(JASTA/9-11/28Pages) Politico: Obama faces first potential veto override of presidency

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Sep 9, 2016.

  1. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Unanimous House; Unanimous Senate. Will Hoebama go against the 9/11 families and survivors and the House and Senate, shielding his 9/11 Saudi friends he and CIA have conspired with in years-long conspiracy to arm al-Qaeda terrorists and other jihadists in Syria?


    Obama faces first potential veto override of presidency

    The House unanimously passes a bill allowing 9/11 victims' families to sue Saudi Arabia, setting up a showdown with the White House.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/house-passes-bill-allowing-9-11-suits-against-saudis-227951

    The House unanimously passed a bill Friday allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts. But President Barack Obama is almost certain to reject it, setting up the first potential veto override of his presidency.

    A presidential veto is almost guaranteed given the opposition to the measure from the Obama administration and defense hawks, who have argued it could open up the U.S. to retaliation from other countries that enact similar laws in the future.

    [continue]​
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Why don't we just let it all continue ... and find out.
     
  3. ChrisWB macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #3
    This is why our government has checks and balances. The legislative branch can prevent the executive branch from abusing its power.

    Jess13, did you really write "Hoebama"?
    Congratulations on graduating from your first year of Junior High. In a few more years you'll be an adult and get to sit at the big table!
     
  4. yaxomoxay macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #4
    No way they have the numbers to override the veto in the Senate, especially under elections.
     
  5. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    The 9/11 families have already been well compensated.
     
  7. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Considering what the TPP allows in regards to who can sue whom over perceived loss of profit, this is an interesting wind-up by the media. But I only know it's claimed that if TPP passes, companies can sue government for perceived loss of profit. There's got to be more to the TPP than that.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 9, 2016 ---
    By who's standards? Not the same people who were said to have been warned about possible attacks but ignored them, but everyone has read articles about that claim for about a decade now...

    I'm otherwise not disagreeing with you necessarily...
     
  8. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    JASTA passed the Senate unanimously.


    Senate Passes Bill Exposing Saudi Arabia to 9/11 Legal Claims

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/u...saudi-arabia-to-legal-jeopardy-over-9-11.html

    WASHINGTON — A bill that would let the families of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the terrorist plot passed the Senate unanimously on Tuesday, bringing Congress closer to a showdown with the White House, which has threatened to veto the legislation.

    The Senate’s passage of the bill, which will now be taken up in the House, is another sign of escalating tensions in a relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia that once received little scrutiny from lawmakers.

    Administration officials have lobbied against the bill, a view that the White House spokesman Josh Earnest reiterated after the vote. And the Saudi government has warned that if the legislation passes, it might begin selling off up to $750 billion in Treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they face a danger of being frozen by American courts. Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the warning to lawmakers and the administration while in Washington in March.

    [continue]​

    I could write worse, but Hoebama suffices.
     
  9. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #9
    so it is ok to sue but not ok to pay their medical bills and such huh?
     
  10. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #10
    Sure, post your link(s) to what you deem was their fair compensation and justice.
     
  11. yaxomoxay macrumors 68020

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    A veto is a much different game than sending legislation to the President, especially two months before the elections.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Over a million dollars a family.
     
  13. Jess13, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #13
    Sure, I have no idea what’s going to happen. It’s fairly safe to suggest that Obama is going to veto—he has threatened already he would do so. Will the Congress override his veto? Hopefully.

    Sure, post your link(s) to what you deem was their fair compensation and justice.
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    Perhaps you should move to the Philippines. I hear that there's a certain president there who has just as equal knowledge as yourself regarding rhetoric and epithets involving women of the night.

    BL.
     
  15. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #15
    As I said in this comment OP: **** Obama. **** Duterte.

     
  16. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #16
    No doubt. This is just one stop on the long journey to scrape the bottom of the barrel...
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    The bill would set an extremely dangerous precedent in eroding the international standards of Sovereign Immunity.

    According to the New York Times, already at least one foreign law maker has suggested drafting legislation that would allow French citizens to sue the US Government:

    And that's the thing: There are probably hundreds of millions of people around the world who could argue, in all good faith, that they have been harmed by the actions of the United States Government. Do we really wish to set a precedent where the US Government spends the next hundred years fighting in foreign courts to prevent our overseas assets from being seized.

    A Senate vote to override the President's veto would probably not come until after the November 8 election. Which leaves the distinct possibility that at least a few Senators will have the opportunity to appropriately weigh their responsibility to good Government versus more short-term political considerations.
     
  18. Jess13, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #18
    I thought I was scraping Obama off the bottom of the septic tank? My bad.

    “Either **** or get off the pot barrel.”

    There are quite a few pieces I have read previously, which dismantle the “JASTA endangers us trope!” I just found this one in cursory Google search, written by leading 9/11 Family Member Terry Strada.


    Administration wrong about terrorism sponsor act

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/opinions/administration-wrong-about-jasta-strada/

    [...]

    Contrary to what Secretary of State John Kerry has said, this bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, does not open the floodgates for lawsuits against the United States from the rest of the world -- not against our citizens abroad and not against our military. It would not be the disaster he alleges.

    Why? Because it is actually good policy to hold accountable anyone who enabled the 19 hijackers to live here in the United States for 18 months, plan and then execute the heinous murders on 9/11. It is good policy to enact legislation that protects the rights of Americans to utilize our judicial system and hold accountable foreign states that aid in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. And it is good policy to enact legislation that addresses the funding sources of terrorist organizations. After all, without money, terrorists cannot pay for their travel, training camps, bomb-making material, weapons or even their basic living expenses. They cannot forge passports or recruit new jihadists. Without money it is far harder for terrorists to kill Americans. Unfortunately, Kerry's "floodgate" comment wrongly equates collaboration with designated terrorists (which JASTA addresses) with conduct to protect our national security (which JASTA does not address). He also wrongly assumes the bill would expose "boots on the ground," while the bill focuses solely on the foreign state's accountability for those "boots.”​


    But holding persons in the U.S. government accountable for their terrorism would be a great thing, for example: Holding Obama and CIA accountable for their illegal war against Syria, where they have conspired with 9/11 Saudis to arm al-Qaeda terrorists and other jihadists. If we had a functioning government, Obama and CIA would already be in prison for treason.
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19


    Hardly the most impartial of opinions. And by no means either a legal expert nor a knowledgeable source on the topic of foreign policy.

    The JASTA bill, even if ultimately passed over the President's veto; would almost certainly fail a Court challenge. Because it impinges on the President's sole authority to conduct Foreign Policy, but more importantly would be subject to the Constitution's prohibitions on retroactive legislation: Article I, sections 9 and 10.

    I would note, in passing, that the US Government has in place a mechanism that has successfully negotiated significant financial compensation for families of the victims of state-sponsored terrorism.

    The United States has, legally, morally, politically, and economically far more to lose than anybody could possibly gain from this silly legislation.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
  21. Jess13, Sep 9, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #21
    From your link


    A stumbling block to settlements was the fact that many of the World Trade Center victims were highly compensated financial professionals. Families of these victims felt the compensation offers were too low, and, had a court considered their case on an individual basis, they would have been awarded much higher amounts. This concern had to be balanced against the time, complications, and risks of pursuing an individual case, and the real possibility that the airlines and their insurers could be bankrupted before being able to pay the claim. This is a separate fund from the similarly named September 11th Fund, and from the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company.​


    Iran, which the “evidence” against is laughable compared to Saudi Arabia, recently:


    Iran Told to Pay $10.5 Billion to Sept. 11 Kin, Insurers

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-to-pay-10-5-billion-to-sept-11-kin-insurers

    Iran was ordered by a U.S. judge to pay more than $10.5 billion in damages to families of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and to a group of insurers.

    U.S. District Judge George Daniels in New York issued a default judgment Wednesday against Iran for $7.5 billion to the estates and families of people who died at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. It includes $2 million to each estate for the victims’ pain and suffering plus $6.88 million in punitive damages.


    That’s $8M+ to each family, over 4x the Wiki-listed “compensation” fund amount of $1.7M. Saudi Arabia in comparison, with actual fingerprints all over the attacks, could end up having to pay, realistically, $100M to each family.

    Your Wikipedia says that all families received $1.7M, which is funny because it’s false.


    Family of 9/11 Victim Accepts $1.04 Million In U.S. Compensation

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/08/n...-accepts-1.04-million-in-us-compensation.html

    The family of a young financial services employee from New York City who died in the terror attacks on Sept. 11 has become the first to acknowledge accepting an award from the federal Victim Compensation Fund, a key moment for a program that is being closely scrutinized by thousands of relatives of victims and American taxpayers.

    The government calculated that the family of the young man, a recent college graduate in his 20's who made almost $60,000 a year, deserved $1.19 million in gross compensation for his unfulfilled economic potential and for the family's pain and suffering. After a reduction of $150,000 for benefits like life insurance and workers' compensation, the final figure of $1.04 million was ''on the upper end'' of the family's expectations, according to their lawyer, Roberta G. Gordon.​


    9/11 Fund Chief Faults Payments

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/9-11-fund-chief-faults-payments/

    Sept. 11 families would have been treated more fairly had they all received the same amount from the government's $7 billion compensation fund, instead of giving some far greater awards based on incomes, the program's administrator said Wednesday.

    In his final report, Special Master Kenneth Feinberg said if Congress ever considers such a program again it should offer a flat amount to all victims and not account for families' earnings, life insurance or financial obligations.

    The program, which was set up by Congress in the wake of the 2001 terror attacks, drew complaints from families of emergency personnel and others that the affluent survivors of financial executives killed on Sept. 11 received greater payouts.

    The average award to families of those killed was $2.1 million, though the 2,880 individual payouts ranged from $250,000 up to $7.1 million.


    9/11 compensation unfair, fund chief says

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6519810/ns/us_news-security/t/compensation-unfair-fund-chief-says/

    Life insurance penalty

    The fund also paid an average of about $400,000 each for the 2,680 accepted claims of injuries stemming from the attacks. The smallest injury award was $500, the largest $8.6 million, according to the report.

    For families of those killed, the fund deducted any life insurance payment from the final award, an offset that many felt punished those who had been more careful to provide for their families.

    Such conditions “inevitably resulted in finger-pointing and a sense among many (families) that the life of their loved one had been demeaned and undervalued relative to others also receiving compensation from the fund,” the report said.


    Appeals court backs victim fund in 9/11 lawsuit

    http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/30/sept11.compensation/

    A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the victim-compensation fund was being administered fairly and was not designed "to compensate each victim's full economic losses."

    Congress created the fund two weeks after the attacks to help the families of the 3,016 people killed and the injured survivors.

    The fund is also designed to discourage lawsuits against American and United airlines, the carriers whose jets were hijacked in the plot. Those who sue the airlines are not allowed to benefit from the fund.


    Nine Families Accept Checks From 9/11 Victims Fund

    http://articles.latimes.com/2002/aug/23/nation/na-payout23

    WASHINGTON — Nine Sept. 11 victims' families have accepted checks from the federal government's compensation fund, the fund's administrator said Thursday.

    The families that accepted the cash payout came from a pool of 25 applicants who received notice of their award in July from the Justice Department, which oversees the fund. Four are appealing their award and 12 have yet to respond, the administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, said.

    The average award for the 25 applicants is $1.36 million, and the payments range from $300,000 to $3 million. The Justice Department would not say how much the nine families received.


    Where's justice in 9/11 victim compensation rules?

    http://articles.philly.com/2002-01-22/news/25344805_1_compensation-awards-kenneth-feinberg-families

    Congress quickly passed laws intended to protect the airline industry and limit the liability of other potential defendants while giving the victims' families proper compensation for their losses. The intent was to eliminate the need for costly, uncertain and time-consuming lawsuits.

    But the rules and regulations announced on Dec. 20 by Kenneth Feinberg, special master in the case, not only are unfair, but also directly conflict with that intent. They do not present an adequate alternative to litigation.


    Federal 9/11 Fund Sees Few Early Claims; Some Call for Revised Calculation Rules

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1010104467921298680

    Meanwhile, victim-advocacy groups and some lawyers for families of victims are agitating for changes in how damages are calculated before the rules become final later this month.

    The special master appointed to administer the fund, Kenneth R. Feinberg, is scheduled to meet with a half dozen family groups and lawyers for more than 100 other families at his office in New York Friday.

    "I've been talking to a lot of families, and I have not found a single family that isn't upset about this," said Stephen Pusch, spokesman for Families of Sept. 11, an advocacy group. "Everybody hates these regulations. Everybody is talking about suing, even though the liability limits passed by Congress make it virtually impossible."


    I used to be more well versed in this subject but haven’t read or watched anything for quite awhile, but there was tons of controversy over the payouts, their unfairness, the stipulation that families could not sue, etc. Tons of the 9/11 families were not fairly compensated—JASTA will help to partly fix that.

    The 9/11 families have a mechanism already to sue and hold accountable the Saudis? That’s funny. Because Obama, like the USA-hating, anti-American bitch that he is, has protected the Saudis from the 9/11 families. Which is why JASTA is so important: So Obama cannot block the 9/11 families from justice.


    Justice Dept. Backs Saudi Royal Family on 9/11 Lawsuit

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/us/politics/30families.html

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is supporting efforts by the Saudi royal family to defeat a long-running lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    The Justice Department, in a brief filed Friday before the Supreme Court, said it did not believe the Saudis could be sued in American court over accusations brought by families of the Sept. 11 victims that the royal family had helped finance Al Qaeda. The department said it saw no need for the court to review lower court rulings that found in the Saudis’ favor in throwing out the lawsuit.

    “I find this reprehensible,” said Kristen Breitweiser, a leader of the Sept. 11 families, whose husband was killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center. “One would have hoped that the Obama administration would have taken a different stance than the Bush administration, and you wonder what message this sends to victims of terrorism around the world.”

    Bill Doyle, another leader of the Sept. 11 families whose son was killed in the attacks, said, “All we want is our day in court.”

    The lawsuit, brought by a number of insurance companies for the victims and their families, accuses members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia of providing financial backing to Al Qaeda — either directly to Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, or indirectly through donations to charitable organizations that they knew were in turn diverting money to Al Qaeda.

    A district court threw out the lawsuit, finding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act provided legal protection from liability for Saudi Arabia and the members of the royal family for their official acts.
     
  22. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #22
    Let me ask you a question: How many totally innocent Iraqi citizens were killed as a direct result of the 2003 US-led invasion of that country?

    A quarter million? More?

    How much do you think that an Iraqi court might reasonably suggest is compensation for each one of them?

    And that is one country. It says nothing about people harmed, directly or indirectly, as a result of US policy in countries from Laos to Columbia.

    We simply have to understand that not everyone in the world sees things as we here in the United States do. And that other countries have different legal and court systems. Look at the bizarre circumstances surrounding the trial, conviction, acquital, and then whatever surrounding US student Amanda Knox in Italy.

    The reality is that the link between the Saudi Government and 9/11 is thin, at best. Could a lawyer convince a Jury in west Texas or Florida they were responsible, and win a judgement of billions of dollars? Without a doubt.

    But the chances of that lawyer actually collecting money from the Saudis is remote in the extreme. But in the meantime, we've opened up the doors for Governments and courts around the world to litigate untold numbers of claims, and cause untold problems for pretty much every US diplomat, soldier, and businessperson who ever sets foot on foreign soil.
     
  23. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #23
    Everyone involved in destroying those [probably millions of] Iraqis’ lives, should be bankrupted into cardboard boxes: Republicans and Democrats; the executive, intelligence and military leadership. But the JASTA law is limited in scope and won’t open that possibility, those saying that it could are lying in effort to protect causes of terrorism. And Obama has blocked 9/11 families from justice against 9/11 Saudis, while simultaneously conspiring with 9/11 Saudis to arm al-Qaeda terrorists and other jihadists.
     
  24. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #24
    That has to be joke of the year.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Is $2 million a family not enough?
     

Share This Page