Congress passes bill letting 9/11 victims sue Saudi Arabia, in face of veto threat

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I will vote. I am still settling into my new "locality". I just became a resident somewhere instead of a nomad. LOL

I may write in Ron Paul.....even though I will probably vote for Trump.

Pete the cat is my third choice.

Someone here on ATS has a cat named pete. He is more popular than Hillary.

Good except it was an inside job

a reply to: worldstarcountry

STOP THE PRESSES!!

I just read why this bill means nothing!

Apparently there was a last minute amendment passed....Nobody thought it was odd that the bill passed unanimously?

It states:

A last-minute amendment to the final draft of the bill included a provision that allows for the U.S. attorney general and secretary of state to stop any pending legislation against the Saudis. The section that was quietly inserted into the legislation — “Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations” — allows the secretary of state to simply “certify” that the U.S. is “engaged in good-faith discussions with the foreign-state defendant concerning the resolution of claims against the foreign state
Read more at thefreethoughtproject.com...

So apparently this bill has no legs whatsoever and the whole thing is typical U.S. Government farce.
Oh dear...

a reply to: tadaman

Pete the cat is my third choice.

3rd!!! It's a movement I tell you, we just gotta find the grassroots now. Pete for Pres! 1 is more like it.

anyways . . . whether the bill means anything or not, it says something when a bill passes both houses of congress unanimously and the president still wants to veto it. Basically the bill is a statement and nothing more. And the president's statement is: "Screw you America, I am standing behind my rich Saudi Prince friends on this matter."

Years ago at the start of the take down / take over / destruction of the Middle East there was a plan talked about which would end with the fall of the Saudi royalty and regime. Once completed there would be the rise of the new world order. At the time I wondered how the west was going to engineer the take down of Saudi Arabia, since they had been allies for so long and they were so rich and powerful and have so much oil. This new law could well be the beginning of the take down, a process which will take a good number of years, but does two things other than just making the Saudis fall. Firstly it totally deflects all the blame on to them and completely away from the USA government and secondly it manipulates the plan so that it is not seen as the government who is behind the take down (especially if they are seen to oppose the bill) but that the downing of the Saudis is an unfortunate consequence of having to 'pay up' for their sins against USA as they are persued by individual and corporations alike.

Now, I am in no way standing up for the Saudis, as they are a corrupt and brutally barbaric lot, but I do see this fulfilling the big agenda whilst letting the real guilty party carry on without recourse to go from strength to strength. I despair for the future of our planet and children!

a reply to: tadaman

thats petes an awesome cat too. where he is now .....

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If that were the case then why is Obama threatening a veto?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If that were the case then why is Obama threatening a veto?

Not sure, but I'm guessing that was his stance before this amendment was added. It'd be pointless anyway since it would be overruled.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

a reply to: Xcathdra

If that were the case then why is Obama threatening a veto?

My guess is as stated above. The bill is nothing more than a symbolic statement, and Obama wants to symbolically stand behind the Saudi Princes instead of Americans.

a reply to: WeRpeons

He sent over 5,000 soldiers to an early grave because of a secret agenda to occupy and control Iraq's oil.

They forgot about controlling the oil. So the oil obviously wasn't the reason. The Bush's wanted Saddam dead because he tried to assassinate Senior Bush after Desert Storm. Afghanistan was to keep the poppy heroin, morphine, flowing. And to supposedly go after Bin Laden.

Nobody has more oil than Saudi Arabia if they wanted free oil.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I dunno as something is not sounding right. Each nation falls under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and legal action taken against them must be allowed by the targeted government in question. As an very basic example the US Federal government has to agree to be sued before proceedings can move forward.

An interesting example of that process can be found with Bill Clinton as president and the lawsuit against the government for the Area 51 toxic mess that resulted in the death of seve4ral people.

That doctrine is also a reason for the changes to the ICC as well as concept of a nation refusing to safeguard its own population can be referred to the ICC for an ICC ruling.

If, as you US citizen, you want to file a lawsuit against the government of a foreign nation, it becomes federal jurisdiction and there are hoops people have to jump through. We saw this with the lawsuit filed against Iran for complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So Obama vetoed the bill as we expected. However, congress looks like they may be set to override it. Sure will be a nice moment when they do. Now the Democrats will be accused as the party that "sides with terrorists" . Should make a great campaign commercial.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Actually just Obama. The legislation he vetoed was actually very bi partisan and had widespread support. The Democrats warned Obama not to veto the bill as there was enough support in both houses to override.

Me thinks in this case the cheese (obama) stands alone.

Spam Removed

Its an election year. Voting against this as an incumbent would be an instant loss. They would have been destroyed by ads. Likely a 10% swing in any election if someone voted against it.

originally posted by: spirit_horse
Yea, Saudis threatened to sell off US Treasuries...

Let them sell them, it does not hurt us at all.

And then there is this:

www.cbsnews.com...

Makes perfect cents.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree. If they sell them, it just means someone else is still buying them. Does not seem to me that they have let up on buying up munitions for their jets from USA or Britain. Its time to free Saudi Arabia. Let Iraq Syria and Iran do their thing with Russia. That just is not going to be averted. We keep our commitments to Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

We must then proceed to cut all foreign military aide to any nation that has had an established Air Force for at least 30 years. We have the most sophisticated satellite networks and drones now. Yielding our 'aide' $$ to their armed forces will give them a popular appeal with the citizens and save us the funds to divert to the Saudi liberation and Afghan Upgrades. Plus we can still own the skies with some closed door strong arming, so its a redundancy subsidizing foreign military's' that have their own stable economies. Thats their job to manage and budget financing for their border security.

As long as Turkey remains a free agent, which they have clearly made known to all sides, we can maintain the logistics for Afghanistan from Turkey and Pakistan.

Can someone please explain the point of this to me?

In simple non-emotional logic.