It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congress Now Blaming Obama For Its Embarrassing Override Of His Veto

page: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

I'm weighing all of this. I know I wouldn't go any further in trying to be compensated even more if I was in that situation. I wouldn't feel right. I would decline to be included because I think the accumulated compensation has been very generous to these people.

It was a national trauma so the visibility and re-traumatizing factors never end.

Would the Saudi's even pay if this were tried in a U.S. court and the court ruled in the plaintiffs' favor? Or would this be presented before a world court?

The link shows how "blood money" cases are handled under Islamic law. It's called Diyya or Diyah. Scroll down for Saudi Arabia.

Towards the OP:

The U.S. could be buried under mountains of lawsuits from other countries which could stretch into infinity. Would it deter the military industrial complex from covertly and overtly meddling in other countries? Probably not.
edit on 30-9-2016 by tweetie because: added a word.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=21313933]Benevolent Heretic



The Saudis also could pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy.


Congress May Be Experiencing Buyer's Remorse Over Sept. 11 Bill; Lawmakers May Address The Issue Again In November

Good, they can start by pulling the billions of dollars they've bribed American politicians (Republican and Democrat equally) over the years. Maybe then we can start treating Saudi Arabia with the same iron fist we treat the other radicalized honeypots in that region.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Here's an interesting article on why this override/regret debacle happened.

This bill cleared the Judiciary Committee in the Spring of this year, and then passed the Senate on a voice vote without anyone debating it. They just heard “justice for 9/11 families” and voted for it. Then Congress got busy taking their summer break and weren't aware of the reasons the President objected to the bill. When the House convened two weeks ago, they also voted it in without much thought.

Realizing the vast implications of what they had done, Senators Ben Cardin, Bob Corker went to work with Obama on a compromise bill that would have prevented the original bill from becoming law...

Well, McConnell was in such a hurry to stick it to Obama, that he brought up the override vote before Cardin, Corker and Obama could stop it.

The Runaway 9/11 Bill that Congress Refused to Stop



A White House spokesman soon derided the Republicans’ “buyer’s remorse,” and indeed, the scenario was hard to fathom: How could a Congress plagued by gridlock pass legislation with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, initiate a rare veto override, and then immediately voice regret about the problems the new law might cause?

The answer is a mix of sensitive 9/11 politics, an unusually powerful bipartisan alliance, election-year timing, and a heavy dose of mistrust and miscommunication between two branches of government that rarely see eye to eye.
...
Technically, McConnell could have waited until the lame-duck session in November, allowing more time for debate and the possibility of a compromise.
...
Shortly before the veto override, nearly one-fifth of the Senate released a letter to Schumer and Cornyn voicing their concerns and the hope that they could work together “in a constructive manner to appropriately mitigate those unintended consequences.” They all voted for it anyway.


Congress should have read the President's 3 page veto wherein he explained his reasons and the "can of worms" that would be opened. And now, Congress is blaming Obama for not communicating his concerns!

Obama did his job. Congress dropped the ball. They likely didn't read the bill they voted on (voice vote without debate) and didn't read the President's veto, which detailed his concerns. And McConnell rushed the veto override for political reasons.

Of course, they blame Obama for their own incompetence.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
who calls the shots in both houses of congress...nothing comes to a vote, unless the republican leadership says so.....they could have tabled it, and let it die in committee...


They could also have postponed the veto override until November. But they're too damn eager to do whatever they can to make Obama look bad.


originally posted by: tweetie
The U.S. could be buried under mountains of lawsuits from other countries which could stretch into infinity. Would it deter the military industrial complex from covertly and overtly meddling in other countries? Probably not.


I agree. Probably not. We aren't in this position because of our humanitarian efforts... We're afraid of repercussions because we are accountable for so much of the "terrorism" around the world. If we were innocent, we'd have nothing to worry about, but I think you're right on with that question.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Are you seriously arguing that the families of the victims, who are CIVILIANS, should not be allowed to sue Saudi Arabia because the USA might have sponsored some terrorism causing civilian deaths in a foreign country? Sounds like you are supporting terrorism as long as both countries are allowed to sponsor it.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I agree with this congressional override. Sure it opens a can of worms, but you can't just let Saudi Arabia off the hook for 9/11 and the spread of islamic extremism. Saudi Arabia is responsible for the spread of Wahabbism which encompasses the root beliefs of most extremist groups like Boko Harem and ISIS and most Terrorist have some kind of tie to Saudi Arabia. In fact, taking it a step further, the question is...why did we invade Iraq and why do we have sanctions against Iran, when Saudi Arabia is the real thread to the US and is the country most responsible for destabalizing the middle east?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Glad to see Obama receiving back his own medicine like when he bombed women and children in Libya without congressional approval and illegally to boot. We usually call that Treason but for Obama and his followers that is because he knows better by playing the part of a dictator which he plays very well.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Here's an interesting article on why this override/regret debacle happened.

This bill cleared the Judiciary Committee in the Spring of this year, and then passed the Senate on a voice vote without anyone debating it. They just heard “justice for 9/11 families” and voted for it. Then Congress got busy taking their summer break and weren't aware of the reasons the President objected to the bill. When the House convened two weeks ago, they also voted it in without much thought.

Realizing the vast implications of what they had done, Senators Ben Cardin, Bob Corker went to work with Obama on a compromise bill that would have prevented the original bill from becoming law...

Well, McConnell was in such a hurry to stick it to Obama, that he brought up the override vote before Cardin, Corker and Obama could stop it.

The Runaway 9/11 Bill that Congress Refused to Stop



A White House spokesman soon derided the Republicans’ “buyer’s remorse,” and indeed, the scenario was hard to fathom: How could a Congress plagued by gridlock pass legislation with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, initiate a rare veto override, and then immediately voice regret about the problems the new law might cause?

The answer is a mix of sensitive 9/11 politics, an unusually powerful bipartisan alliance, election-year timing, and a heavy dose of mistrust and miscommunication between two branches of government that rarely see eye to eye.
...
Technically, McConnell could have waited until the lame-duck session in November, allowing more time for debate and the possibility of a compromise.
...
Shortly before the veto override, nearly one-fifth of the Senate released a letter to Schumer and Cornyn voicing their concerns and the hope that they could work together “in a constructive manner to appropriately mitigate those unintended consequences.” They all voted for it anyway.


Congress should have read the President's 3 page veto wherein he explained his reasons and the "can of worms" that would be opened. And now, Congress is blaming Obama for not communicating his concerns!

Obama did his job. Congress dropped the ball. They likely didn't read the bill they voted on (voice vote without debate) and didn't read the President's veto, which detailed his concerns. And McConnell rushed the veto override for political reasons.

Of course, they blame Obama for their own incompetence.


I'd like to point out one absurdity of all this that sticks out to me:

Members of Congress have ONE JOB.

ONE RESPONSIBILITY!

LEGISLATURE!... That's it!!!

If your job paid half as well and gave you half the benefits of being a Congressman, wouldn't you actually READ the bills that you're supposed to vote on?! Including bills that could have massive implications?

More and more every year Congress resembles an elementary school cafeteria complete with fruit cups and juice boxes littered everywhere.




edit on 30-9-2016 by AgarthaSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Congress hasn't been doing there job for 7 or 8 months, they should have confirmed a new supreme court justice long before now.

They shouldn't be paid for not working,



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Are you seriously arguing that the families of the victims, who are CIVILIANS, should not be allowed to sue Saudi Arabia because the USA might have sponsored some terrorism causing civilian deaths in a foreign country?


My argument is not that specific. My argument is: there shouldn't be a law that purports to allow the citizens of our country to sue the government of another country. My reasons are:

1. There is NO WAY to force another country's government to participate in a lawsuit and abide by our laws. (and there shouldn't be).
2. There is NO WAY for the "suing" citizens to collect anything from other governments, even if they were successful at bringing some sort of suit.
3. Passing this law allows for the possibility of retaliation (US government being sued) by other countries, whose citizens feel that we (US soldiers, for example) have committed "terrorism" on their soil.
4. Millions of dollars, not to mention much time and energy will be wasted on litigation and the ONLY people who can possibly benefit are the US lawyers.



Sounds like you are supporting terrorism as long as both countries are allowed to sponsor it.


WTF? I don't understand how you came to that ridiculous conclusion, but let me be clear that I don't support terrorism, no matter who the terrorists are.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   
If the US wants to accuse Saudi of something regarding terrorists or 911 then what’s stopping them but the fact they both are complicit in a world-wide scheme to use jihadi lunacy for geo-political tactical gains.

Obama knows this and is complicit himself, such as in Syria.

Saudi and America stand accused

I ACCUSE!


This bill is a side show by cheap politicians



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   
A can of worms is for sure. Good to see Obama got the memo about who is responsible for 9/11 and where all this can lead.

Buyers remorse is for sure, there is going to be one big lemon sitting in the drive way as the legal system digs into this mess.

A hope for the future is also for sure, when we cannot even be honest about why we kill, where the hell are we?
edit on 30-9-2016 by kwakakev because: grammer, added comma



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You are exactly right. What would happen if ISIS decided to sue the U.S., and their sharia courts ruled in their favor, ordering the U.S. to pay them billions of dollars? Does anyone think the U.S. would have to pay it? About as much of a chance of Saudi Arabia paying anything to U.S. citizens because our courts tell them to.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I read about this earlier. McConnell and co. really have no shame. Pond scum is more dignified than they are.


Really having no shame is defending the pro-Saudi stance of Obama against the 911 victims' families.

This would not set a precedent - Obama lied, again.

In 2008, the Pan Am 103 victims' family successfully sued Libya for $2.7B
www.wsj.com...

Deny ignorance....



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You are exactly right. What would happen if ISIS decided to sue the U.S., and their sharia courts ruled in their favor, ordering the U.S. to pay them billions of dollars? Does anyone think the U.S. would have to pay it? About as much of a chance of Saudi Arabia paying anything to U.S. citizens because our courts tell them to.


Except for the fact the Saudi have assets in the West that can be seized.
..but go ahead, defend Obama again....amoral....



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

We're talking about state sponsored terrorism here. The pan-am flight 103 trial was held in the Netherlands. Libya was sued, not a terrorist cell. They paid 2.7B.

Who the heck is talking about suing terrorist cells directly?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

This is what I keep saying. I get the feeling a lot of people on this board might be too young to know about this.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Call it a syllogism if you like. I am serious that I believe if you think when Saudia Arabia should not be liable for the death of 3000 civilians and injuries of 6000 (assuming this is in fact state sponsored terrorism) because you believe the USA might be culpable for sponsoring terrorism as well then you are condoning terrorism under that premise.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
congress voted right for a change vproof has come out that saudi royals funded the attacks they are lucky we just talking suing them and not talking about removing them from power.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Congress needs term limits. A majority of them are senile.




top topics



 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join