Always ready to go to bat for the Saudis.
“Obama Vetoes Terrorism Bill as Override Votes Loom,” by John T. Bennett, Roll Call, September 23, 2016:
President Barack Obama on Friday vetoed a bill that would allow families of the victims of terrorist attacks in the United States to sue foreign governments believed to be linked to the strikes, setting up a difficult election-year decision for congressional Democrats.
Obama expressed “deep sympathy” for those who lost loved ones on Sept. 11, 2001, writing in a statement accompanying the veto that he has “deep appreciation of these families’ desire to pursue justice and [is] strongly committed to assisting them in their efforts.”
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump called the veto “shameful,” and said he would have signed it into law. Earlier in the day, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton broke with Obama and said she would have signed it.
Obama cited concerns that the legislation, which passed both the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, could prompt other nations to pass look-alike laws, leading to more lawsuits and inconsistent standards for what constitutes state support for terrorist attacks. Proponents, however, call it “narrowly” crafted to guard against such things.
He wrote that he could not sign the measure into law because it “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.” Instead, Obama concluded, as crafted it would allow cases to be brought to U.S. courts against other countries based solely on allegations, not longstanding methods of determining state sponsors of terror.
What’s more, the president argued the bill could open the door for other governments to allow cases in their court systems against “U.S. officials — including our men and women in uniform — for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties.” Obama also said if it became law, the measure “threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners.”…

Linde Barrera says
“Could open the door for other governments to allow cases in their court systems against US officials…” Nonsense! This bill should be directed at foreign governments attacking Americans on American soil without a declaration of war. Which qualifies the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, suporting the terrorists. This bill should have nothing to do with the US declaring war on any nation because if that happened, that nation could sue the US by virtue of its own legislation. And if the US were helping one nation at war with another nation without declaring war, I am willing to bet that the UN would sponsor a bill to sue the US! So Americans need to see how the bill is worded, and Congress should make the corrections so Saudi Arabia can be successfully sued.
Caliph says
Any time USA troops are in a foreign country, like say Afghanistan, there is a status of forces agreement with the host government. We have had us solders charged with crimes in host country before, and it could happen again.
Let’s not forget the ICC, which can pretty much charge any citizen from any country for violating international law.
And there are all the war crimes laws agreed to by many countries already.
And there is the universal declaration of human rights, which no Muslim country has signed, and which all Muslim countries oppose since it says women and minorities need to be treated equally.
I think obama’s veto is less about Saudi Arabia, although I think Obama wants to kiss the Saudi kings ass once more before leaving office, and more about Israel. Recall that many Israelis are also US citizens, and many have been harmed or killed by Hamas, or the so-called Palestinians, which are known to be supported by Iran. Which means those US/Israelis would be able sue Iran IN US courts!
خَليفة says
To all who know me as خَليفة, this is my new moniker
خَليفة = caliph
And I’m tired of having to type Arabic
Mark Swan says
It was unique, if that was what you were trying for, I did wonder if it spelled something.
Alright caliph.
Don McKellar says
“Which means those US/Israelis would be able sue Iran IN US courts!”
Yes, this would be the secondary reason for Obama’s actions. This law would hold BOTH Sunni moslems and Shi’ite moslems to account in a court of law for their terrorism and evil. In Obama the secret moslem’s world, that simply can’t be allowed to happen.
Linde Barrera says
To Caliph- As per your 9:07 pm comment of Sep. 23, 2016, thank you for your wealth of knowledge, which you share here with us. Of course Obama doesn’t want Iran to be sued, that is where his bestest advisor, Valerie Jarrett’s parents live, or so I have read. And let’s not forget John Kerry’ son-in-law comes from Iran. And both Obama and Kerry think that Iran is the very definition of forward thinking in the Islamist world. And lastly, Iran’s missiles are directed at Israel and would take under 2 minutes to destroy any city in Israel, in addition to what you aptly stated about Jewish people with dual Israeli/American citizenship could have the well deserved power to do (sue Iran) if given it. So it makes perfect sense, all of it, especially what you gave. So thanks again, Caliph, and I like your moniker in English better than in Arabic.
mortimer says
Obama is defending the Soddy Barbarian way of life: stoning and caning of raped girls, wife-beating, hand-chopping, head-chopping, repression of the 10% Shi’ite minority in Soddy Barbaria, rape of foreign workers, export of terrorism, export of Salafist propaganda.
Thanks, Mr. Obama, gee, thanks. Aren’t you really a secret Muslim?
Linde Barrera says
To mortimer- Your 9:55 pm post of Sep. 23, 2016 depicts “Life in the Fast Lane” under Islam in Saudi Arabia. Grim, disgusting, cheerless. Wish you could represent the voice of the martyrs, mortimer, to those idiots in the MSM.
Michael Copeland says
“I’m not the strapping young muslim socialist I used to be …”
Obama, at White House Dinner
David M says
Google him saying “my Muslim faith.”
Carolyne says
One never should bite the hand that feeds them. IMO Obama is a Sunni Muslim and his allegiance is not to the US, but to Islam. Always has been.
To see an American President kissing the hand of a Saudi King makes me nauseated.
Alien Republican says
Freudian slip by Obama:
Avenger says
Mortimer, guess who opposed the JASTA bill in the US Senate? The one and only Republican tough guy Lindsey Graham. I can understand why Obama will veto this bill ( a Sunni Muslim ) but its treachery that Graham wants this bill DOA.
Lindsey Graham, Bob Dole, John McCain, Grover Norquist and the entire Bush family are all bought and sold by the House of Saud.
Staunch American conservatives my flipping ass!
They all need prison time.
Bob says
Half of the Iraqi population appears to be suing UK forces, with the government turning a blind eye to the assaults! Who’d join the forces these days – shoot the enemy and face a compensation claim worked up by greasy, slimy, lawyers!
Tony46 says
”I will stand for the families and survivors”
Obomit, 9/11, 2016…………not too long ago.
Islam the religion of killers says
Let me get this straight, ??
You can’t sue for having your kin murdered by proven government sponsored terrorists ….!!
But you can sue for someone damaging your car by running a red traffic light ….
You would expect Hillary would come to the same conclusion …..
Carolyne says
And if you son takes a hoax bomb to school, is arrested, and then invited to the White House, offered a scholarship at MIT and asked to speak at the UN, then you can sue the school, teacher and police department for $10 Million.
Oliver says
Islam- re suing – running the red light- can sue, but not Federal Court.
Guest says
A real president would seek justice for their fallen citizens. If it were me I wouldn’t have sued those governments I would have aimed the nukes at them and press fire
Keys says
Does anyone believe the Saudis themselves would pay punitive damages to 911 families?
Higher gas prices would pay for that lawsuit, but I think most Americans would say that is OK as long as 911 families got the money. Lawyers would get handsomely rich on these law suits, not paid for by the Saudis.
Then lawerys would get rich at taxpayer expense defending lawsuits from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan —- anywhere Americans were “at war” bombing and fighting.
Oliver says
A point- the families of those killed in 911 got $1 million plus ( for each one killed).
Consider: A SOLIDER KILLED IN COMBAT–IN A WAR STARTED BY POLITICIANS ( WHO ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY, NOR ARE THEIR SONS, DAUGHTERS, NIECES, NEPHEWS, GRANDCHILDREN, ETC) – AND THE FAMILY GETS A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS.
I read ( do not know if true) that now families of those killed in the OK IRS Bldge bombing want million dollar settlements, and also those killed elsewhere.
Wellington says
This disgusting veto aside (and I don’t give a damn about so-called overriding diplomatic or geopolitical concerns since a ruthless pursuit of the truth should override these two things), the photo above has spoken volumes for me for years now.
And the great irony to be found in this photo is of the first dimension since Obama has railed against racism (in a demagogic sort of way often times) and yet the Islamic world is so much guiltier than is the Western world (and the Western world is certainly guilty enough) per the heinous institution of black slavery, respecting which the Western world took the initiative to end and which said Western world has also profusely apologized for and has tried to make amends for (though no amount of amending in this matter will ever be enough for the grievance industry as led by the Sharptons, Jacksons, Obamas and the Southern Poverty Law Centers out there) while the Islamic world has NEVER apologized for its participation in said institution and which only officially (it still goes on unofficially) ended it because of Western action and pressure.
Obama gets none of this. Well, there is so much that Obama hasn’t gotten and never will. And hence this disgusting, but oh so telling, famous photograph which sums up Obama in microcosm quite aptly. If a picture is worth a thousand words, this one surely is. If truth prevails, which is not a given, this photo should never be deleted from “the truth gallery.’
Damn you, Obama, for that bow. For all time. Rather sums up your Presidency in so many respects I would argue. My God, what a foolish and wretched man you are. Then there is that Iran deal of yours————-but I have written enough for now. But, oh yes, damn you.
Keys says
I told my son: “I hate Obama”.
My son told my mother: “I hate Obama”.
My mother told me in all kindness, concern, and sincerity: “Son, never hate anyone”.
But I can not help it. I despise him.
Wellington says
It’s OK, Keys, to despise evil or complicity with evil. I am very much inclined to think the Judeo-Cristian ethic, which is no more a suicide pact than is the American Constitution, not only allows this but demands it.
Mark Swan says
Outstanding Statement.
“If truth prevails, which is not a given, this photo should never be deleted from “the truth gallery.”
CrossWare says
Obama is an excellent employee, it worth every riyal the Saudi government paid for his services.
Angemon says
Oh, I don’t know about that. The Saudis don’t seem pleased about the Iran nuclear deal. It’s almost as if Obama is acting with the purpose of making the US a “toxic”, unreliable element in the international community. But Mr. “Hope and Change” who promised to “fundamentally change America” wouldn’t do that, would he?
Oliver says
I have a friend who lives in Israel, but is a US citizen.
When ( I think the second or third set of the ORIGINAL-now this is going back a few years) of Wikileaks came out- was when Obama became agitated.
The prior leaks were critical of Bush. Obama was silent. But when the leaks came out, when Israel was ” building settlements” and Obama was screaming against Israel- the leaks form the Saudi embassy showed the truth- THE SAUDIS COULD NOT GIVE A PIECE OF FECES MORE OR LESS ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS OR THE SETTLEMENTS. THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THE IRANIAN NEGOTIATIONS.
They (The Saudis, along with Israel) wanted the sanctions strengthened, and more/stronger action taken against Iran’s nuclear program.
THAT LEAK PROVOKED OBAMA
Oliver says
And made WikiLeaks popular amongst many Israelis. (Not, necessarily the lefties)
Johan elzinga says
One of the most dangerous and best armed countries in the world, and the home base of salafist movements, the most dangerous and militant islamic religious groups. Welcome to Saoudi Arabia, a sasspit of medieval state-condoned practises, where all women are owned and where jihad police roams the streets. As a women, you are to be flogged if you don’t dress in a black bag and you’re decapitated when caught dating someone outside your marriage. Heavily funded by oil and heavily supported by the US weapons industry because for some reason beyond our grasp the white house this despicable country is still considered to be an ally. Oh and of course home of Mecca and Medina.
Jack Diamond says
and who committed an act of war against the United States of America on 9/11, implicated at the highest levels, meriting something more than a lawsuit in response. Ditto for Iran.
The 1992 US Antiterrorism Act allows American victims of foreign terrorist attacks to sue for damages.
Except…but….when it is not allowed. For instance, the $655 million judgment awarded families of American terrorism against the Palestinian Authority & PLO was overturned by the Court of Appeals, in part, because the PA is not a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, however, successful suits against sovereign states need the help of a specific amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that permits lawsuits against designated state-sponsors of terrorism and overrides their normative immunity. If Saudi Arabia were so designated (as richly deserved) this suit would become more likely successful.
Oh, and the Saudis have, again, threatened to sell-off $750 billion in U.S. assets if Congress permits the lawsuit to go forward. Assets that can and should be seized in reparations anyway (and a threatening act that could be blocked by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act).
But…. the $655 million judgment awarded against the Palestinian Authority & PLO was overturned by the Court of Appeals, in part, because the PA is not a sovereign state.
But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this law does not apply to the PA, which is not a sovereign state.
The Saudis have been again threatening to sell off $750 billion in U.S. assets if Congress allows the lawsuit. The response to that is for the U.S. to seize Saudi assets, just as it seized Nazi assets when the war started.
Jack Diamond says
blah, I missed deleting the last part of that comment. Should just read:
and who committed an act of war against the United States of America on 9/11, implicated at the highest levels, meriting something more than a lawsuit in response. Ditto for Iran.
The 1992 US Antiterrorism Act allows American victims of foreign terrorist attacks to sue for damages.
Except…but….when it is not allowed. For instance, the $655 million judgment awarded families of American terrorism against the Palestinian Authority & PLO was overturned by the Court of Appeals, in part, because the PA is not a sovereign nation. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation, however, successful suits against sovereign states need the help of a specific amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that permits lawsuits against designated state-sponsors of terrorism and overrides their normative immunity. If Saudi Arabia were so designated (as richly deserved) this suit would become more likely successful.
Oh, and the Saudis have, again, threatened to sell-off $750 billion in U.S. assets if Congress permits the lawsuit to go forward. Assets that can and should be seized in reparations anyway (and a threatening act that could be blocked by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act).
Emilie Green says
Let the new Congress pas it anew in January 2017.
DJT will quickly sign it.
Oliver says
Senator Schumer, D–NY– said that the Senate has enough votes to override. And indicated (perhaps said) that he will vote to override.
Don McKellar says
Hillary NEVER would have vetoed this if she were president. She and her controllers have determined that it is to her political advantage based on polling that it would be in her interests to lie about this.
JIMJFOX says
The older I get, the more confounded I am. Learning about Islam has increased my
confoundment [is that a word?] by several orders of magnitude. NEVER did I expect
any western leader to say “The future must not belong to those who insult the prophet
of Islam”… much less the POTUS. Where did he come from, anyway? Just seemed
to appear from nowhere to those unacquainted with US politics.
Hopefully he will disappear in the same way.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely JIMJFOX
Eric Jones says
Three steps are required here. First, pressure Congress to over ride this traitors veto.
Second pressure Congress to demand his resignation. Third, force congress to impeach Obama for treason.
i am so angry I can barely write. In his autobiography Obama stated that ‘if evil political winds blow he willl side with the muslims.’ Libya, Benghanzi, Syria and Iran deal Obama has shown his preference for islam over the wishes of the American people. Now he has chosen to stand with a unelected islamic monarchy against the desires of the American people. There is no time to waste. Obama
can do great harm to this country in the remaining time he has in office. He must be removed riight now!
Eric
Linde Barrera says
To Eric- Your comment of 10:57 pm, Sep. 23, 2016 reveals your pain and that of millions of Americans. But Obama has not and will not be removed from office because no one in Congress wants to be labeled “racist”. And so we will have 119 more days of Barack Obama until Jan 20. God help us. God help the USA. And if Hillary gets in, all bets are over. She will carry on his destructive “legacy”.
Oliver says
Linda- you are right, Besides, if Obama is out, then have Biden- and would he be any different?
Alien Republican says
Don’t worry about US troops attacking troops of the “rogue” but sovereign state of Syria. People seem have to forgotten that Syria is an ally of Russia. I’m worring about the nukes that are still around to blast us back to stone age.
THAT would be a nice Obama Legacy, and one not affecting to much the muslim world already living in stone age..
Paul Clark says
Obama seems to be anti-Christian and anti-American. Yes, I “cling to my gun and my bible.” But contrary to the Obama lie I do not dislike people because they are different from me. I love all people because my God has put it in my heart to love. This is why I want to know, where have all the Christians gone? Have they fled my precious lord’s cross? They must return and “pick-up their cross.
Champ says
“I love all people because my God has put it in my heart to love.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yet you continue to chide Christians all over the threads on this forum …
And yesterday–on another thread–you admitted that your reason for doing this was to “shame” other Christians–that isn’t love as you claim!
Remember …”love is patient, love is kind” …so to deliberately “shame” other Christians is profoundly unkind and mean-spirited, and it exposes your impatience with Christians.
You claim one thing, but state another. Let me also point out your hypocrisy, as well.
lolwut? says
Looks like Trump just gained more votes.
Mark Swan says
Yes indeed
Georg says
Sorry to be crass so often, but good f$%^&ing night! It’s a weird sense of knowing something was going to happen but still being dismayed. What in the hell?! The arguments he cites against it sound out of the playbook of some anti-American loon… Come try to sue us. We’re the U.S.mother-%^$#@^&.A.
To anyone with a problem: Do something! We’re always right here. If we can’t run someone off the tracks and out of the next century for pulverizing 3,000 of our own, from our financial to military vitals, then it’s looking terminal. When the *()^ did we start giving a #$*@ about those who hate us??
Please let us stop this Admin on its way out. We’re really up against it, but I and we have seen some monumental success in the Counterjihad movement, so let’s just keep to it…
Sam says
How can this traitor Obama have rating of more than 50%. Insane.
This guy does everything against America and everything for Islam. Unbelievable.
Susan B says
He has the Media lying for him so most have no clue because the truth has been hidden. Try explaining this to the average working joe who watches the twisted lies on the news every night and they will look at you as though you have five heads.
Not everyone looks for truth on sites like this. This admin make the nazis look like amateurs.
Oliver says
Most polls are rigged.
Consider: many polls (claim) to have interviewed 1,000 to 2,000 people. But- how many were really questioned, and their responses not used- because it DID NOT FIT INTO THE NARRATIVE AND RESULTS WANTED? (Happened to me- I spent some 20 or so minutes answering questions, etc. then told my answers did not fit their requirements, etc. Thank you.).
Also, how are the questions worded? Where did they pick the people ( to poll) from? All sorts of variables.
A friend of mine told me, he once worked for a radio station (pre-Internet)- and on a poll- they discarded all votes that did not give them the results that they wanted.
Oliver says
The Wall Street Journal, online, a few days ago, ahd a video with an expert from -wherever. And he was asked about polls. His reply, (paraphrasing, but reasonably close)- in olden times the priests used to examine the entrails of (I think he said pigs, but possibly cows-anyhow, some animal) to determine the future. In his view, polls are just as accurate.
And, in 1980, all or almost all polls showed carter and Reagan neck and neck. Reagan carried 44 states.
UNCLE VLADDI says
Governments are supposed to HELP defend their citizens, not disarm them!
R Russell says
Saudi is Obama’s handler so there was no way he was going to allow it. Obama has accomplish all 3 goals given to him by the Saudis when he came to power. When/if he leaves office he will have 1. allowed Iran to get the nukes. 2. distance the US from Israel 3. Islamised the US. All this was heard on ME chatter at the time by Avi Lipkin.
Keys says
R Russell-
Why would the Saudis want Iran to get nukes? So Israel would nuke them before the Iranian nukes became active?
Saudi Arabia would love it if Iran got nuked and Iran was able to inflict horrendous damage on Israel in response ! That would be even better for SA than Iran wiping Israel off the map with Iran suffering no consequences and emerging as the Islamic heros for finally destroying the State of the Jews.
Very curious to me that Obama and Bibi Netanyahu had a very cordial meeting recently (unlike the tension of previous ones), and that Bibi emphasized in a recent speech that Israel would never, ever allow Iran to get nukes.
Couple that with Iran’s stepped up aggression after the “nuke deal” (Obama does not deal well when being scorned on his legacy) and it seems to me something may be about to happen.
Oct. 3 Rosh Hashana
Oct. 8 Shabbat Shuva
Oct. 12 Yom Kippur
Oliver says
Keys–I agree with a portion of what you say.
But, Saudi Arabia and Israel share intelligence- about Iran; other terrorists, etc. The Saudis are also funding Egypt-to wipe out ( not doing a good enough job, my view) Hamas. (Egypt has destroyed some Hamas ” communities” ( for want of a better term) but has done so fairly quietly. (One area- they flooded a Hamas tunnel with SEA WATER– and (I am not a scientist, nor an expert on anything scientific) and the salt water, while ruining the tunnels, weakened the soil around the tunnel and caused buildings to collapse.
(Someone who understands science and soil erosion-I guess- could clarify and explain. Was on an israeli news site some time back). (And, the salt water was cheap-just took it from the Med.)
mohamonator says
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan both meet every objective criterion for inclusion in the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Their failure to be included in the list is simply a matter of political and military expedience.
Obama will turn the screws on Dems in Congress to sustain the veto. House Democrats, except for a few in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, will probably vote with Obama to sustain the veto. Nearly all are in safe districts where Obama is popular and will have more to lose by snubbing Obama than by throwing the families of 9/11 victims under the bus. It will be a tougher vote for Senate Democrats, as many are in competitive races or will be in a few years, so voting against a lame-duck president is an attractive choice. This is why I expect the vote to override to be closer in the Senate than the House. Of course, the override has to carry in both bodies, so I expect it will fail.
Lots of them will hypocritically claim that they “voted to support 9/11 families”, while carefully neglecting to mention that they only did so ONCE!
Crusades Were Right! says
The White House is infested with Islamophilia. It needs to be fumigated with Trump-brand Americanism!
Kitty says
That’s the perfect photo to accompany this report.
duh swani says
Me Sioux Indian but no collect…Odd you can sue a nursing home for neglect and win, but there us no money award…and you can’t sue for the pain and suffering of another person ( I found that out the hard way)…The families should have a right to sue, but only lawyers will see any money…
Pong says
I wander, if US citizens can sue SA, would US face many court cases for the loss of civilians lives. It seems that collateral damage is quite high in ME, due to the bombing.
It is quite normal that civilians lives are lost during any armed conflict and US forces don’t kill people intentionally, but mistakes do happen, like bombing a wedding.
Is there difference between terrorist and american army actions from a legal point?
In today’s twisted world one never knows.
Keys says
That is the point, Pong, for those opposing this. And Saudi Arabia will never themselves pay what amounts to an Infidel Jizyah for the martyrs of jihad.
If SA did pay, it would be paid through higher oil prices to other nations; no punishment at all to them, but to the rest of us.
And you are right about the lawyers too, I think. Some of them at high taxpayer expense.
However, perhaps there is a way, as some have mentioned, to make the lawsuit and settlements “air-tight” to address all these issues.
Keys says
oops … it was duh swani who made the point about the lawyers seeing the money, not Pong.
Georg says
Any bills the US receives for killing civilians over there can be forwarded to Saudi Arabia as without their Salafist and Wahabbist manifest destiny we wouldn’t be over there in the first place.
Airborne869 says
WHY would the resident MUSLIM in the White House do such a thing…
Michael Johnson says
That’s a slap in the face to the victims of 9/11 and every American and every country in the western hemisphere they hate us all of us and for our president to do this is just not right Democrat or Republican our political parties can be wrong at times I’m not esteeming one above the other they are both wrong
Florida Jim says
After observing Obama since 2004 I conclude he does everything Muslim want done regardless of how it affect America. Others were right about Obama he is a fraud and America will rejoice when he leaves office and, hopefully america.
Walter Sieruk says
There is, no doubt, much blame to go regarding about the guilty of having apart in the vicious and murderous jihad terror attack on September 11, 2001. Those guilty are a number. Be they individuals nations as Saudi Arabia, Iran or that rogue “state” the Taliban as well as that malicious and heinous jihad entity Al Qaeda
Don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …” Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.
Hummer says
Congress needs overwhelmingly to over ride his veto. I believe the votes are there. To be proactive let your Senators and Reps know your position.
We must make it illegal for the Saudis to dump millions into our universities to push their ideology which they have been doing for a long time.
Johan elzinga says
Dear Mohammed,
This is a long overdue response to your writings in the 9th century, I believe. If only you could know what endless misery your koran has brought us! Indeed, when given the chance, we would happily root out your movement even before it began. Countless women have been raped, sold or raped and sold in your name. There genitals have been mutilated in order to give the men more control over them, thus crippling them for life. Tell me, mr Mohammed, where is the logic? Do you consider yourself supreme to the God you say that you represent, in taking away parts of the organs he gave them by birth? In todays western society you would be deemed a severe criminal because you married a 12 year old girl and had sex with her. Some years that you should have served in prison there and then. Countless of your followers tell us yours is the religion of peace but at the same time kill each other because, they say, the others do not belong to the “right” muslim groups. In sharp contrast to even the rubbish that you wrote at the time. We should have burnt you instead of burning korans at this day, but by the lack of that possibility I hereby call the readers of this blog to burn your drivel. Publicly.
Champ says
“In todays western society you would be deemed a severe criminal because you married a 12 year old girl and had sex with her.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aisha was six years old when pedophile-prophet muhammad married her, and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.
Mazo says
Obama vetoed the bill because the USA supported violent actions in other countries which could lead to lawsuits against the USA government.
USA supported Grey Wolves Islamists to slaughter leftist Kurds during the Cold War. Kurds could sue the USA.
Republican President Eisenhower supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Arab governments in the 1950s. Anti MB Arabs could sue the USA.
USA supported the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. East Timorese could sue the USA.
Obama knows this and vetoed the bill for this reason.
Custos Custodum says
The bill would allow foreign governments to be sued in U.S. courts.
It is true that as a world power, the U.S. has engaged – rightly or wrongly – in various dubious activities over the centuries. There are various constitutional principles and laws in place in the U.S. as to when foreigners may sue the U.S. government over incidents that occurred outside U.S. territory. The current bill does not pertain to such “incoming” lawsuits.
Mazo says
The article said foreign countries will respond by passing their own laws and suing the USA.
concerns that the legislation, which passed both the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support, could prompt other nations to pass look-alike laws, leading to more lawsuits and inconsistent standards for what constitutes state support for terrorist attacks.
Jack Diamond says
The Alien Tort Claims Act already allows federal judges to hear lawsuits brought by foreign persons harmed by violations of U.S. law or international law. Precedence being the case of a Mexican doctor, Humberto Alvarez-Machain. He was abducted and brought to the US in 1990 at the behest of the Drug Enforcement Administration for being allegedly involved in the torture death of a DEA agent investigating a drug cartel in Mexico. Rather than seek official extradition, DEA officials arranged for a group of Mexicans to apprehend the doctor and fly him to the US so he could stand trial on murder charges.
The charges against Dr. Alvarez-Machain were thrown out at trial. After returning to Mexico, the doctor filed suit under the Alien Tort Statute, claiming his abduction by Mexicans acting at the direction of the DEA violated international human rights. He was awarded $25,000. The award was upheld by the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0330/p02s02-usju.html
As for victims of terrorism suing states otherwise protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, there are precedents there, too.
“Survivors of Orlando Letelier, former Chilean ambassador to the United States, were allowed to sue the Chilean government after it was established in criminal proceedings that Letelier had been killed in a Washington bombing involving four operatives and senior officials of the Chilean intelligence services and two Cuban exiles.
The widow of Henry Liu, a Chinese journalist and critic of the Taiwan government, was allowed to sue Taiwan after a federal court ruled that her husband had been slain in California by two Chinese gang members acting for Adm. Wong Hsi-ling, former director of Taiwan’s Defense Intelligence Bureau.
A federal judge in Washington found in the Letelier case that Chile did not qualify for immunity because the assassination plot had been carried out by intelligence operatives targeting critics of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.
In his ruling, the judge said a foreign government “has no discretion to perpetrate . . . action that is clearly contrary to the precepts of humanity as recognized in both national and international law.”
In the Liu case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion, setting a high – but not insurmountable – bar for suing foreign governments in cases of egregious government conduct.
While the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides foreign governments with blanket immunity from lawsuits filed by the U.S. government, it permits suits filed by private parties under certain circumstances and one significant condition:
Plaintiffs must show that whatever harm was caused was the result of criminal behavior or some other action outside the boundaries of normal government operations.
Once that high hurdle is cleared, U.S. citizens can sue under circumstances, including:
Cases of personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States if caused by negligent acts of omission or commission by a foreign government.
Cases of personal injury or death caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act, if the foreign state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Such was the case with Libya, which sponsored the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
When a relative of one victim first sued Libya, a federal court in New York threw out the suit, citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Families of Pan Am victims then lobbied Congress and won passage of the exemption citing aircraft sabotage and other criminal acts.”
http://articles.philly.com/2008-06-02/news/24990158_1_foreign-governments-federal-court-foreign-sovereign-immunities-act
Should this apply to Saudi Arabia for its involvement in 9/11? Absolutely.
Linde Barrera says
To Jack Diamond- Thank you so much for your comment of 5:03 pm, Sep. 24, 2016 detailing lawsuits and foreign governments. Very interesting details. You rock, Jack!
Defen0derofIsliam says
Jack Diamond there is no proof that the Saudi government was behind the attack at all. the building came down by control demo which is than inside job which take months to set up. Who own the build than Israeli.
Linde Barrera says
To DefenderofIslam- As per your 1:45 am comment about the World Trade Center buildings, I watched a news show where the speaker said those buildings were designed to cause minimal damage so that the floors would “pancake” on top of each other in case they should be “bombed” or come under attack. Your defense of Saudi Arabia is indefensible because Saudi Arabia has wahabbism and salafism sects of Islam, in other words, ruthless and radical. And being a “defender of Islam”, of course you blame Israel, because Jew hatred is doctrinal to the Quran. And when all else fails, Islamists must blame the Jews/Israel. Very pathetic when a whole group of people cannot take responsibility for themselves. Open your eyes, your ears and your heart to Jesus Christ and learn the truth.
Jack Diamond says
Deer deaf ender of isliam, there is a Portuguese saying “to be kind to fools is to throw water into the sea”, nevertheless–
Is there anything of the Saudi government in the persons of Prince Bandar, Prince Turki, Prince Sultan, the Muslim World League and the IIRO? In the al-Rajhi Bank and SAAR Network? Do you know anything of how al Qaeda was funded or the 9/11 hijackers?
Read the following, it will improve your English:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/07/confirmed-top-saudi-officials-aided-the-911-jihad-plot
Then read the original case presented in court brought by survivors of victims of 9/11:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/terrorism/burnettba81502cmp.pdf
Jack Diamond says
Oh, and–
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
abad says
Hussein O needs to be impeached, tried for treason and deported back to Kenya where he was born.
TRAITOR.
Don Fredrick says
Obama states that the legislation “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks.” (That is not the point. The purpose of the legislation is to allow the families of the victims to have their day in court and obtain restitution from the Saudis. Suing a surgeon who makes a mistake on the operating table does not eliminate future surgical mistakes, but it is a logical consequence of the surgeon’s actions.)
Obama and others also argue that such legislation could be used against the United States if the tables were turned. (They apparently believe that if the U.S. government funds terrorists who fly planes into Saudi skyscrapers there should be no accountability or repercussions.)
Defen0derofIsliam says
Where I live there is than Cubans- America acuse of carrying out terrorists acts against Cuba including blowing up than cuban own hotel in south america murdering hundred of people.He is being held by INS to be sent back to cuba or other nation for his crimes.He have over 10 years in jail being held. he was train by the CIA.
Infidel from Down Under says
History will ultimatly treat Obama like many leaders of his era as a muslim bum licker
Karen says
Of course he vetoed the bill. President Obama would be very reluctant to see an American citizen receive any, ahem, ‘exceptional’ satisfaction for their injury not afforded to other folks around the world. Doesn’t fit in with his ideas of fairness, and taking America down a few notches (or more.) Plus, it would be very damaging to his Islamist buddies, who have his eternal support, and whom he favors over some hick who didn’t even go to Yale.