U.S. House Adopts 'Sue The Saudis' 9/11 Bill...

[FA_Q2]

Pure foolishness.

This will be vetoed.

Yes, Obumbler has clearly indicated he will veto it.

However, both the House and Senate are preparing for a major effort to override it.

Look up the definition of 'pocket veto'; and then get back to us.

Perhaps you should have looked it up:
"The Constitution limits the president's period for decision on whether to sign or return any legislation to ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. A return veto happens when the president sends a bill, along with his objections, back to the house of Congress from which it originated. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses, whereupon the bill becomes law. If Congress prevents the bill's return by being adjourned during the 10-day period, and the president does not sign the bill, a "pocket veto" occurs and the bill does not become law. Congress can adjourn and designate an agent to receive veto messages and other communications so that a pocket veto cannot happen, an action Congresses have routinely taken for decades. James Madison became the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812."
Pocket veto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress ultimately has the ability to override the president and there is noting he can do if they have the support. It takes a lot of support though.

 

[FA_Q2]

Pure foolishness.

This will be vetoed.

That does not make it 'foolishness.' That is how the system is supposed to work. If congress believes that a law should be enacted it should be sent to the president weather or not he is planning on using his veto powers.

 

[FA_Q2]

We drone /blow up shit all the time. Yall cool with setting a standard to allow these suits ?

Yes we do. Maybe such would make the US think twice about blowing random shit up then and end this asinine constant state of war we are in. Well, more than likely not but one could hope...

 

[B. Kidd]

Pure foolishness.

This will be vetoed.

Yes, Obumbler has clearly indicated he will veto it.

However, both the House and Senate are preparing for a major effort to override it.

Look up the definition of 'pocket veto'; and then get back to us.

Perhaps you should have looked it up:
"The Constitution limits the president's period for decision on whether to sign or return any legislation to ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session. A return veto happens when the president sends a bill, along with his objections, back to the house of Congress from which it originated. Congress can override the veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses, whereupon the bill becomes law. If Congress prevents the bill's return by being adjourned during the 10-day period, and the president does not sign the bill, a "pocket veto" occurs and the bill does not become law. Congress can adjourn and designate an agent to receive veto messages and other communications so that a pocket veto cannot happen, an action Congresses have routinely taken for decades. James Madison became the first president to use the pocket veto in 1812."
Pocket veto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress ultimately has the ability to override the president and there is noting he can do if they have the support. It takes a lot of support though.

There's an adjournment before the elections. Therefore pocket veto looms.

 

[paulitician]

Pure foolishness.

This will be vetoed.

Yes, Obumbler has clearly indicated he will veto it.

However, both the House and Senate are preparing for a major effort to override it.

Yeah, hopefully Democrats and Republicans will come together on this. Obama and other past US Presidents are owned by the Saudis. He's being pretty open about his loyalties. He's gonna choose the Saudis over his own People. It's very sad. But that's what Globalist Elites are all about. They don't care about American Citizens.

 

[hazlnut]

Finally, the U.S. Congress doing something that matters. It's time to seriously question our Government's close relationship with Saudi Arabia.


Saudis behind 9/11

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11, days before the attack’s 15th anniversary.

The measure passed without objection or opposition, but the White House is threatening a veto.

House Resolution 3815, also known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA, creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law, thus allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries for terrorism that kills Americans on US soil. The law has been invoked to shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Fifteen out of 19 men who hijacked commercial airliners and used them as missiles to target the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were subjects of the Saudi kingdom...

More:
US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill

I support this one, and hope the Prez doesn't veto it.

We should repeal laws that protect gun manufacturers from being sued.

 

[paulitician]

Finally, the U.S. Congress doing something that matters. It's time to seriously question our Government's close relationship with Saudi Arabia.


Saudis behind 9/11

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11, days before the attack’s 15th anniversary.

The measure passed without objection or opposition, but the White House is threatening a veto.

House Resolution 3815, also known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA, creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law, thus allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries for terrorism that kills Americans on US soil. The law has been invoked to shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Fifteen out of 19 men who hijacked commercial airliners and used them as missiles to target the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were subjects of the Saudi kingdom...

More:
US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill

I support this one, and hope the Prez doesn't veto it.

We should repeal laws that protect gun manufacturers from being sued.

You're half right. But that's not too bad. I really hope Democrats and Republicans fight the President together on this.

 

[bendog]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

 

[Tehon]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

It's not the Saudi government that would be liable, it is individuals within the Saudi government. The law will strip the individuals of their diplomatic immunity. Prince Bandar as an example.

 

[paulitician]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

Prominent Saudis were involved. It's been proven. All Americans should urge the President to change his mind and support our People.

 

[paulitician]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

It's not the Saudi government that would be liable, it is individuals within the Saudi government. The law will strip the individuals of their diplomatic immunity. Prince Bandar as an example.

It's time for accountability.

 

[Timmy]

this may be unconstitutional . The con gives the prez the power to deal wh foreign Govs .

 

[paulitician]

We drone /blow up shit all the time. Yall cool with setting a standard to allow these suits ?

Yes we do. Maybe such would make the US think twice about blowing random shit up then and end this asinine constant state of war we are in. Well, more than likely not but one could hope...

Good point. The only reason the US/West is never held accountable for war crimes and such, is that they own the International Justice System. If they didn't, many of their leaders would be standing trial for crimes against humanity. For the Iraq War alone, many would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.

 

[paulitician]

this may be unconstitutional . The con gives the prez the power to deal wh foreign Govs .

The President should support his own People on this. He shouldn't continue selling out to the Saudis. It could be one great accomplishment for him before he leaves office. I hope he changes his mind and helps his own People out.

 

[Tehon]

this may be unconstitutional . The con gives the prez the power to deal wh foreign Govs .

What are you, Saudi Arabian? Why is it that you don't want Americans who lost loved ones due to terrorism to be able to seek justice through the court system? Is it because it might hamper Obama's ability to kill more brown people in foreign lands? Or are you just trying to protect Obama because now he is going to walk out on a ledge all by himself and veto the bill, thereby letting everyone know he is more interested in protecting those that fund terrorism than he is in helping innocent victims attain closure.

There is nothing unconstitutional about citizens using the US court system to seek a redress of grievances. And it does not detract from the powers granted to the president in the constitution. But you already knew that.

 

[Timmy]

this may be unconstitutional . The con gives the prez the power to deal wh foreign Govs .

What are you, Saudi Arabian? Why is it that you don't want Americans who lost loved ones due to terrorism to be able to seek justice through the court system? Is it because it might hamper Obama's ability to kill more brown people in foreign lands? Or are you just trying to protect Obama because now he is going to walk out on a ledge all by himself and veto the bill, thereby letting everyone know he is more interested in protecting those that fund terrorism than he is in helping innocent victims attain closure.

There is nothing unconstitutional about citizens using the US court system to seek a redress of grievances. And it does not detract from the powers granted to the president in the constitution. But you already knew that.

I worry about the bigPicture and how it will affect our country. Those families were already paid millions of dollars on the 9/11 fun. And if you remember Congress protected the airlines from these lawsuits.

 

[Tehon]

this may be unconstitutional . The con gives the prez the power to deal wh foreign Govs .

What are you, Saudi Arabian? Why is it that you don't want Americans who lost loved ones due to terrorism to be able to seek justice through the court system? Is it because it might hamper Obama's ability to kill more brown people in foreign lands? Or are you just trying to protect Obama because now he is going to walk out on a ledge all by himself and veto the bill, thereby letting everyone know he is more interested in protecting those that fund terrorism than he is in helping innocent victims attain closure.

There is nothing unconstitutional about citizens using the US court system to seek a redress of grievances. And it does not detract from the powers granted to the president in the constitution. But you already knew that.

I worry about the bigPicture and how it will affect our country. Those families were already paid millions of dollars on the 9/11 fun. And if you remember Congress protected the airlines from these lawsuits.

So you are worried that we won't be able to kill brown people anymore, got it. As if those that fund terrorism give a crap about the hirelings that die from US drone strikes. As long as there is money there will always be more people to hire, so you fail to grasp the big picture completely.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

It's not the Saudi government that would be liable, it is individuals within the Saudi government. The law will strip the individuals of their diplomatic immunity. Prince Bandar as an example.

It's time for accountability.

It’s time such idiotic ‘legislation’ be vetoed if it becomes law.

It’s nothing but political grandstanding by the partisan right during an election year, having nothing to do with ‘justice’ or ‘accountability.’

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

It's not the Saudi government that would be liable, it is individuals within the Saudi government. The law will strip the individuals of their diplomatic immunity. Prince Bandar as an example.

It's time for accountability.

It’s time such idiotic ‘legislation’ be vetoed if it becomes law.

It’s nothing but political grandstanding by the partisan right during an election year, having nothing to do with ‘justice’ or ‘accountability.’

If Congress were controlled by the demoquacks all the sudden it would be noble, justice and accountability, partisan shill

 

[Tehon]

I just don't know what Saudi Arabia has to be guilty of. If the Saudi govt can be sued for having laws making it easy to donate to madrassas with wahabbi leanings, and even people shown to be involved ... I don't agree.

If there's some direct nexus showing the Saudis knew attacks were planned and did nothing ... have at it.

It's not the Saudi government that would be liable, it is individuals within the Saudi government. The law will strip the individuals of their diplomatic immunity. Prince Bandar as an example.

It's time for accountability.

It’s time such idiotic ‘legislation’ be vetoed if it becomes law.

It’s nothing but political grandstanding by the partisan right during an election year, having nothing to do with ‘justice’ or ‘accountability.’

The legislation is bi-partisan.