Congress rebukes Obama, overrides veto of 9/11 legislation

[webfact]

Congress rebukes Obama, overrides veto of 9/11 legislation

By RICHARD LARDNER

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a resounding rebuke, Democrats joined with Republicans Wednesday to hand Barack Obama the first veto override of his presidency, voting overwhelmingly to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts for its alleged backing of the attackers.

 

Both the House and Senate voted decisively to reverse Obama's decision to scuttle the legislation. Democrats in both chambers abandoned the president in large numbers despite warnings from Obama and top national security officials that flaws in the bill could put U.S. interests, troops, and intelligence personnel at risk.

 

The Senate vote was 97-1, with only Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., backing the president. The House vote a few hours later was 348-77, with 123 Democrats rebuffing the president and voting to override. Obama said during a CNN interview that overriding his veto was a mistake that may set a "dangerous precedent."

 

Lawmakers said their priority wasn't Saudi Arabia, but the 9/11 victims and their families who continue to demand justice 15 years after attackers killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, the Washington, D.C., area, and Pennsylvania. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis.

 

"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," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief sponsor of the bill.

 

Speaking at a forum in Washington, CIA Director John Brennan said he was concerned about how Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, would interpret the bill. He said the Saudis provide significant amounts of information to the U.S. to help foil extremist plots.

 

"It would be an absolute shame if this legislation, in any way, influenced the Saudi willingness to continue to be among our best counterterrorism partners," Brennan said.

 

On CNN, Obama said that a few lawmakers who backed the bill weren't aware of its potential impact. He didn't name them. "And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what's hard," he said. "It was, you know, basically a political vote."

 

But Republicans and Democrats said the White House had been slow to respond to the bill and miscalculated lawmakers' intent to act on the legislation along with the 15th anniversary of the terror attacks. When Obama and senior national security officials such as Defense Secretary Ash Carter finally weighed in, it was too late.

 

The Senate passed the bill by voice vote in May. The Obama White House then made the mistake of thinking the bill would stall in the Republican-controlled House. In August, 9/11 families pressured Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., while he was on a campaign swing in New York.

 

On Sept. 9, two days before the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the House passed the bill by voice vote with little debate.

 

Despite reversing Obama's decision, a bipartisan group of 28 senators led by Bob Corker, R-Tenn., suggested that defects in the bill could open a legal Pandora's box, triggering lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role.

 

Corker, the chairman of Foreign Relations Committee, chided the White House for being outraged over the outcome when the administration did so little to sustain the president's veto.

 

"There was zero desire to sit down and talk about a way to get to a better outcome. Zero," Corker told The Associated Press. "To my knowledge, I don't know of a call from Obama to a single senator over this."

 

In a letter sent Tuesday to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Obama said the bill would erode sovereign immunity principles that prevent foreign litigants "from second-guessing our counterterrorism operations and other actions that we take every day."

 

But proponents of the bill dismissed Obama's concerns as unpersuasive. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, and other supporters said the bill is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

 

Families of the victims and their attorneys dismissed concerns over the legislation as fearmongering. "We rejoice in this triumph and look forward to our day in court and a time when we may finally get more answers regarding who was truly behind the attacks," said Terry Strada, national chair of the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism.

 

The legislation gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurred inside U.S. borders, according to the terms of the bill.

 

Obama vetoed the measure last week, telling lawmakers the bill would make the U.S. vulnerable to retaliatory litigation.

 

In a separate letter sent Monday to a senior House member, Defense Secretary Ash Carter described the potential for foreign litigants to seek classified intelligence data and analysis and sensitive operational information to establish their cases in what could be an "intrusive discovery process."

___

AP Writers Erica Werner and Deb Riechmann contributed to this article.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-29

 

[phantomfiddler]

Fantastic news, and about time this khun had his feathers clipped. Many of his decisions make it apparent he is on the enemy side, jeepers, he even admits it in his own book !!

[Kasset Tak]

1 hour ago, phantomfiddler said:

Fantastic news, and about time this khun had his feathers clipped. Many of his decisions make it apparent he is on the enemy side, jeepers, he even admits it in his own book !!

I so hope that this will turn sour for US as they are responsible for it all!!!

US armed the Afghan Mujahedin that later became Al Quida and Usama Bin Ladens brother had close business ties with G W. Bush with his oil company. Both these statements are clear facts and not conspiracy fiction!

US supported the "freedom fighters" that turned in to ISIS with arms and vehicles. That's why they now are arming the Kurds with AT-4's, just so they can stop ISIS when they are using the armored vehicles that US gave them...

 

This also open up these cases against US:

Cuba suing for CIA sponsoring terrorism in Cuba

Italy suing US for CIA's involvement in the Piazza Fontana bombing.

Nicaraguans suing US for sponsoring and supporting Contras.

Iran suing US for supporting terrorists in Iran.

Philippines suing US for the mass killing of Muslim Filipinos that led to the armed Muslim conflict in the Philippines today.

Vietnam suing US for using Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.

Iraq suing US for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

Any country that has had civilians killed by us troops during the "war on terror"

 

And so on.
   

[williamgeorgeallen]

saudis to pay for 9/11, yingluck to pay for rice scam. whats next?

[timewilltell]

1 hour ago, Kasset Tak said:

I so hope that this will turn sour for US as they are responsible for it all!!!

US armed the Afghan Mujahedin that later became Al Quida and Usama Bin Ladens brother had close business ties with G W. Bush with his oil company. Both these statements are clear facts and not conspiracy fiction!

US supported the "freedom fighters" that turned in to ISIS with arms and vehicles. That's why they now are arming the Kurds with AT-4's, just so they can stop ISIS when they are using the armored vehicles that US gave them...

 

This also open up these cases against US:

Cuba suing for CIA sponsoring terrorism in Cuba

Italy suing US for CIA's involvement in the Piazza Fontana bombing.

Nicaraguans suing US for sponsoring and supporting Contras.

Iran suing US for supporting terrorists in Iran.

Philippines suing US for the mass killing of Muslim Filipinos that led to the armed Muslim conflict in the Philippines today.

Vietnam suing US for using Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.

Iraq suing US for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

Any country that has had civilians killed by us troops during the "war on terror"

 

And so on.
   

 

Well not exactly since the bill allows US citizens to sue foreign governments in the US courts for involvement acts of terrorism on US soil. Perhaps tge real reason is that 9-11 had US involvement and they don't want to give that any further attention. Perhaps the senators don't know what the President knows and that is why he wanted the bill squashed?

[JHolmesJr]

Barrys getting dissed left right and centre on the world stage and now at home….what an unceremonious send off.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

Fantastic news, and about time this khun had his feathers clipped. Many of his decisions make it apparent he is on the enemy side, jeepers, he even admits it in his own book !!

Your post is disgusting in so many ways. It's interesting that so much of the obsessive irrational opposition to President Obama comes from a place of RACISM. 

[Steely Dan]

My only reservation here is that families of US citizens attempting to sue Iran for aiding and abetting terrorists was blocked by the U.S government.
Morally both should be sued, however there may be various unintended consequences for suing Saudi Arabia and not Iran, whereas realpolitik may make it highly desirable to sue neither if a worldwide bout of dirty laundry airing and tit for tat measures were to follow.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[elgordo38]

What a departing gift(kick in the arse) from your fellow politico's. I think these people should have the right to sue. All Obama was trying to do is protect the US from similar lawsuits which could be justified. You cannot over time attack countries with impunity. Everything has a price. 

[Jingthing]

Obama's position is the correct one.

I'm curious how Hillary Clinton will react to this question now.

I reckon she'll have to oppose Obama on this, for political reasons. 

Such matters are diplomatic issues. This law is a dangerous precedent that endangers Americans. 

[Chicog]

It seems that they are too stupid to realise that sovereign immunity is not a one way street.

[Grubster]

Who are they trying to kid? It is well known that the Saudi's are the biggest sponsor or terrorism. On the other hand the lawyers whom are so closely related to congress itself will get the vast majority of the money as usual. The Saudi's could care less about a few billion dollars. US presidents will continue to hug and kiss the Sheik of Saudi Arabia. I don't know whats going on between the west and Saudi Arabia but its not good thats for sure.

[Grubster]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Obama's position is the correct one.

I'm curious how Hillary Clinton will react to this question now.

I reckon she'll have to oppose Obama on this, for political reasons. 

Such matters are diplomatic issues. This law is a dangerous precedent that endangers Americans. 

She will do as she's told no doubt.

[Jingthing]

She will do as she's told no doubt.

That's ridiculous. She isn't in the current Obama administration. She's free to disagree with him on issues. On the other hand her opinion isn't very relevant anymore. The bill is passed.

[Grubster]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

That's ridiculous. She isn't in the current Obama administration. She's free to disagree with him on issues. On the other hand her opinion isn't very relevant anymore. The bill is passed.

She will do as she is told if she gets elected. Maybe you think the Prez is in charge but I don't.

[Jingthing]

She will do as she is told if she gets elected. Maybe you think the Prez is in charge but I don't.

Illuminati innit ...

If she's elected she's stuck with this no law.

[sirineou]

only 9/11 victims deserve compensation? how about victims of other terrorism attacks? and if so retroactive and how far back?

Politicians seeking reelection, did not dare seem to be against 9/11 victims, but this law will not survive the light of day. And then the politicians can claim they did the right thing .

If it does, it will be a disaster for the US. Very little to gain, much too lose, a debacle  in international relationships.

Assume, It goes forward,  they sue Saudi Arabia,(we have no case, but that's arguable) and by some chance they win, what then, how do you enforce the decision? do you freeze their US assets? Do we invade them? Do we impose sanctions?

Then they sue as in their courts, for our alleged misbehavior, of which trust me we have a lot.  What then?

What do we gain? what do we loose?

[Grubster]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Illuminati innit ...

If she's elected she's stuck with this no law.

I haven't followed the Illuminati stuff much, it seams many believers just say incredibly stupid stuff, like there wasn't anybody in the 911 planes, the moon landings are fake and so on, but I do believe that the US government is controlled to a great extent by some people that aren't part of the government. It just amazes me, the totally illogical things we do, Vietnam, Iraq, kissing up to the Saudi's, Sending our jobs to China, $800,000,000,000 gift to the banks, Congressmen being allowed insider trading. This stuff couldn't even be made up. Hillary won't be in charge of much.

[Ulysses G.]

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Obama's position is the correct one.

 

 

Agreed. For ONCE Obama got something right.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

I so hope that this will turn sour for US as they are responsible for it all!!!

US armed the Afghan Mujahedin that later became Al Quida and Usama Bin Ladens brother had close business ties with G W. Bush with his oil company. Both these statements are clear facts and not conspiracy fiction!

US supported the "freedom fighters" that turned in to ISIS with arms and vehicles. That's why they now are arming the Kurds with AT-4's, just so they can stop ISIS when they are using the armored vehicles that US gave them...

 

This also open up these cases against US:

Cuba suing for CIA sponsoring terrorism in Cuba

Italy suing US for CIA's involvement in the Piazza Fontana bombing.

Nicaraguans suing US for sponsoring and supporting Contras.

Iran suing US for supporting terrorists in Iran.

Philippines suing US for the mass killing of Muslim Filipinos that led to the armed Muslim conflict in the Philippines today.

Vietnam suing US for using Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.

Iraq suing US for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

Any country that has had civilians killed by us troops during the "war on terror"

 

And so on.
   

Is that the sound of chickens coming home to roost?

 

So Obama has had one in the eye to ruin his last few months- well goody goody for him 55555555555555555

 

I see that Reid was the only senator to support Obama. Surely the worst senator in my memory. It will be good riddance to him in November, as well as Obama.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Kasset Tak said:

I so hope that this will turn sour for US as they are responsible for it all!!!

US armed the Afghan Mujahedin that later became Al Quida and Usama Bin Ladens brother had close business ties with G W. Bush with his oil company. Both these statements are clear facts and not conspiracy fiction!

US supported the "freedom fighters" that turned in to ISIS with arms and vehicles. That's why they now are arming the Kurds with AT-4's, just so they can stop ISIS when they are using the armored vehicles that US gave them...

 

This also open up these cases against US:

Cuba suing for CIA sponsoring terrorism in Cuba

Italy suing US for CIA's involvement in the Piazza Fontana bombing.

Nicaraguans suing US for sponsoring and supporting Contras.

Iran suing US for supporting terrorists in Iran.

Philippines suing US for the mass killing of Muslim Filipinos that led to the armed Muslim conflict in the Philippines today.

Vietnam suing US for using Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.

Iraq suing US for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

Any country that has had civilians killed by us troops during the "war on terror"

 

And so on.
   

Is that the sound of chickens coming home to roost?

 

So Obama has had one in the eye to ruin his last few months- well goody goody for him 55555555555555555

 

I see that Reid was the only senator to support Obama. Surely the worst senator in my memory. It will be good riddance to him in November, as well as Obama.

[joecoolfrog]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Kasset Tak said:

I so hope that this will turn sour for US as they are responsible for it all!!!

US armed the Afghan Mujahedin that later became Al Quida and Usama Bin Ladens brother had close business ties with G W. Bush with his oil company. Both these statements are clear facts and not conspiracy fiction!

US supported the "freedom fighters" that turned in to ISIS with arms and vehicles. That's why they now are arming the Kurds with AT-4's, just so they can stop ISIS when they are using the armored vehicles that US gave them...

 

This also open up these cases against US:

Cuba suing for CIA sponsoring terrorism in Cuba

Italy suing US for CIA's involvement in the Piazza Fontana bombing.

Nicaraguans suing US for sponsoring and supporting Contras.

Iran suing US for supporting terrorists in Iran.

Philippines suing US for the mass killing of Muslim Filipinos that led to the armed Muslim conflict in the Philippines today.

Vietnam suing US for using Agent Orange during the Vietnam war.

Iraq suing US for invading Iraq under false pretenses.

Any country that has had civilians killed by us troops during the "war on terror"

 

And so on.
   

Exactly my thoughts , this will open a huge can of worms with huge potential to embarass the USA. Obama was absolutely right to use his veto , those who are celebrating are either lawyers or politically biased beyond reason.

[LomSak27]

Classic, Jr Bush gave them a private jet to fly back to Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and of course it was on his watch.

However no we are going to wait until Obama to file a lawsuit and overide a Veto.

 

 Republican Morality 

 

 

[Chicog]

On 9/29/2016 at 8:22 AM, JHolmesJr said:

Barrys getting dissed left right and centre on the world stage and now at home….what an unceremonious send off.

Rest assured that the rest of the world knows that this act of stupidity has nothing to do with Obama.

He's done all he can to stop it.

 

 

[Anthony5]

On 9/29/2016 at 1:16 PM, Jingthing said:

Obama's position is the correct one.

I'm curious how Hillary Clinton will react to this question now.

I reckon she'll have to oppose Obama on this, for political reasons. 

Such matters are diplomatic issues. This law is a dangerous precedent that endangers Americans. 

 

You mean she will say she opposes while in fact she doesn't?

 

I'm sure she will have no problem adding just one more lie to the long list.

[bamukloy]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:13 PM, sirineou said:

only 9/11 victims deserve compensation? how about victims of other terrorism attacks? and if so retroactive and how far back?

Politicians seeking reelection, did not dare seem to be against 9/11 victims, but this law will not survive the light of day. And then the politicians can claim they did the right thing .

If it does, it will be a disaster for the US. Very little to gain, much too lose, a debacle  in international relationships.

Assume, It goes forward,  they sue Saudi Arabia,(we have no case, but that's arguable) and by some chance they win, what then, how do you enforce the decision? do you freeze their US assets? Do we invade them? Do we impose sanctions?

Then they sue as in their courts, for our alleged misbehavior, of which trust me we have a lot.  What then?

What do we gain? what do we loose?

 

Look at it for what it is. This is just another agitating tool to help bring on WW3.

They have a hardon for it. 

If Trump gets in it will be a shoe-in.

 

It will be interesting how they pick the prime enemy though.

 

Anyway why stop there? Why not pass a law that cancels all USAs foriegn debt?..

Should be easy seeing how US law apparently is the highest judge and trumps all other countries.

 

Trump will be good for that..war against xxxxxx and send them the bill.

I pity the US servicemen..they probably wont get paid a cent.

Or maybe he get Chinese or immigrants to fight for half the pay.

 

 

 

 

[JHolmesJr]

2 hours ago, Chicog said:

Rest assured that the rest of the world knows that this act of stupidity has nothing to do with Obama.

He's done all he can to stop it.

 

 

 

Barry being dissed is a sign that the world and americans in congress have had enough of him already…he got his sound bite in history as usa's first black president….now everyone just want him gone. 8 years of talking more than doing.

[surangw]

Saudi's get most of their munitions materials and support from America.

 

if someone digs deep enough they will find it is paid for with America's money too

[Chicog]

[Chicog]

Just incredible....

 

Quote

 

Both the House and Senate voted decisively to reverse Obama's decision to scuttle the legislation. Democrats in both chambers abandoned the president in large numbers despite warnings from Obama and top national security officials that flaws in the bill could put U.S. interests, troops, and intelligence personnel at risk.

 

 

 

And a few days later...

 

Quote

 

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the White House was too slow to warn about the "potential consequences" of the measure. Both the House and Senate overwhelmingly overrode Obama's veto of the measure on Wednesday.

McConnell said he told the president recently that the 9/11 victims bill "was an example of an issue that we should have talked about much earlier."

 

 

No, it's an issue you grandstanding cretins should have realised was an idiotic idea in the first place, especially when Obama veto'ed it!

Morons!