Log In
Home
15 Feb ’12
Offline
Hope and change my ass, what a charade politics are
President Obama on Friday vetoed legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia over its alleged ties to the terrorists who carried out the attacks.
Congressional leaders plan to hold override votes in the coming days and supporters of the legislation say they are confident they can succeed in overturning the president’s action.
The Obama administration had until midnight Friday to reject the measure, or it would have automatically become law.
The legislation would allow U.S. courts to waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in cases involving terrorism on U.S. soil. The administration contends that this would break a longstanding practice that sovereign nations are protected from these types of legal threats. The result, according to the White House, is that American officials could now be sued in foreign courts over U.S. military or diplomatic actions abroad.
“I recognize that there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 families have endured. My Administration therefore remains resolute in its commitment to assist these families in their pursuit of justice and do whatever we can to prevent another attack in the United States,” the president wrote in his veto message to Congress. “Enacting [this legislation] into law, however, would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.”
21 Feb ’12
Offline
Comrade leader Obama never makes wrong decision. It is what best for American people.
15 Feb ’12
Offline
Sad what we have turned into isn't it.
21 Feb ’12
Offline
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves. People are so economically and politically illiterate that they can't see the logical conclusions to their proposals. People are tolerant, until they run across someone who's beliefs conflict with theirs. Recreational outrage is a thing. Orwell's thought police are real. Free speech isn't acceptable. Defending yourself isn't acceptable. In fact the only thing that does seem acceptable these days is slavery to an ever growing state and herd mentality.
18 Jan ’16
Offline
if he had signed this, would it have set a global precedent ?
would Syria be able to sue the US for arming and training "freedom fighters" ?
and hasn't the US accidentally bombed weddings in Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan ?
I'm pretty sure the US has given money as reparation, but its the US, not a court, deciding how much to pay and when and to who
and which court would decide ?
a US court ? the world court ?
I wouldn't trust the world court or the UN or any other country's court to rule on matters of US culpability
but still ...
http://www.nytimes.c.....ussia.html
"The United States acknowledged on Saturday that its warplanes had carried out an airstrike in Syria that resulted in the deaths of Syrian government troops. American military officials said the pilots in the attack, in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, believed they were targeting the Islamic State. ...
the United States had relayed its regrets to the Syrian government through the Russians for the 'unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces' fighting the Islamic State. ..."
How much should the US be sued for that ?
21 Feb ’12
Offline
jl said
if he had signed this, would it have set a global precedent ?
would Syria be able to sue the US for arming and training "freedom fighters" ?
and hasn't the US accidentally bombed weddings in Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan ?
I'm pretty sure the US has given money as reparation, but its the US, not a court, deciding how much to pay and when and to who
and which court would decide ?
a US court ? the world court ?
I wouldn't trust the world court or the UN or any other country's court to rule on matters of US culpability
but still ...
http://www.nytimes.c.....ussia.html
"The United States acknowledged on Saturday that its warplanes had carried out an airstrike in Syria that resulted in the deaths of Syrian government troops. American military officials said the pilots in the attack, in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour, believed they were targeting the Islamic State. ...
the United States had relayed its regrets to the Syrian government through the Russians for the 'unintentional loss of life of Syrian forces' fighting the Islamic State. ..."
How much should the US be sued for that ?
quite possibly it could have set a precedent
15 Feb ’12
Offline
first lawsuit is going forward since the over ride, personally I think the US should be sued and held accountable, the local and state level are to a certain extent, moreso local
A woman widowed when her husband was killed at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 sued the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia just two days after Congress enacted legislation allowing Americans to sue foreign governments for allegedly playing a role in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
Stephanie Ross DeSimone alleged the kingdom provided material support to al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, in a complaint filed Friday at a U.S. court in Washington. Her suit is also filed on behalf of the couple’s daughter. DeSimone was pregnant when Navy Commander Patrick Dunn was killed.
Fifteen of the 19 men who hijacked airliners used in the attack were Saudi nationals. One jet struck the Pentagon, seat of the U.S. military, two destroyed the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York while another crashed in a Pennsylvania field as its passengers fought back against the hijackers.
A U.S. commission that investigated the 2001 attacks said in a 2004 report that it “found no evidence that the Saudi government, as an institution, or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al-Qaeda.” Long-classified portions of a congressional inquiry that were released in July found the hijackers may have had help from some Saudi officials.
15 Feb ’12
Offline
Saudis not happy about the override
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Throughout President Obama’s time in the White House, Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Persian Gulf have watched with dismay as the kingdom’s decades-old alliance with the United States seemed to be slipping.
Then came the overwhelming congressional support for Jasta, or the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which will allow relatives of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any suspected role in the plot.
That was all the proof many Saudis needed that the alliance that has underpinned the regional order for decades was fraying — perhaps irreparably.
“Jasta is a wake up call for the Saudis, that it is time to revisit the concept of the alliance with the United States,” said Khalid al-Dakhil, a Saudi political sociologist and writer.
Saudis responded to the passage of the bill, after both houses of Congress voted on Wednesday to override Mr. Obama’s veto, with a mix of anger and disappointment, while many have already begun thinking about how their country will need to adjust.
Passage of the law was a huge blow to the Saudis, who have long maintained strong ties in Washington though close cooperation with the American government on a range of issues, from economic and oil policy to counterterrorism to shared intelligence and military programs.
Saudi diplomats, and a range of public relations companies hired by the Saudi government, lobbied hard against the bill, with Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister and former Saudi ambassador to Washington, leading the effort. But that failed to persuade enough lawmakers to vote against a bill promoted by the families of victims of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Continue reading the main story
That resilient association of Saudi Arabia with the attacks angers many Saudis. Their government disowned Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, in 1994. Al Qaeda, and more recently the jihadists of the Islamic State, have frequently targeted the kingdom, killing Saudi civilians.
Many question why suspicions of Saudi involvement in the Sept. 11 plot persist in the United States, despite the passage of 15 years, a congressional investigation and the release this year of the long-classified 28 pages that were believed to contain evidence of complicity by Saudi officials. None of that has produced evidence of Saudi involvement, they say.
Most Users Ever Online: 698
Currently Online:
99 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
2 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
easytapper: 2149
DangerDuke: 2030
groinkick: 1667
PorkChopsMmm: 1515
Gravel Road: 1455
Newest Members:
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 12
Topics: 11482
Posts: 58640
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 2
Members: 19842
Moderators: 0
Admins: 1
Administrators: K
