Obama vetoes 9/11 lawsuit bill
"Barack Obama vetoed Friday a bill that would allow family members of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia. The White House claimed it could expose US diplomats and servicemen to litigation in other countries.
Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress say they'll override Obama's veto next week."
--------------------
This had huge bi-partisan support. Guess his personal relationship with Saudi Arabia is more important than the desire of the American people.
I may be missing something here but how is suing Saudi Arabia going to work? And what grounds do they have to do so? I actually agree with him that it wouldn't do anything to protect this nation from further attacks or make a difference in our response to any future attacks.
And do we really want this to happen? We really, really do not want these to be a possibility.....
He warned that the law would hurt the effectiveness of the administration's action against terrorism by taking questions of foreign states' involvement in terrorism "out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts."
Obama also said the move would open Americans abroad, especially those serving in the military, to prosecutions by foreign countries, since this would remove the reciprocal agreements that now protect both sides from such lawsuits.
I understand the families of the victims feel this would bring some kind of closure, but it will only open a nasty can of worms that will never be able to be closed and will be very detrimental to the US. Can you imagine the lawsuits that could happen from victim's families of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Fresh hell.....
I don't get suing Saudi Arabia either. Just because that's what nationality the terrorists were doesn't me that they were state sponsored, and it would be almost impossible to prove otherwise.
So does that mean civilians killed by our drones can sue the US?
Quote:So does that mean civilians killed by our drones can sue the US?
Exactly the can of worms this could open not to mention allied countries could face similar issues. Why would we do that?
I have little to no love for Obama, but here he actually makes sense. And it says in the article that the lawmakers passed it under extreme pressure from victim's families so that bipartisan support really wasn't.
Foreman: "We, the jury, find in favor of the plaintiff, and award him damages in the amount of $10,000,000."
Saudi Arabia: "What? Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of the gushing oil that I'm sending to Russia instead."
Quote:Exactly the can of worms this could open not to mention allied countries could face similar issues. Why would we do that?
I have little to no love for Obama, but here he actually makes sense. And it says in the article that the lawmakers passed it under extreme pressure from victim's families so that bipartisan support really wasn't.
Maybe the scrum crooks in the white house should be held accountable for all the destruction they rain down on innocent civilians
Quote:I don't get suing Saudi Arabia either. Just because that's what nationality the terrorists were doesn't me that they were state sponsored, and it would be almost impossible to prove otherwise.
Its not just because of their nationality. You're familiar with the 28 pages? The report acknowledges that the terrorists probably received support from people connected to the Saudi government. However not corroborated in the report, good lawyers im sure could prove a connection, since it does indeed exist.
Quote:I may be missing something here but how is suing Saudi Arabia going to work? And what grounds do they have to do so? I actually agree with him that it wouldn't do anything to protect this nation from further attacks or make a difference in our response to any future attacks.
And do we really want this to happen? We really, really do not want these to be a possibility.....
He warned that the law would hurt the effectiveness of the administration's action against terrorism by taking questions of foreign states' involvement in terrorism "out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts."
Obama also said the move would open Americans abroad, especially those serving in the military, to prosecutions by foreign countries, since this would remove the reciprocal agreements that now protect both sides from such lawsuits.
I understand the families of the victims feel this would bring some kind of closure, but it will only open a nasty can of worms that will never be able to be closed and will be very detrimental to the US. Can you imagine the lawsuits that could happen from victim's families of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Fresh hell.....
Ya, it might actually keep politicians and the CIA out of every other countries business. You mean we can't bomb the hell out of people without fear of repercussions? No we can't have that, vetoed!
You mean we might actually be held responsible in court for giving weapons to terrorists? Screw that! Vetoed!
I can buy the towers falling after two airliners flew into them. Its that tower 7 also fell. No airplane flew into it.
What this bill allows is for people to sue nations like Qatar who are not officially considered terrorist sponsors... Even though they clearly are. Want a good laugh, look at the nations that are considered terrorist sponsors and see what they have in common.
Obama and any politicians agreeing with his veto are simply covering their own butts for when in the future ties are exposed between our own government, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Wahhabi terrorist groups in Syria.
If we started suing Saudit Arabia, how soon before Iraqi's and the rest of the Middle East started suing us?
I think this is more complicated that the media is giving it credit for.
Quote:If we started suing Saudit Arabia, how soon before Iraqi's and the rest of the Middle East started suing us?
I think this is more complicated that the media is giving it credit for.
That point has been brought up. It's called accountability and our leaders are pretty much held to none. If our government doesn't have the balls (or moral fortitude) to hold terrorist sponsors responsible for their crimes against humanity, then our people will through the power of the law.
I like the idea of politicians being held liable for all the chaos caused through their foreign policies. Maybe they won't be so wreckless anymore. Obama has the nerve to earn people about how this would be bad for our national security? BULLCRAP! Stop playing God and funding coups all over the middle East that gives power to the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadists. That would go much further in our security compared to what they are doing now. Maybe the neo-cons will stop invading nation after nation. See the point?
Quote:Just going to throw this out there, then walk away:
A study performed by physicists, including professors from BYU and McMaster University, concluded that the explanation offered by NIST that fires brought down the Twin Towers is incredibly unlikely and doesn't hold up to review of the evidence and scientific principles. The much more likely scenario given visual evidence, first responder accounts and a basic understanding of gravity points to a controlled demolition using explosives and thermite.
Scroll to page 22. This isn't some guy in his backyard mixing thermite and using it to burn through his spare tinfoil hats. It's a respected scientific journal publishing a study that it found to be worthy of peer review.
Uhh that's not a scientific journal at all. It's a news magazine, not a scientific journal. And even they put a little disclamer at the top stating "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."
Furthermore, all the members of that little study were 9/11 truthers. People who came to the conclusion, then tried to make the facts fit that conclusion--which is exactly NOT how a science should work.
But no, we should just accept that physics--which I'm sure most people reading the article have barely taken a class in--was the only evidence of this being a controlled demolition left behind in a massive conspiracy and assume that it was a controlled demolition. Nevermind how the government got thousands of pounds of explosives into the buildings to bring them down--all without any of the thousands of people who worked there noticing. Not to mention the number of people who took the explosives in (and if you think the people at the top of this conspiracy did it themselves, then I've got an invisible unicorn to sell you) and none of them--not a single one, has come out and admitted it. out of what... fear of death? Not one of them has enough of a conscience to pull a Snowden, and leave the country then tell people "AMERICA DID IT!" I'm sure several countries would gladly grant them asylum. Oh but I'm sure they're all dead too or something. Somehow there's absolutely no other evidence, and the government behind this conspiracy didn't somehow think this would be a problem. They managed to cover every other conceivable detail.
The problem? All of these 'problems' with the physics have been addressed time and time again. Many of which are addressed with the simple fact that these truthers like to omit details that are inconvenient to their story. Such as the fact that the plane debris stripped away most of the fireproofing, and that design of the towers was different from the typical skyrise.
Find some REAL evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Find an Edward Snowden or someone like that, then we'll start talking. Instead of... you know, mostly speculative guessing with careful omissions to make everything sound good.
Quote:Uhh that's not a scientific journal at all. It's a news magazine, not a scientific journal. And even they put a little disclamer at the top stating "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors."
Furthermore, all the members of that little study were 9/11 truthers. People who came to the conclusion, then tried to make the facts fit that conclusion--which is exactly NOT how a science should work.
But no, we should just accept that physics--which I'm sure most people reading the article have barely taken a class in--was the only evidence of this being a controlled demolition left behind in a massive conspiracy and assume that it was a controlled demolition. Nevermind how the government got thousands of pounds of explosives into the buildings to bring them down--all without any of the thousands of people who worked there noticing. Not to mention the number of people who took the explosives in (and if you think the people at the top of this conspiracy did it themselves, then I've got an invisible unicorn to sell you) and none of them--not a single one, has come out and admitted it. out of what... fear of death? Not one of them has enough of a conscience to pull a Snowden, and leave the country then tell people "AMERICA DID IT!" I'm sure several countries would gladly grant them asylum. Oh but I'm sure they're all dead too or something. Somehow there's absolutely no other evidence, and the government behind this conspiracy didn't somehow think this would be a problem. They managed to cover every other conceivable detail.
The problem? All of these 'problems' with the physics have been addressed time and time again. Many of which are addressed with the simple fact that these truthers like to omit details that are inconvenient to their story. Such as the fact that the plane debris stripped away most of the fireproofing, and that design of the towers was different from the typical skyrise.
Find some REAL evidence that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Find an Edward Snowden or someone like that, then we'll start talking. Instead of... you know, mostly speculative guessing with careful omissions to make everything sound good.
^This
Not to mention that the towers came down from the point of impact. It would be amazingly skillful for the conspirator piloting the plane to aim at exactly the right story where the explosives were.
Quote:Ya, it might actually keep politicians and the CIA out of every other countries business. You mean we can't bomb the hell out of people without fear of repercussions? No we can't have that, vetoed!
You mean we might actually be held responsible in court for giving weapons to terrorists? Screw that! Vetoed!
I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is not the way to do it. There are already measures in place for this sort of thing, it's called the United Nations. But good luck on getting them to do anything worth a crap.
Quote:Ya, it might actually keep politicians and the CIA out of every other countries business. You mean we can't bomb the hell out of people without fear of repercussions? No we can't have that, vetoed!
You mean we might actually be held responsible in court for giving weapons to terrorists? Screw that! Vetoed!
Well, 240 years ago we were the "terrorists". Should France be sued by England for supporting our terrorist activities?
Similarly - did Germany get sued by holocaust victims? Did the new German republic voluntarily pay some reparations?
Can a 911 victim's family sue the Saudi govt in a civil case?
International litigation is a complicated web of red tape. Who's laws apply? The one doing the suing or had one getting sued?
You mean terrorists and war criminals would have to pay for their murders and crimes? We can't allow it. It might mean the end of state-sponsored terrorism and mass murder.
Quote:Well, 240 years ago we were the "terrorists". Should France be sued by England for supporting our terrorist activities?
Similarly - did Germany get sued by holocaust victims? Did the new German republic voluntarily pay some reparations?
Can a 911 victim's family sue the Saudi govt in a civil case?
International litigation is a complicated web of red tape. Who's laws apply? The one doing the suing or had one getting sued?
The Revolutionary War does not fit the true definition of terrorism. Had we sent the Boston Tea party boat back to London full of explosives, then you may have a point.
I read that the law actually already allows for people to sue official terrorist sponsors. This only extends it to the countries ACTUALLY responsible.