Should 911 families be able to sue Saudi Arabia?

[AnnaH]

Congress is likely to overrule the President's veto. My first reaction is to agree with Obama that this would be risky for our own country, a slippery slope. Not sure what to think. Of course, my sympathies are with the families. Saudi Arabia has not answered for their part in 911. Just not sure this should be up to the families to resolve. Anyone up on this issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/politics/september-11-bill-saudi-arabia-veto/

 

[Lady_Disdain]

By the same logic, should families of people tortured under dictatorships sponsored by CIA/US government?

 

[kenny]

Americans love their SUVs for hauling around their Starbucks Lattes.

Saudi Arabia has oil.

Need I say more?

 

[Rhea]

The US government has had a hand in numerous modern day atrocities. That'd be like opening a vat of snakes for litigation.

 

[ruby59]

What about the Oklahoma bombing? Should they be allowed to sue as well?

 

[Karl_K]

While on the surface it sounds good, I think it will open a can of worms best left closed.

 

[AprilBaby]

We will be sued by people all over the world for atrocities we have committed. Should have left the box closed.

 

[kenny]

Pandora's box has been opened ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37498033

Congress has voted to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabian officials.
In the first veto override of his presidency, the Senate voted 97-1 and the House of Representatives 338-74, meaning the bill becomes law.
The White House described the move as "embarrassing".
The president argues the bill could expose US companies, troops and officials to potential lawsuits abroad.
CIA Director John Brennan said: "The downside is potentially huge."
The House and Senate unanimously passed the legislation, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA), this year despite the Obama administration's lobbying efforts.

The bill amends a 1976 law that shields other countries from American lawsuits, allowing victims' families the right to sue any member of the Saudi government suspected of playing a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Mr Obama argued in his veto that the bill would undermine US-Saudi relations and warned of tit-for-tat lawsuits against US service members in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
But the measure's supporters contended the legislation only applies to acts of terrorism that have occurred on US soil.
"The White House and the executive branch (are) far more interested in diplomatic considerations,'' said Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
"We're more interested in the families and in justice."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters afterwards the vote was "the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done" in decades.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the oil-rich kingdom - a key US ally - has denied any role in the attacks, which left nearly 3,000 people dead.
There is no proven link to support claims that Saudi officials provided financial support to the hijackers.
Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid was the lone 'no' vote against the bill.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, and Senator Bernie Sanders did not vote.

 

[partgypsy]

Pandora's box has been opened ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37498033

Congress has voted to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabian officials.
In the first veto override of his presidency, the Senate voted 97-1 and the House of Representatives 338-74, meaning the bill becomes law.
The White House described the move as "embarrassing".
The president argues the bill could expose US companies, troops and officials to potential lawsuits abroad.
CIA Director John Brennan said: "The downside is potentially huge."
The House and Senate unanimously passed the legislation, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA), this year despite the Obama administration's lobbying efforts.

The bill amends a 1976 law that shields other countries from American lawsuits, allowing victims' families the right to sue any member of the Saudi government suspected of playing a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Mr Obama argued in his veto that the bill would undermine US-Saudi relations and warned of tit-for-tat lawsuits against US service members in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
But the measure's supporters contended the legislation only applies to acts of terrorism that have occurred on US soil.
"The White House and the executive branch (are) far more interested in diplomatic considerations,'' said Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
"We're more interested in the families and in justice."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters afterwards the vote was "the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done" in decades.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the oil-rich kingdom - a key US ally - has denied any role in the attacks, which left nearly 3,000 people dead.
There is no proven link to support claims that Saudi officials provided financial support to the hijackers.
Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid was the lone 'no' vote against the bill.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, and Senator Bernie Sanders did not vote.

I totally agree. It is not going to do anything (secure justice for the victims) and instead opens a big can of worms. It sets precedent for individuals suing the United States, such as for drone attacks.

 

[partgypsy]

Pandora's box has been opened ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37498033

Congress has voted to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabian officials.
In the first veto override of his presidency, the Senate voted 97-1 and the House of Representatives 338-74, meaning the bill becomes law.
The White House described the move as "embarrassing".
The president argues the bill could expose US companies, troops and officials to potential lawsuits abroad.
CIA Director John Brennan said: "The downside is potentially huge."
The House and Senate unanimously passed the legislation, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA), this year despite the Obama administration's lobbying efforts.

The bill amends a 1976 law that shields other countries from American lawsuits, allowing victims' families the right to sue any member of the Saudi government suspected of playing a role in the 9/11 attacks.
Mr Obama argued in his veto that the bill would undermine US-Saudi relations and warned of tit-for-tat lawsuits against US service members in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
But the measure's supporters contended the legislation only applies to acts of terrorism that have occurred on US soil.
"The White House and the executive branch (are) far more interested in diplomatic considerations,'' said Democratic New York Senator Chuck Schumer.
"We're more interested in the families and in justice."

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters afterwards the vote was "the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done" in decades.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, but the oil-rich kingdom - a key US ally - has denied any role in the attacks, which left nearly 3,000 people dead.
There is no proven link to support claims that Saudi officials provided financial support to the hijackers.
Democratic Minority Leader Harry Reid was the lone 'no' vote against the bill.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, and Senator Bernie Sanders did not vote.

I totally agree. It is not going to do anything (secure justice for the victims) and instead opens a big can of worms. It sets precedent for individuals suing the United States, such as for drone attacks.

 

[kenny]

Imagine how much money lawyers are going to make.

Gee, I wonder who was behind this.

 

[sonnyjane]

The US government has had a hand in numerous modern day atrocities. That'd be like opening a vat of snakes for litigation.

This absolutely! I can't believe they don't see that! And every time there's a mass shooting here, and they try to sue the gun companies, it never succeeds and that's an even more direct connection than 9/11 and Saudi Arabia!

 

[kenny]

The US government has had a hand in numerous modern day atrocities. That'd be like opening a vat of snakes for litigation.

This absolutely! I can't believe they don't see that!

The only things that congresscritters SEE is things that help them get reelected.
When campaigning the opponent can say, "She voted AGAINST the 9-11 families".
Voters are too stupid to look beyond that, and there are more stupid voters than intelligent ones.

Anything related to 9-11 and to family is perceived as a matter of the heart, not the mind.

If Obama was up for reeleciton he would not have passed this.

This is an excellent example of why every elected official in the nation should be limited to ONE term.
How in the world can we expect people to choose between what's best for their country and what's best for themselves?

Like, DUH!

 

[lovedogs]

ugh this is a horrible idea. Opening a HUGE can of worms! Imagine all the things that countries could sue the US for if this precedent is set up...it's like the people "for" it have selective memories about what our own country has done.

 

[House Cat]

This congress never fails to disappoint.

This was a political move.... Isn't there an election coming soon? They had to appear as if they were doing SOMETHING!

 

[jaaron]

Anything related to 9-11 and to family is perceived as a matter of the heart, not the mind.

I'd agree, except they weren't afraid to vote against the first responder's bill. I don't have time, but it would be interesting to know how those votes intersected.

http://whovotedagainst911healthbill.tumblr.com

 

[ksinger]

And.....under the "Thanks Obama!" eternally pathetic whining idiocy of Republicans in Congress, I give you this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/29/republican-leaders-say-911-measure-may-need-to-be-revisited-after-elections/

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday the law could have “unintended ramifications” and needed “further discussion.” But he blamed the White House for not making a forceful argument about the threat posed by the legislation to to U.S. officials.

“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationships,” said McConnell, who voted to override the president’s veto.

Their comments infuriated White House officials who contend the dangers posed by the bill were obvious and articulated well ahead of the votes to pass the bill and then to override the veto.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said lawmakers’ recent comments are a “deeply embarrassing” display of “rapid-onset buyer’s remorse.”"

Yep. Republicans passed that purely political turd over the objections of everyone with a brain, and now that they took time out from congratulating themselves on shoving it Obama's ear, it's all OMG what did we DO???? Must be Obama's fault!!

There's just no way to make this stuff up.