Good day all. Yesterday, the United States Congress showed just how strong they are and, after almost 8 years, overrode a veto by Barack Obama. This override was on a bill passed that gave the families of the victims of the 9/11/2001 attack the right to sue Saudi Arabia.
The basics of the bill, now the law of the land are rather simple. As we all know, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals. There has always been some questions regarding the Saudi Arabian government and whether or not they were involved in some way. However, the families of the victims have been prevented from going into court to go after the Saudi Arabian government to find out one way or the other if they were involved or if parts of their government were involved.
The original bill passed both the house and senate by massive majorities, an unusual event these days. However, Barack Obama, after receiving his instructions from Saudi Arabia, announced that he would veto the bill. Congress wasted no time in bringing it up for a veto override vote. Here are the details from Fox News:
Congress on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected President Obama’s veto of a bipartisan bill letting families of Sept. 11 victims sue the Saudi Arabian government, in the first successful veto override of Obama’s presidency.
Just how overwhelming a vote was it my good man?
Marking a significant defeat for the White House, the House ensured the bill will become law after voting 348-77 to override Wednesday afternoon. This followed a 97-1 vote hours earlier in the Senate.
Now for a civics lesson. In order to override a presidential veto, it requires that two thirds of the House of Representatives AND two thirds of the United States Senate agree and vote to override the veto. That is very difficult to do, especially these days when the three parties, (Republican, Democrat and the Beltway Uniparty), are at each others throats. This shows just how popular the bill was. One person who was very unhappy with the veto, was that SCoaMF, Barack Obama.
Despite last-ditch warnings from the Obama administration that the legislation could hurt national security and was “badly misguided,” lawmakers dismissed the concerns.
Would you like a few examples of what the members of Congress thought about that argument?
“This bill is about respecting the voices and rights of American victims,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.
And other voice speaking in favor of this bill is not someone you would think would go against Obama.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on the Senate floor moments before Wednesday’s vote in that chamber, pushed back hard on Saudi government objections to the legislation.
“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” Schumer said.
What Upchuck Schumer said, regarding not having anything to fear, is something that no one has mentioned. Yes, now the families can sue, but they still have to prove their case. If they don’t, then the Saudi Arabian government will be found not responsible. That’s the way things work here.
Getting back to the vote, it wasn’t quite unanimous in the Senate. The Democrat Vice Presidential candidate was on the campaign trail and “Couldn’t get back in time for the vote”. Of course, they aren’t mentioning the fact that he was only 10 miles away at the time and could have easily reached the Senate.
The lone “No” vote came from the most corrupt senator currently not facing a grand jury, our old “friend”, Dingy Harry Reid.
During the process to pass the bill, and the override vote, there were a number of people, starting with Obama, who came out against the bill. For instance, King Putt said:
In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Reid, Obama warned the bill could cause chaos in U.S. foreign affairs, as other countries would use the measure to justify the creation of ways to target “U.S. policies and activities that they oppose.”
“As a result, our nation and its armed forces, State Department, intelligence officials and others may find themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts.” Obama wrote in a letter delivered Tuesday.
Excuse me, but that’s already happened. The only reason the International Criminal Court hasn’t gone after American servicemen and a president or two is the fact we would bomb them into the stone age, and they know it. (It’s the same reason they aren’t going after the Russians, or honestly any of the real criminals out there like Iran or Syria. They will retaliate)
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a letter Monday to a senior member of Congress, said he’s sympathetic to the intent of the measure. But the legislation could lead to the public disclosure of American secrets and even undercut counterterrorism efforts by sowing mistrust among U.S. partners and allies, according to Carter.
In case you hadn’t noticed, in your drive to utterly wreck the United States Military, Our allies already don’t trust us. You can thank your leader, Der Fubar for that.
Obama vetoed the measure last week, telling lawmakers the bill would make the U.S. vulnerable to retaliatory litigation in foreign courts that could put U.S. troops in legal jeopardy.
But the bill’s proponents have disputed Obama’s rationale as “unconvincing and unsupportable,” saying the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.
Which is true. It doesn’t apply to anything that happens outside the United States. And as I’ve mentioned before, we’re already having problems with the European Union courts, (with some of their more useless members), going after American soldiers. The last one was Spain. They wanted to try a tank crew for murder.
If you don’t recall the story, during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a tank crew, under fire, made a mistake and fired a cannon round into a hotel. They thought they saw a couple of Iraqi’s aiming a missile at them. It turned out to be a film crew and their camera. Several people were killed, and the media were demanding that the crew be tried for war crimes.
The United States investigated and ruled it an accident. I seem to recall that the camera in question, was filming when the tank fired. I also have a vague memory of seeing the footage, although I can’t find it right now. If I recall correctly, there was a lot of smoke in the air. In any case, while the journalists are saying that the crew should have known that it was a camera, they won’t take into account the optics on an M1 Abrams tank, while good, aren’t that good.
The tank commander had to make a split second decision. If you look at the cameras of the time, when they are mounted on a tripod, look just like a guided anti-tank missile. When you have perhaps 2 seconds to make a decision, the commander erred on the side of protecting his crew and his vehicle.
Now that could be grounds, under a foreign version of this law, to sue, but there is still a big difference. What happened to the Palestine Hotel was in the middle of a battle and the troops involved had to make a split second decision. What happened on 9/11/2001 took months or years of planning and preparation.
It wasn’t a “Spur of the moment” incident. People may argue if this is a good law or not, but it is very narrowly tailored. If foreign governments want to try and use this to criminally charge American soldiers, then they also need to understand that we will deal with that attempt very harshly, perhaps lethally.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”large”]
