world

Congress rebukes Obama, overrides veto of 9/11 legislation

27 Comments
By RICHARD LARDNER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

And once again President Obama is the only adult in the room.

Sadly elected officials on both sides of the aisle seem have no hesitancy to play pure politics here because if they didn't they would be scorched for it at election time. What a sad commentary on American politics.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Obama must be really disappointed here.

[roll eyes]

1 ( +3 / -2 )

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,

Ha! I'm curious what else was sneakily added to this. The expediency is suspect.

He said the Saudis provide significant amounts of information to the U.S. to help foil extremist plots.

Duh! Of course they do seeing as they fund them in the first place.

The chickens are coming home and imo it's about damn time!!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

So now we are allowed to sue countries? Wait until people start suing the US for all the stuff it has done.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

And once again President Obama is the only adult in the room

Whether it's pure politics or not, if an act of terrorism is carried out within the US and there is evidence that it was sponsored by a foreign state, do you still think sovereign immunity should apply to that state? I think everyone deserves to have their case heard even if their chances of success are slim. If Saudi Arabia pulls it's investments out of the US as a result, so be it. I'd rather live in a country governed by the rule of law than rule of oil money.

I also think it's time people start looking at the merits of each issue rather than looking to see which party is vetoing and whether Obama supports it or not.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I can understand the how the families feel, but if every country had to pay for the deaths they were responsible for, America would go broke.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

As much as it pains me to say this, but Obama is right on this one. This could have very damaging ramifications for the US in the long run as other countries will no doubt retaliate do the same to us and file their claims of wrongful death suits against the US legitimate or not.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I can see both sides. The people want to be able to sue to get payment for pains done to them, but on the other hand, the US is opening itself up to ridiculous amounts of lawsuits from all over the world if it starts to let its people sue foreign states.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Bass

It's really not opening up a can of worms when you realise that the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 already allows countries who are designated state sponsors of terrorism to be sued for acts of terrorism carried out both within and outside the US. All that this law does is it allows people to bypass the list if the act of terror is carried out within the US. It's actually a very small change, but since the President controls that list, he doesn't want to give up any executive power.

If other countries respond by doing the same, the US would have very little to worry about in my opinion, because a.) most countries agree that the US is not carrying out acts of terror in other countries b.) If some countries who hate the US decided to stretch the definition of terrorism, why haven't they already done this and seized all of America's assets in their country? c.) the US government has very few assets overseas that could be seized since they don't operate a soveriegn wealth fund like Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Malaysia etc.

You also mention wrongful death suits, but this law isn't that broad, it only includes acts of terrorism.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If they allow lawsuits of foreign nations, it could also potentially open up lawsuits against America as well. How many military families would like to sue the US for the deaths of their loved ones, after it was found that the war was founded on a lie? Sounds like a plausible case for wrongful death lawsuits to me.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

How does that line from the Godfather go?

Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

Or should it be:

Keep your enemies close but your friends closer.

Pretty messed up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is just trying to protect the petrodollar. But the real fear here is giving 9/11 more attention and finding out it was not just the Sauds. Did they sneak around Building 7 for weeks planting demolition charges? No way that building could have free fell in 6 seconds without demolition charges. Eyes wide shut.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Since a great deal of congressmen and senators are lawyers, it is no surprise that they are beholden to their brethren outside politics.

The lawsuits will commence, the law firms will charge several hundred dollars per hour in fees, plus expenses (lots of first-class international travel), and in the event that a settlement is ever reached, these firms will end up up with most of the money, and the plaintiffs will end up with what is left over.

I was involved in a class action lawsuit against a car manufacturer, and we won our case. The settlement was $11,000,000. My share amounted to 85 cents. Good luck to those who want to sue the Saudis.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This could have very damaging ramifications for the US in the long run as other countries will no doubt retaliate do the same to us and file their claims of wrongful death suits against the US legitimate or not.

If the glove fits...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If some countries who hate the US decided to stretch the definition of terrorism, why haven't they already done this and seized all of America's assets in their country?

You are talking about the political class in each country. This new bill takes the decision away from the political class and gives in to the courts.

A refugee in Germany or the UK who has had family members killed by US forces could sue the US in a UK court, for example. The politicians would have nothing to do with it. Judges, who tend to be less nuanced in these matters, will happily levy punitive fines against the US.

At the moment, it is the US that is the economic bully on the block, forcing foreign banks to do their bidding. That will probably change in a few years, as other countries try to get out from under the US boot. Ironically, that could be hastened by wealthy nations ridding themselves of US investments to reduce their exposure to these lawsuits. The pressure on the economy would be great, which would probably be a good thing for the Americans. They might stop being so frivolous and get back to realistically working on the economy.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Mr Bum America is already broke.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

28 U.S. Code § 1605A - Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state......

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1605A

If I have my head on correctly, Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act will permit a court to waive claims of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurs inside US borders.

The question must follow is the impact that this amendment will have on restrictive theory of sovereign immunity.

Codified restrictive theory underpins a states immunity from any exercise of judicial jurisdiction de jure imperii by another state in respect of claims arising out of a foreign government or states activities. Which could explain why currently the US or Saudi Kingdom is not exposed to liabilities,especially in relation to international law. All of which doesn't distract from the years of anguish and pain victims' families have had to endure.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@commanteer

A refugee in Germany or the UK who has had family members killed by US forces could sue the US in a UK court, for example.

There's a big difference between terrorism and war. I think most countries, as well as international law, recognise this.

What makes you think that the UK and Germany would respond by passing a law like the one you suggest? If Germany and the UK are really itching to do this, why haven't they already done so seeing as US law has allowed for foreign states to be sued like this since at least 1976? (provided the president writes their name onto a list). It seems like an extreme and unlikely scenario to me. Sovereign immunity is not clearly codified and set in stone. Just like all principles of international law it evolves with the times.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As much as I can't wait to see the back of Obama and hold the Saudi regime at the utmost contempt, this exercise has been a tremendously successful red herring in shifting the focus away from the real culprits.

How about suing the Bush family, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and anyone else that the money trail reveals benefited substantially from 9/11, both politically and financially, and quite reasonably can be suspected as having a hand in the attacks themselves? As horrible as they are, the Saudi government and supporting apparatus would be a fair way down the list in terms of primary litigation targets.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just invade the country and kill more than a million people to justify 3000 who died. And then don't be brought up on War crimes yourselves. It's clearly worked so far. No one can hold anyone accountable

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Obama is just trying to protect the petrodollar. But the real fear here is giving 9/11 more attention and finding out it was not just the Sauds. Did they sneak around Building 7 for weeks planting demolition charges? No way that building could have free fell in 6 seconds without demolition charges. Eyes wide shut.

And out come the tinfoil hats again. Why are people so convinced that there was more to this than terrorists? You really think your own government, you know George Dubya, Republican poster boy, would sanction the murder of that many American citizens?

Is there actually any concrete evidence that the 9/11 terror attacks were sponsored by the Saudi state? Aren't they a US ally?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Is there actually any concrete evidence that the 9/11 terror attacks were sponsored by the Saudi state?

If there wasn't, then there wouldn't be reason to pursue this any further. And the answer to your question is do some reading on your own, googles a treasure.

And out come the tinfoil hats again. Why are people so convinced that there was more to this than terrorists?

Labels are juvenile. Follow up the discussion with something that will educate and not denigrate.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think they are suing the wrong people. Its all a smoke screen and Obama doesn't care anyway, he's out and probably on a golden parachute soon. Then you can watch the sequals with new stars reading the same script.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then you can watch the sequals with new stars reading the same script.

Then demand for fresh actors with fresh scripts, otherwise don't kick the can down the road. Jezuz!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So now we are allowed to sue countries? Wait until people start suing the US for all the stuff it has done.

This is exactly why he vetoed the bill. Individuals shouldn't be allowed to sue sovereign nations because there are a lot more individuals out there than sovereign nations. By overriding the veto, Congress has opened the floodgates. Just in terms of Iraqi families that have a legitimate claim against the U.S., this will become an albatross that will drown the U.S. in court costs.

Of course, Congress doesn't care about this because they only look at the short-term "picture" (i.e. what gets them through the next election cycle). They're not the ones that will have to deal with the fallout from their irresponsible action.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

yep so wait until all these other countries start to sue the US for all the wrongs it committed to others, and if the US is convicted of crimes in other countries and ignores those rulings , then dont be surprised if US companies are targeted to pay for the US crimes. its a two way street. and could easily backfire on them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

countries start to sue the US for all the wrongs it committed to others

It's about damn time!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites