Monday, September 26, 2016

Obama Vetoes Lawsuits Against Saudi Government

So here's a tough bit of news....Obama vetoed the bill that the House and Senate had sent to him to allow victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudi government.

Why might this be prophetic?

At first glance it would seem an easy lay up for all political parties in the USA to agree that victims of 9/11 be allowed to sue the Saudis if it can be proved that their government had something to do with the training, financing or implementing the 9/11 attacks...BUT....what if the Saudis fear that US Federal Courts could freeze all Saudi investments in the USA until the lawsuits are settled?  What if the fear of that potential outcome convinces the Saudis to dump all their assets and investments that they currently have in the USA...including US Treasury Bonds?  What if that puts even more duress on the US Treasury Bond market?

President Obama made good today on earlier threats by vetoing legislation passed unanimously by the House and Senate. The rejected bill would waive sovereign immunity protections for Saudi Arabia and allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks or their relatives to sue the Saudi government for allegedly helping at least some of the 19 hijackers who carried out those attacks. Fifteen of the attackers were Saudi nationals.

The veto, the 12th of Obama's presidency, sets the stage for likely showdown votes next week in both the House and Senate. If two-thirds majorities of each chamber vote to override the president's veto, it will be the first time that's happened during Obama's nearly eight years in office.

It's a strange turn of events for a president who is widely seen by congressional Republicans as an unreliable ally of Saudi Arabia — and for a GOP-led Congress that is more typically a dependable supporter of that kingdom.

This time Obama is siding with the Saudis, who vehemently oppose the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. The Saudis have threatened to dump hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. assets that could possibly be frozen by any American judge hearing a lawsuit. Lawmakers from both parties have chosen the interests of the Sept. 11 families seeking justice over those of the House of Saud.

In a three-page statement that accompanied the veto, Obama spelled out his reasons for seemingly defying the wishes of the grieving families. JASTA, he wrote, "would be detrimental to U.S. interests." It would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor make the U.S. response to such attacks any more effective.

Some key lawmakers appear open to considering such arguments. "I want to hear the president's reasons for vetoing," Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., told NPR Thursday. "I want to read his veto message. I'm not going to make a decision until I see the president's concerns." As the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Cardin's decision could influence other Democratic senators who say they're still on the fence about whether to override or sustain the JASTA veto. "I think this is going to be a close call," Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said in a Thursday interview.

A veto override in the House also appears highly likely. Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters this week he worries about "trial lawyers trying to get rich off of this and I worry about precedence." Still, Ryan said the Sept. 11 victims "need to have their day in court," and declared there are enough votes in the House for a veto override to pass.

Wow!  Sounds like the House and the Senate may have the votes needed to override Obama's veto!

If they do, this could really put us in a sticky situation!

Does it seem to you that this could be one other example that the nations on earth seem to be in turmoil?

Proverbs 15:16
Better a little with the fear of the Lord than great wealth with turmoil.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home