White House Signals Veto On Saudi 9/11 Bill
Source: The Hill
The White House on Monday signaled President Obama would veto legislation to allow Americans to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for any role officials played in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
“Given the long list of concerns I have expressed … it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it's currently drafted,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.
Earnest argued the legislation could jeopardize U.S. citizens overseas if other countries pass reciprocal laws that remove foreign immunity in their courts.
“It could put the United States and our taxpayers and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk if other countries were to adopt a similar law,” he said.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/276696-white-house-signals-veto-on-saudi-9-11-bill
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)envy those powers.
840high
(17,196 posts)LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)And human rights arguments, as atrocious as they are, aren't really the point of the bill anyway. The bill applies to terrorist attacks on US soil.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)investor class.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)drop in California, New York and Florida though
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)California can use as big a drop in housing prices as they can provide us!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Kingdom Holdings still has a significant share of Citigroup.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They plan to sell their treasury bills. There is such a demand for these that there will be many buyers for them.
It shall have no effect on the economy, or any class.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)If our government is fucking things up as much as 9/11 fucked us up, maybe it would behave better if it were held responsible.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)think about what they're saying:
if we let US citizens sue other nations for the crimes of that State, then other country's citizens might SUE AMERICA - or worse - for US crimes...
lol...
The US would go bankrupt in about 10 minutes if civilians from other countries could sue the US government...
you can understand the fear.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)I well understand the fear and the irony. The guys involved in the attack on 9/11 were from SA, and yet the Saudi family was allowed to leave the USA on a plane when all others were grounded. Oh, the whole thing will likely come out 50 years from now, if ever.
Eugene
(61,900 posts)Source: Reuters
White House: Not in Saudi interest to destabilize global economy over 9/11 bill
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Obama, who is traveling to Saudi Arabia later this week, said he opposes the bill because it could expose the United States to lawsuits from citizens of other countries.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-arabia-finance-idUSKCN0XF2HG
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Isn't that what the TPP would allow?
.
bjo59
(1,166 posts)arms customers, the House of Saud. No surprise over that veto. Grotesque.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)He said that Obama is lobbying Congress on behalf of the Saudis.
markpkessinger
(8,401 posts). . . I mean, if lawsuits like this were to be permitted against the Saudi government, there's no telling what it might open the door to down the road in terms of the President! Jeesh! 
villager
(26,001 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)powerful man in the world. King Abdullah says otherwise.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But when you as a country have the greatest military force in the world and the government of another country regardless of what country it is funds or backs an attack on your country (the one with the greatest military force), you don't sue.
You take down the government of that other country if necessary with your greatest military in the world.
Sorry, guys, but that's how this works.
I am not saying that Saudi Arabia's government attacked us on 9/11. I don't know. But I am saying that no country has to accept being attacked as we were on 9/11. And the appropriate response to such an attack is not a lawsuit. An attack calls for something much more drastic than that.
So Obama is right.
But the pages from the report on Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 need to be released because if Saudi Arabia thinks it could be found liable in a court for 9/11, we have a problem, and the American people need to know the truth.
If Saudi Arabia thinks it somehow is responsible for 9/11, it should compensate the victims and apologize and do what is right. If not, it should explain any role it may have had -- come clean, apologize and take responsibility.
I don't know about this. So I want to see the censored pages in that report.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)we dont control it. Saudi Arabia owns a lot of our government and when they say jump Obama says how high sir.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)As that is a fact, it should at least be openly admitted.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Saudi Arabia's Military is strong enough to force the US to adopt a slow method of attack,i.e six weeks of bombing followed by a ground attack. Saudi Arabia is strong enough to stop any quick in and take over the oil fields maneuver. The only ground force capable of taking those field, with US Air Cover, is Iran and the US clearly does NOT want the Saudi Arabian oil fields in the hands of Iran.
Thus you are looking at something like Desert Storm or the attack on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Six weeks of intensive bombing followed up with a ground attack, either from Kuwait or Iraq (and for all practical purposes Iraq is now a satellite of Iran).
Ignoring the Iran angle, the bombing of Saudi Arabia will take out the Arabian oil fields for at least six weeks. Saudi Arabia is still the #1 oil exported in the world, followed by Russia (these two nations have been exchanging those positions for the last 20 years). Russia And Saudi Arabia exports as much oil as the next 10 oil exporting countries combined (the US which is #3 oil producer but has been a net oil importer since 1969 and thus NOT on the list of Oil Exporters). The recent attempt to cut world wide oil production basically was an attempt by Russia and Saudi Arabia to come to a deal on how BOTH countries will cut oil production, everyone else was just window dressing.
Anyway back to Saudi Arabia being bombed. If the US attacked Saudi Arabia no one, not even Russia, can replace the Arabia oil exports, thus the price will go up till demand drops do to high prices. We saw that at about $5 a gallon in 2008, that is the last time demand exceeded supply. Since that time supply of oil has exceeded demand and thus the slow drop in the price of oil. Anyone attacks Saudi Arabia (or even Russia), look to $10 to $20 a gallon gasoline within six weeks. US Fracking for oil will once again be profitable, but such fracking had been expected to pass its peak production by 2017 anyway. Such oil could delay $10 to $20 a gallon gasoline, but not for long but also not while the air attack is going on (it would take six months to get the drill rigs back drilling and only then will the price of gasoline drop).
Sorry, the US is addicted to Oil. The US military is overwhelmingly addicted to oil. Europe and Japan will turn to Putin for oil even at the cost of destroying NATO for their are addicted to oil (not as much as the US, but still addicted).
That has been the problem since the 1970s, the US can NOT afford such high oil prices, so will protect its supplier at all costs. That Supplier is Saudi Arabia and all the House of Saud has to do is just cut off the supply of oil for any reason. That is what happened in 1979 and again in 1979 (the attack on Oil Tankers hurt Saudi Arabia exports, Iraq could and did export via Lebanon and Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were the countries most hurt by the wars on the Tankers launched by Saddam in 1979)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)I don't know that that is clear. There are probably many Americans that need to be sued by others and should not be protected.
Bernie supports the suing, so I go with that.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)chapdrum
(930 posts)As if we didn't already know: The Saudis have more clout with both parties than do Americans that aren't politicians.
Obama and the rest of the sellouts: Keep those flag pins prominently displayed. Thank you.
P.S. Yet another reason to get off of fossil fuel as soon as possible (and no, that doesn't mean more drilling in the U.S.).
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)If Americans were permitted to sue the Saudis, the Saudis would not be able to afford all the military hardware that they buy from the US.
This is all about money.
LarryNM
(493 posts)shouldn't they be against the same provisions allowing suits against the U.S. in the TPP?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)If this documentation were released, I think the public would demand Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others be tried for war crimes. For that reason, I want every syllable of those 28 pages released. Where's Wikileaks when we need them!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)least shake her finger and say "cut that out". Obama is afraid to do anything but hope it all goes away.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Really, his obsession with his legacy is destroying whatever existed of it.
Duppers
(28,125 posts)F
Botany
(70,516 posts)n/t
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Setting aside diplomatic immunity would be, I can see, a problem.
Publishing the 28 pages should be done without regard for immunity.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)RATM435
(392 posts)
Reter
(2,188 posts)The Shadow Government puppetmasters have told him to oppose this. These people are no joke, it's not Obama wanting to veto this.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)And that's just a fraction of the JICI redactions!
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Truly a sign that commerce is more important than justice.
Override.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Nihil
(13,508 posts)"Don't even *think* of going against your handlers little PotUS".
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you can't carry out open military reprisals, or don't want to go through the trouble to capture those who threaten the United States, you do it clandestinely. Unfortunately, that capability only applies to countries that don't own us and are thus immune to our laws and reach.
This is an admission to all the world that we are no.longer a great power to be reckoned with and that money buys anything you want here, even mass murder. We'll get what we allow, in that case.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Looks like Obama really is Bush Sr's poodle.
Democat
(11,617 posts)There could be huge repercussions for Americans overseas if this bill is written incorrectly.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)incarcerated for decades....
The biggest joke of the day must be that Justice is always served in "Land of the Free". Apparently both Bush and Obama are siding with the Saudis against the Americsan people, still refusing to hold the real perps responsible...
thereismore
(13,326 posts)legacy.
lark
(23,105 posts)Bernie is so right, we need a revolution!
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)More bullshit from the Disappointment In Chief...