What’s amazing about this, is the events that have led up to it. Just yesterday, I posited the idea that we’re firing warning shots across The House of Saud’s bow.
Not only is the Senate passing a bill to permit the families of 9/11 to sue the Saudi government or any government that sponsors terrorism, it’s being done in spite of Obama’s threat to veto it.
Long term waterboy, Chuck Schumer, defied his grace and said an Obama veto would not hold up. What!?
“This bill is very near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. “[This is] another example of the [John] Cornyn-Schumer collaboration, which works pretty well around here.”
President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. Schumer said he wouldn’t uphold a veto, and expects that most senators wouldn’t, either.“I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto,” Schumer said.
The House of Saud isn’t happy about this and have threatened to punish America, monetarily.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, pushed back against the reports in Geneva earlier this month while warning that the legislation could impact Saudi investments, according to Reuters.
Schumer going in for another round (extra gangster).
“Look, if the Saudis did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court,” Schumer said. “If they did, they should be held accountable.”
My sixth sense says something is afoot and the U.S. isn’t too happy about Saudi Arabia ravaging the price of oil, in order to capture market share from U.S. producers. The oil lobby is strong.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
“Look, if the Saudis did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court,” Schumer said. “If they did, they should be held accountable.”
Ridiculous. Congress should not pass the bill unless they think the Saudis are at fault. And if they think that, they should clearly say so, and cite the evidence.
Would they pass a bill saying France or Belgium could be sued for 9/11 because “if they did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court.”?
And they should release the effing 28 pages that they keep jawboning about, but are still keeping secret from the public, while different Congress members rattle on about their wildly different interpretations of those pages.
Our Congress has a lot morons in it. And I am not being partisan. That Congress member who spoke is a Democrat. I do like some Dem Congress members and find them credible, but this guy is full of it.
Wrong again. Schumer is right. Frog is wrong. The world is as it should be.
Frog is a 9/11 sympathizer
why haven’t they been banned. he doesn’t even trade
So Fly, do you think Congress should pass a law saying that France and Belgium and every other country in the world can be sued for 9/11 because “if they did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court.”?
And Fly, you seemed to be saying in your post above that this is about oil, not about 9/11.
Btw, Schumer is the guy who Chuck thinks has his re-election campaigns financed by some foreign country– not by people in the U.S.
Also, France and Belgium *can* be sued under this law. Here’s the text:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2040/text
btn, thanks for that text.
You are “not being partisan,” you are just being pro-Obama at the expense of partisanship. Obama is nothing more than a cult of personality wrapped in a horrible legacy, maybe the worst of modern times. But, “I’d like to get a beer with him,” so he is defended. Even though he has killed more people than Bush by far while spying on American Citizens 100X what Bush did, and generally being the least transparent administration in history.
Don’t you belong on Gawker?
If you believe your “new sources” that Obama “has killed more people than Bush by far” there is no point in my discussing this with you.
The Saudi’s bluffed, the Senate called them.
Now there is no way the “28 pages” will not be publicized, so let’s just end further discussion on that subject…
Looks like I was 4-minutes too slow…I
Frog
Whether it’s right or wrong isn’t relevant. It happened. Try to contain your comments to things we’re able to control, like what it means and how to trade off it, rather than stoking divisiveness in the comments section.
Is it really so implausible that SA was involved? They have an absurdly bad human rights record. OBL was a very rich and connected Saudi. It’s the home of Wahabbism. 15/19 of the hijackers were Saudi. The only thing that’s shocking about this is that our bought-and-paid for Congress actually did something about it.
Of course Saudi Arabian citizens were involved, like Osama Bin Laden, who was the sworn enemy of the royals. But that isn’t the royals’ fault. Bin Laden wanted to overthrow their rule.
Maybe the royals were involved, but if they were, the evidence should be presented. Such a bill should not be passed just because it’s plausible that someone could have been involved.
More than 3/4 of the people who carried it out were Saudi. The mastermind was Saudi. Saudi nationals were predominantly involved, stop understating it.
The royals aren’t a monolith, there are a ton of royals at this point because each king insists on having 20+ kids; it’s almost a foregone conclusion that at least a few of them support headchopping interests somewhere (Syria anyone?).
I do completely agree on one point: the investigation, the 28 pages, should have been public from the start. But we have corrupt leaders in this country too, and we don’t like to embarrass our good friends in the desert, do we? At least this way the truth has a chance to come out in the courts.
Mensch, can you not see the difference between Saudi nationals who want to overthrow the government and those of whom the government is composed? Even when they are relatives. Here in the U.S. parents are not responsible for the crimes of their adult children. And they should not be in Saudi either.
My respect for Schumer just gone up a few notches. He’s doing the right thing for once instead of falling to the political line dictated by Obama.
This is not as B&W as it seems, even if it’s an easy (no balls) vote for Senators.
The issue is similar to the issue of torture: we a setting an example for other countries. For example, other countries may pass laws redcucing the sovereign immunity of the US – and the UN and other interantioanl bodies may back them up. So this may set a precedent for the US to be sued for dropping bombs in the wrong place, etc, – with the amount of the fines determined by foreign courts.
If we’re killing innocent people, we should pay the proper monetary compensation. I’m fine with the matter cutting both ways.
Agreed, but the question is *who* determines whether someone was innocent? It’s rarely that easy…
Schumer gets most of his $$ from Israeli.
I think it’s pretty cool he is going against our prez, however I’m not surprised. Something is going on for sure. Very interesting times.
Regards
Chuck Bennett.
So perhaps Israel has recently gotten mad at the new Saudi royal guy about something? 2001 was 15 years ago. If the bill were really because of 9/11, you’d think it would have been passed sooner. Perhaps, as Fly said, it’s about erl. IS anyone buying erl here?
No this is just the pace at which our bureaucracy moves. 15 years would be the standard time line.
SARC……
This event, to me, seems odd and I think this is a shot across the bow aimed at the Saudi Barbarians. As a warning to what exactly, I do not know but I have to say this is probably a classic example of the favorite word 0bama uses to describe anything he does.
Unprecedented.
Dr. Fly, needless to say, spot on view how we are retaliating against the Saudi’s attack on the oil industry. I feel horrible and sickened every time a 9/11 story is brought up. While, the powers that be may be using the victims and their families as pawns, why not achieve two objectives for the price of one: 1) threaten the Saudi’s to stop pumping or else embarrass them on a global stage, and 2) provide relief to 9/11 victims. I’m all for it.
It’s our god given right as murricans to sue whoever the fuck we want.
“Look, if the Saudis did not participate in this terrorism, they have nothing to fear about going to court,”
The US court system is corrupt. Verdicts are rarely about justice or law, but about getting the judge re-elected or persuading a vindictive jury.
I don’t know how often this is so, but certainly verdicts are sometimes about getting the judge re-elected or persuading a vindictive jury.