvement can finally solve them!

 

Indonesia sue Netherlands, Argentina sue UK, Israel sue Lebanon, Georgia sue Russia, Kuwait sue Iraq, Iran sue Azerbaijan, Tibet sue China, Korea sue China, Ireland sue UK, etc, etc, etc.

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Indonesia sue Netherlands, Argentina sue UK, Israel sue Lebanon, Georgia sue Russia, Kuwait sue Iraq, Iran sue Azerbaijan, Tibet sue China, Korea sue China, Ireland sue UK, etc, etc, etc.

No, won't happen since those countries don't have a similar law. But nothing is stopping these clountries to impose a similar law against the US.

[Scotwight]

38 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Both Clinton and Trump are in favour (sorry, favor). What is your point?

I was agreeing with you.  You wrote, "This is all in all a very dangerous law that, if the veto is overturned, will backfire in a big way." That's why Hillary would sign it.  She is a dangerous person.  

[Andaman Al]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

 

It's almost as if you believe the 9/11 commission report was BS....

 

 

 

Where would you like me to begin exactly ?

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, Scotwight said:

I was agreeing with you.  You wrote, "This is all in all a very dangerous law that, if the veto is overturned, will backfire in a big way." That's why Hillary would sign it.  She is a dangerous person.  

Yes, but why single out Hillary?

 

As I said, both Clinton and Trump are in favour (or favor) of this stupid law.

[maoro2013]

5 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

This whole situation would have very negative consequences for the USA if it were brought into law, HOWEVER in a way I would welcome it, as it would provide the opportunity to present the entire case and display thorough evidence concerning that fateful day as to what really occurred and who is really responsible and liable.

And a reason to play it down.

[bkk_mike]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Indonesia sue Netherlands, Argentina sue UK, Israel sue Lebanon, Georgia sue Russia, Kuwait sue Iraq, Iran sue Azerbaijan, Tibet sue China, Korea sue China, Ireland sue UK, etc, etc, etc.

 

Financial links to terrorism. not wars/occupations. That would presumably mean cases where it's actual armies involved. i.e. When the US sent their own troops into Grenada wouldn't be covered, but funding the Contras would be.

That would knock out Argentina/UK, Kuwait/Iraq, Korea/China, and Indonesia/Netherlands (I think) and would switch around some of the others...

 

But it would open up a whole can of worms around CIA involvement...

 

UK sues Ireland over aid to the IRA (and the US, Libya, Iran)

Israel sues Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Egypt, etc. etc.

China would sue Tibet (for the self immolation protests - after all it costs money to put out the fire)

Colombia sues Venezuela

Nicaragua sues the US

Afghanistan sues the US

Guatemala sues the US

Chile sues the US

Bolivia sues the US

Cuba sues the US

Colombia sues the US

Iran sues the US

Indonesia sues the US

Laos sues the US

Congo sues the US

Dominican Republic sues the US

Iraq sues the US

Angola sues the US

Cambodia sues the US

El Salvador sues the US

Syria sues the US

 

I think I understand Obama's veto.

 

[Ulysses G.]

10 hours ago, Scotwight said:

That's why Hillary is in favor of the bill.  

 

 

 

She favors the bill publicly because - as usual - of political expediency. Supporting it would make her look as bad as Obama looks for vetoing it. Who knows what she really thinks?

 

However, Obama is probably right for a change. This bill is probably a mistake.

[daveAustin]

Indonesia sue Netherlands, Argentina sue UK, Israel sue Lebanon, Georgia sue Russia, Kuwait sue Iraq, Iran sue Azerbaijan, Tibet sue China, Korea sue China, Ireland sue UK, etc, etc, etc.

You're havin a laugh ain't ya? Ireland potentially sue UK? Wrong way around there, it was their minions bombing and killing innocents on UK mainland. Argentina invaded UK territory (discovered more than 100 yrs before Arg was a nation) and killed many. The French should be sued for their involvement in selling Exocet missiles to Arg which ultimately sank the Sheffield.

This whole thing would open up a huge can of worms for the US. Barry is right for a change.

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, daveAustin said:

You're havin a laugh ain't ya? Ireland potentially sue UK? Wrong way around there, it was their minions bombing and killing innocents on UK mainland. Argentina invaded UK territory (discovered more than 100 yrs before Arg was a nation) and killed many. The French should be sued for their involvement in selling Exocet missiles to Arg which ultimately sank the Sheffield.

This whole thing would open up a huge can of worms for the US. Barry is right for a change.

My point exactly. This opens up a can of worms.  Maybe not such a bad thing?  Might make nations think twice before doing an invasion?????

[sirineou]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

She favors the bill publicly because - as usual - of political expediency. Supporting it would make her look as bad as Obama looks for vetoing it. Who knows what she really thinks?

 

However, Obama is probably right for a change. This bill is probably a mistake.

Absolutely right,

this bill is nothing but political theater . All those involved are aware of the inherent dangers residing with in it, but also aware of the political land mines involved in opposing it. As soon as they are elected,or reelected, they will find a way to walk it back. 

 

Question. can bills be retroactive?

 

Edited September 25, 2016 by sirineou

[Grubster]

21 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

This whole situation would have very negative consequences for the USA if it were brought into law, HOWEVER in a way I would welcome it, as it would provide the opportunity to present the entire case and display thorough evidence concerning that fateful day as to what really occurred and who is really responsible and liable.

I don't see the negative consequences of bringing to light the Saudi Arabian funding of terrorism, but I am sure that congress will make the vote look close and hard fought to lead the people to believe they are not in the pockets of the Saudi's. How is Saudi Arabia one of America's strongest allies in the world when they operate under Sharia law, going against all the western values. The working class in Iraq had a much better life under Saddam. Just who is running this Show anyway. Obama already had the chance to show the findings of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 911 but declined to do so as I'm sure to many powerful people were involved. I will believe the west is against terrorism when we bomb the Saudi's. On the other hand the Saudi's may be willing to pay a few billion to help us believe our government gives a shit.

[vaultdweller0013]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

Question. can bills be retroactive?

 

For criminal laws, no the cannot retroactively criminalize actions. They could de-criminalize actions. Civil laws (and this is a civil law) can, in general, be retroactive. There is a very early Supreme Court decision that established this precedent.

 

However, there are a couple open questions. First is the time gap. Most retroactive laws are only covering short periods, such as tax law changes retroactive to the start of the tax year or closing tax loopholes that are a couple of years old. 15 years is a long time and could potentially be viewed as a violation of due process, which is separate from the retroactive law prohibition in the constitution. Second, the court could throw it out if they believe it is targeting the Saudis specifically. Although the Saudis are listed by name, the retroactivity date is specifically 9/11 and the Saudis are the only ones likely to be sued, so it is possible the courts could conclude it is specifically targeting them. Finally, the original supreme court decision that allowed retroactive civil laws referenced an implicit social contract as part of the justification for why retroactive civil laws are allowed. Given that this applies to Sovereign governments, it is possible that they could conclude this implicit contract does not exist.

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, vaultdweller0013 said:

For criminal laws, no the cannot retroactively criminalize actions. They could de-criminalize actions. Civil laws (and this is a civil law) can, in general, be retroactive. There is a very early Supreme Court decision that established this precedent.

 

However, there are a couple open questions. First is the time gap. Most retroactive laws are only covering short periods, such as tax law changes retroactive to the start of the tax year or closing tax loopholes that are a couple of years old. 15 years is a long time and could potentially be viewed as a violation of due process, which is separate from the retroactive law prohibition in the constitution. Second, the court could throw it out if they believe it is targeting the Saudis specifically. Although the Saudis are listed by name, the retroactivity date is specifically 9/11 and the Saudis are the only ones likely to be sued, so it is possible the courts could conclude it is specifically targeting them. Finally, the original supreme court decision that allowed retroactive civil laws referenced an implicit social contract as part of the justification for why retroactive civil laws are allowed. Given that this applies to Sovereign governments, it is possible that they could conclude this implicit contract does not exist.

Thank you for that cogent opinion.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from your explanation and other opinions I read, I discern  that any chance for restitution that 9/11 victims could hope to gain  from the Saudis  would be marginal at best, and as such the cost/ benefit ratio of  such legislation would not be  in the national interest.

[vaultdweller0013]

It would be hard to assign a probability to the suit being successful or not. 

 

What can be said is that there are still a lot of things that will get in the way. The constitutionality of the retroactive piece of the law is only the first question. So, even if it is successful in the end it will still be years until everything is sorted out.

[Andaman Al]

10 hours ago, Grubster said:

I don't see the negative consequences of bringing to light the Saudi Arabian funding of terrorism, but I am sure that congress will make the vote look close and hard fought to lead the people to believe they are not in the pockets of the Saudi's. How is Saudi Arabia one of America's strongest allies in the world when they operate under Sharia law, going against all the western values. The working class in Iraq had a much better life under Saddam. Just who is running this Show anyway. Obama already had the chance to show the findings of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 911 but declined to do so as I'm sure to many powerful people were involved. I will believe the west is against terrorism when we bomb the Saudi's. On the other hand the Saudi's may be willing to pay a few billion to help us believe our government gives a shit.

The Saudi's kill   murder their own daughters to save face. I doubt they will cough up a few billion and take the rap just to make  allies look good. Why are Saudi one of our main allies?  Great question, It must be 3 criteria, Oil, strategic position against Iran and their spending power in terms of defence equipment from the Americans and Brits.

 

There is no negative consequence in exposing who is funding terrorism, but when people start to follow the money then be in stall for a few shocks as to where that path leads. Only 35 years to go I think until we get the info under freedom of information. I must do my damnedest to hang around until then.

[212Roger]

On 9/24/2016 at 2:32 AM, Chicog said:

 

It's almost as if you believe the 9/11 commission report was BS....

 

 

And the Warren Report.

[Linzz]

On 9/24/2016 at 8:46 PM, craigt3365 said:

Indonesia sue Netherlands, Argentina sue UK, Israel sue Lebanon, Georgia sue Russia, Kuwait sue Iraq, Iran sue Azerbaijan, Tibet sue China, Korea sue China, Ireland sue UK, etc, etc, etc.

 

Think I'll be a lawyer

[Linzz]

On 9/24/2016 at 9:59 PM, stevenl said:

Yes, but why single out Hillary?

 

As I said, both Clinton and Trump are in favour (or favor) of this stupid law.

 

"Favor's"  OK.  Just pretend you're American

[Linzz]

On 9/25/2016 at 1:33 PM, craigt3365 said:

My point exactly. This opens up a can of worms.  Maybe not such a bad thing?  Might make nations think twice before doing an invasion?????

 

Haha! you mean worry about legal fees before loss of life?