U.S. lawmakers may change September 11 law after rejecting Obama veto

[babylonsister]

U.S. lawmakers may change September 11 law after rejecting Obama veto

By Reuters on Sat, Oct 1st, 2016 at 6:24 pm

By Patricia Zengerle and Richard Cowan


WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers expressed doubts about Sept. 11 legislation they forced on President Barack Obama, saying the new law allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia could be narrowed to ease concerns about its effect on Americans abroad.

A day after a rare overwhelming rejection of a presidential veto, the first during Obama’s eight years in the White House, the Republican leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives opened the door to fixing the law as they blamed the Democratic president for not consulting them adequately.

“I do think it is worth further discussing,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, acknowledging that there could be “potential consequences” of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Congress might have to “fix” the legislation to protect U.S. troops in particular.

Ryan did not give a time frame, but Republican Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he thought JASTA could be addressed in Congress’ “lame-duck” session after the Nov. 8 election.

The law grants an exception to the legal principle of sovereign immunity in cases of terrorism on U.S. soil, clearing the way for lawsuits seeking damages from the Saudi government. Riyadh denies longstanding suspicions that it backed the hijackers who attacked the United States in 2001.

more...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/10/01/u-s-lawmakers-change-september-11-law-rejecting-obama-veto.html

[marybourg]

1. Obama makes them look like shmucks, again.

Thanks, Obama!

[Wounded Bear]

2. In other words...

they will wait until after the election so they can blame Clinton.

[librechik]

3. may have to change it to protect Saudi Arabia, he means.

The whole mess is disgusting, including the veto. Another huge disappointment from Obama.

[babylonsister]

4. So tell me...why is his veto so disappointing?

I just read this: you might want to also. And apparently, the Senate is having a change of heart.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3113438-2016s2040veto-Msg-Rel.html

[librechik]

9. well, if we ever get a court anywhere to allow us discovery

then there is hope for an actual investigation of 9/11. Which has yet to happen. So by his veto, Obama was saying no investigation of 9/11 (among other things) I know I'm a screwball,and perhaps it's not the right case, but I can't help wanting some actual justice for that crime. A tiny crack in that giant stonewall would have been welcome.

No way, I guess.

[MicaelS]

6. POTUS tried to tell everyone

It was a bad idea, that it will cause blowback on US Troops, and other Americans, but NOOO, no one to hear that, in their rush to be seen as being as tough on terrorism. Fuck the Saudis, but when something is a bad idea, it's bad.

[Nitram]

5. Ha, ha, ha. What a bunch of schmucks.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

7. K&R

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. I think that a lawsuit has already been filed

so, they may want to step it up a bit (which is definitely asking too much of this Congress).


Also, supposing for a second that there is good reason (is there?) to believe that SA may have assisted the 9/11 hijackers, wouldn't that really be more of an issue that should be handled via the UN/diplomatically, not through a bunch of (civil) lawsuits filed in US courts?