thought that money can in any way make up for acts of terrorism
Finally some common sense bipartisan legislation that forces the Saudi Govt. to account for their role in the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. Guess who was against this legislation passing? Lindsey Graham and John McCain, our two resident butt fucks in the U.S. Senate plus the other one in the WH, Obama.
The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, approved by voice vote, had triggered a threat from Riyadh to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy if the bill is enacted.
The legislation, sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York, the Washington, D.C., area and Pennsylvania.
The House still must act on the legislation.
Relatives of Sept. 11 victims have urged the Obama administration to declassify and release U.S. intelligence that allegedly discusses possible Saudi involvement in the attacks.
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir denied earlier this month that the kingdom made any threats over the bill. He said Riyadh had warned investor confidence in the U.S. would shrink if the bill became law.
Passage of the bill sends the message that the United States "will combat terrorism with every tool we have available, and that the victims of terrorist attacks in our country should have every means at their disposal to seek justice," Cornyn said.
Schumer said that any foreign government that aids terrorists who strike the U.S. "will pay a price if it is proven they have done so."
Senate Democrats had firmly supported the legislation, putting them at odds with the Obama administration. The White House has said the bill could expose Americans overseas to legal risks, and spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday efforts to revise the legislation fell short in addressing the administration's concerns about preserving sovereign immunity.
Given the concerns that we've expressed, it's difficult to imagine the president signing this legislation," Earnest told reporters at the White House.
Schumer was confident the Senate had the necessary two-thirds vote of the chamber to override a presidential veto.
"We don't think their arguments stand up," the New York lawmaker said at a news conference after the Senate action.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the Senate subcommittee that controls foreign aid, had blocked the bill from moving to the Senate floor until changes were made to ensure the legislation didn't backfire on the United States.
Graham's apprehension was rooted in the possibility a foreign country could sue the United States if the door is opened for U.S. citizens to take the Saudis to court. Graham released his hold earlier this month, clearing the way for Senate action.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also had warned that the legislation, if passed, would alienate Saudi Arabia and undermine a longstanding yet strained relationship with a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East.
... difference in the long run if the families are looking for justice. They won't get any. Money on the other hand...
The Saudis would probably open their coffers and let the hush money flow like hot air in the desert before admitting to collusion in the 911 attacks. How much of a windfall tax do you think the government will demand?
---snip---
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also had warned that the legislation, if passed, would alienate Saudi Arabia and undermine a longstanding yet strained relationship with a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East.
thought that money can in any way make up for acts of terrorism
If we can sue the Saudis, they and everyone else in the world can sue us. I can just see ISIS and The Taliban hauling in front of an international court and suing us over our use of drones, and/or all the "collateral damage" that is inevitable in waging combat.
This is a "feel good" law that is rather short sighted and will end up doing a lot more harm than good IMO.
As for McCain's worry about pissing off the Saudis, I could give two fucks about the Saudis, but I do worry about opening us up to literally trillions of dollars worth of lawsuits.
First, attorneys come for our money
Then they're negotiating with Judges on prison time.
I wouldn't want to see President Obama or Bush in prison, if we open up a "Huge can of worms" and start treating World leaders like good soldiers following orders.
Trump 201
I wonder if that would weaken the dollar, pushing up oil (and gold, mmmm... GOLD!), and make imports more expensive. But if they have the documentation in hand to make a case, hey, worth a shot. Hope the FBI can remember where they put the evidence they had on Saudi-terrorist cooperation prior to 911. That could help.
On a similar note, has Corporate Congress managed to totally quash First-Responder Compensation? Or is that still a work in progress?
It makes imports more expensive, but that gives American companies a competitive advantage in the international markets, which translates into more high paying jobs in manufacturing.
Why do you think China has fought so hard to keep the yuan low?
BTW where do you get this "trillions" bullshit? Even taken at their word, the Saudis have well less than a trillion in US treasuries and the true number is most likely well less than that.
I agree this bill is a VERY bad idea, but not for the reasons you state.
You can't sue the government of another nation.
best case; they ignor the entire issue.
worst case; they make it an international incedent, hurting relations between the US and the Soudis.
The families of the Lockerbie plane bombing successfully sued the Libyian Government and won a huge settlement.
best case; they ignor the entire issue.
worst case; they make it an international incedent, hurting relations between the US and the Soudis.