“...Mr. Obama’s strongest allies on Capitol Hill turned against him.”

September 29, 2016 4:18 PM

Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill [The New York Times] “Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot. Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government. The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the Sept. 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.”

Angered by 9/11 Victims Law, Saudis Rethink U.S. Alliance [The New York Times]

The Saudi government has not commented on the law since Mr. Obama’s veto was overridden, and it remained unclear how it would respond. But Saudi and gulf analysts said that the depth of the Saudi-American alliance gave the kingdom many ways to express its displeasure. “It is certain that the strategic alliance between the two countries is in a real crisis,” Salman Aldossary, the editor in chief of the Saudi-owned Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper, said in an email. “If it is true that Riyadh shall be harmed by the crisis, Washington also has interests in the region, and they will definitely be affected as well.” Saudi Arabia has lots of money invested in the United States, and Mr. Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, warned that such investments could be withdrawn if Saudi Arabia feared that its assets were in jeopardy of seizure as part of American legal proceedings. It remains unclear if Saudi Arabia will start withdrawing those assets.

Obama Criticises Decision by Lawmakers to Issue First Veto Override of Presidency [The Guardian]

“The concern that I’ve had has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia per se or my sympathy for 9/11 families, it has to do with me not wanting a situation in which we’re suddenly exposed to liabilities for all the work that we’re doing all around the world, and suddenly finding ourselves subject to the private lawsuits in courts where we don’t even know exactly whether they’re on the up and up, in some cases,” he told CNN. “So this is a dangerous precedent and it’s an example of why sometimes you have to do what’s hard. And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard. I didn’t expect it, because if you’re perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that’s a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do.”

posted by Fizz (71 comments total)

"White House accuses Congress of ‘buyer’s remorse’ on 9/11 bill"

Republican congressional leaders said Thursday they might need to revisit a measure that allows victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia over worries that it will expose U.S. officials to lawsuits abroad.

It was just this week that Congress overwhelmingly voted to override President Obama’s veto of the measure, which is now law. But some lawmakers already seemed to be backtracking from their embrace of the measure shortly before leaving town until after the November elections.

posted by Celsius1414 at 4:21 PM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

some lawmakers already seemed to be backtracking from their embrace of the measure shortly before leaving town until after the November elections.

Saudi Arabexit
posted by Rock Steady at 4:24 PM on September 29, 2016 [22 favorites]

Just in time for the higher gas prices.
posted by clavdivs at 4:31 PM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

Q. What's the difference between a cow and 9/11?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:32 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

A: One's a bovine and the other's a vinebo?
posted by notyou at 4:40 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Don't make any bones about it. There are definitely people in the royal family of the House of Saud who are definitely funneling their cash into Wahhabi extremism. The Saudi Arabian leadership have not been responsive about taking away the allowances of these extended royal family members funnelling cash into the pockets of the extremists.

However, sovereign immunity is not a Pandora's Box that you want to open. The only reason the US can even get away with such an unprecedented move is the US being the world's financial center and having a standing army able to take on most of the world combined. I don't want the whole sovereign immunity system to descend into "who has the biggest leverage to enforce their courts' decisions" and this is a definitive step away from the legal détente that has been the status quo for centuries.

Obama is absolutely correct and was absolutely right to veto the bill. Congress is absolutely wrong to override it. I understand the actions of Congress and their motivations but I don't agree with them at all.
posted by Talez at 4:40 PM on September 29, 2016 [115 favorites]

So can Iraqis/Afghanis/Pakistanis/Yemenis/Somalis/Nigerians/Lybians/etc. etc. etc. sue the US military, and its many contractors now? These sorts of Amnesty agreements are set up so that the current power structures aren't threatened, because although these power structures are in constant competition, they have a mutual interest (in some cases tenuous) in maintaining their hold on power...basically, this goes against the rules of the great game. The Plebes should not have a right to hold anyone in power accountable, no matter where that locus of power exists. Only another equally powerful interest has that right.* #armchairphilosopher

*aka what Talez sez
posted by nikoniko at 4:41 PM on September 29, 2016 [14 favorites]

So any speculation on the real reason? There's no chance in heck that congress would be doing this out of actual sympathy. And why reopen old wounds for an attack that happened 15 years ago whose architect has been mouldering at the bottom of the sea for 5? Is it just people jumping on the rah-rah patriotism bandwagon and losing all sense, or do some of these people have an actual motive?
posted by Zalzidrax at 4:45 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

What would one of these lawsuits look like? Would the lawyers for the 9/11 families try to compel SA individuals and orgs to appear in US court or otherwise make evidence available (documents, whatever)? And when SA nationals refuse to comply, the court then rules in favor of the 9/11 families and seizes SA assets in the US?
posted by notyou at 4:47 PM on September 29, 2016

Fascinating - apparently Clinton and Sanders both support the bill. That vote shows amazingly strong support for the bill - is there a well written justification from some of the supporters that explain how it is not a terrible idea to begin dismantling sovereign immunity?
posted by the agents of KAOS at 4:50 PM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

What would one of these lawsuits look like? Would the lawyers for the 9/11 families try to compel SA individuals and orgs to appear in US court or otherwise make evidence available (documents, whatever)? And when SA nationals refuse to comply, the court then rules in favor of the 9/11 families and seizes SA assets in the US?

Well this is where it gets really stupid and you go "what's the fucking point?". The law says 9/11 survivors can't go after indirect support of terrorism as a way of proving KSA involvement in 9/11 (it has to be direct) and the US courts can't compel KSA officials or seize KSA assets.

All the 9/11 survivors are going to get is a legal bill and and a court decision either saying "no, the Saudis weren't directly involved" or "Congratulations, the Saudis owe you a kazillion dollars! Good luck collecting it".
posted by Talez at 4:52 PM on September 29, 2016 [17 favorites]

On further reflection, not exactly what Talez says, though I agree that this will potentially open up another pandoras box (how many pandoras boxes has 9/11 opened?).
posted by nikoniko at 4:53 PM on September 29, 2016

Q. What's the difference between a cow and 9/11?

A. You can't milk a cow for 15 years.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:54 PM on September 29, 2016 [159 favorites]

I don't see the good Congress seems to, in opening this can of worms. There's not "justice" to be had here. The Saudis aren't going to suddenly say "Okay, now that you're suing us in Queens, we'll cop to involvement fifteen years after the fact."

The only ones this can serve to enrich are shady lawyers, and it opens up cans of worms that, as Talez says, are probably a bad idea for us to be opening.

I actually phoned both of my Senator's offices asking for answers on this one. I got a bunch of mealy-mouthed platitudes from office staff. (I'm in WA, so my Senators are Democrats, if that matters in this case). One went so far as to make the case that, since JASTA was only about terrorism, that it didn't open us up for reciprocal suits. I asked what evidence their office has been sitting on indicating definite Saudi involvement in 9/11, and got stunned, flabbergasted silence in response.

You'd think that question would have been an obvious riposte.

The only good I can see for this is that it -looks- like they're doing something for "9/11 victims" and against "Saudi terrorist involvement". I suppose that's all well and good if you don't question any narratives, ever. Great with low-information voters, but it flat -enrages- me to see my Democratic Senators voting for this nonsense.

We're supposed to be -better- than this kind of pandering, useless nonsense.
posted by Archelaus at 5:03 PM on September 29, 2016 [30 favorites]

There are big differences in our cultures, our potentials, and our futures. It is clearly a message. I like the tone. I stand with the women who can't drive, the women who get stoned and whipped, and I stand with the victims of Wahabism all over. Just like I stand with the victims of daesh, as well. They both spring from the same poisoned well. It is a well of surfeit, that gives men with no discernible means of self support, unlimited power in the lives of others. Religion, in general, is the ultimate Rube Goldberg social machine. Make them pay. But you wonder if the whole move is about facilitating pipeline building, when the Saudis get pissed and raise the price of oil. Oh, maybe the Socialist economies of South America will do better if that happens. Oh Pandora! One of my favorite characters.
posted by Oyéah at 5:10 PM on September 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

I have to agree with Talez, yes there are probably some members of the House of Saud that are likely culpable for some degree of responsibility in regards to the 9/11 attacks but yikes this is most definitely one Pandora's Box you do not want to open.

Are there no treaties with Saudi Arabia that predate the FSIA (which I assume is what is being amended by this law) that allow Saudi Arabia to claim treaty exceptions?
posted by vuron at 5:12 PM on September 29, 2016

P.S. Doing anything threatens the world wide house of cards, anything but bombing people and spending trillions of unaccountable dollars to arms suppliers. It is a set up. Make them pay.
posted by Oyéah at 5:12 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

For better or for worse the series of treaties and agreements that have established things like sovereign immunity are a massive improvement over the previous system which pretty much allowed western European nations to more or less bully the rest of the world.

Yes to a certain degree that still happens but it's a much more polite form of bullying handled by central bankers and not armed soldiers.
posted by vuron at 5:20 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

What if, these lawsuits were prosecuted via the World Court?
posted by Apocryphon at 5:28 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Kabuki on all parts. Congress, in an election year, casts their lot with the poor 9/11 victims. The President and senate minority leader, hoping to defray the damage, vote against. And the lawsuits themselves are futile gestures with little or no evidence of Saudi involvement. Kabuki...
posted by jim in austin at 5:33 PM on September 29, 2016 [4 favorites]

So any speculation on the real reason?

It's not just the upcoming election, it's the prospect of one or both of the houses of Congress getting flipped.
posted by Halloween Jack at 5:35 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

awesome! let's get this big old reparations train a-rollin!

wait...come back, bipartisan consensus of 97 senators...why are u running away
posted by zokni at 5:48 PM on September 29, 2016 [48 favorites]

So it wasn't enough that we invaded their country, overthrew their government and oversaw the execution of their leader?

What?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:52 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

This is being done to sort of hand Obama -- and Hillary Clinton -- a joy buzzer, right? Like, for vetoing the bill the Republicans can criticize him/her, and then when Suadi Arabia get pissed off they can criticize him/ her again, and when someone sues the U.S. they can get pissed off yet again?

Don't make my country's sovereignty part of your tantrum, G.O.P.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:10 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

This is being done to sort of hand Obama -- and Hillary Clinton -- a joy buzzer, right? Like, for vetoing the bill the Republicans can criticize him/her, and then when Suadi Arabia get pissed off they can criticize him/ her again, and when someone sues the U.S. they can get pissed off yet again?

Don't make my country's sovereignty part of your tantrum, G.O.P.

Every D bar the retiring Harry Reid voted in favour.
posted by Talez at 6:14 PM on September 29, 2016 [7 favorites]

All the Saudis have to do is to start selling oil in Euros or Yuan, and it's game over for the Petrodollar, and all of us here in the US take about a 50-90% hit in our standard of living... this was a very stupid move by Congress.
posted by MikeWarot at 6:28 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

"We're supposed to be -better- than this kind of pandering, useless nonsense."

Ha! Good one.
posted by Stu-Pendous at 6:38 PM on September 29, 2016 [3 favorites]

The GOP has certainly annihilated the idea that politics ends at the water's edge.
posted by ocschwar at 6:45 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

Most of the hacking attributed to Russia in the last few months has seemed to be of negligible effect. If Russia (or China, or someone) really wanted to fuck with us, they would engineer passage of a law like this and then release unambiguous evidence connecting the government of SA to 9/11, or other evidence that would, via this law, allow private citizens to pursue a spectacular trial against one or more US allies, sticking in the media cycle for who knows how long.
posted by XMLicious at 7:06 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

On July 21, 2003, two weeks after the Gulf War POWs won their court case in U.S. District Court, the Bush administration stepped in to deny the tortured POWs access to the Iraqis funds the administration wanted to control. Or maybe Yoo said it would be a bad president.
posted by ridgerunner at 7:08 PM on September 29, 2016 [2 favorites]

This certainly shows the power of the presidency, since without that veto, it would have passed quietly, unanimously, and without objection from anyone (including here) apart from a few foreign-policy wonks.
posted by chortly at 7:12 PM on September 29, 2016

A much better way of addressing the concerns of 9/11 families would be to stop approving arms sales to our "allies" the Saudis.

And next time there's Saudi involvement in a terrorist attack inside the US, to lay the blame at the appropriate place. And take military action against the responsible party, rather than an uninvolved country. Regardless of their personal ties to the sitting President's family and business interests.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:31 PM on September 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

There are more than 15,000 people working in over 250 locations around the world in the United States Foreign Service. All of those personnel have just been exposed to liability that did not exist before the bill.

And while I'm no fan of Saudi, I fail to see the value in opening up a diplomatic front on that side, when we've got hackers and Syria and Iraq and daesh on our plate already.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 7:31 PM on September 29, 2016 [9 favorites]

Talez: Every D bar the retiring Harry Reid voted in favour.

So then... Why did they do it? What were they thinking?
posted by wenestvedt at 7:39 PM on September 29, 2016

“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationships,” said McConnell, who voted to override the president’s veto.

What the fuck. "We didn't think of that incredibly obvious flip side"? That's what you're going with? "So, we do this, then THEY do... what." That's a far too advanced level of thinking for someone supposedly governing 300 million people before casting a vote?
posted by ctmf at 7:48 PM on September 29, 2016 [12 favorites]

"We didn't think of that incredibly obvious flip side"

Oh, and add "...despite being told exactly that by the administration"
posted by ctmf at 7:50 PM on September 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

So then... Why did they do it? What were they thinking?

Because explaining to angry constituents why you voted against letting 9/11 victim families sue a deep-pocketed foreign government is really really hard, and saying "aye" is really really easy. What percentage of people do you think will ever care about sovereign immunity and the reasons behind it when their confronted with "but what about the terrorists?" on the other hand?

That said, "I had to vote no to protect the troops" would probably be a winner.
posted by zachlipton at 7:54 PM on September 29, 2016 [11 favorites]

Won't this go almost directly to the Supreme Court who will write a quite obfucacious opinion saying essentially what Talez just said?
posted by sammyo at 7:55 PM on September 29, 2016

Won't this go almost directly to the Supreme Court who will write a quite obfucacious opinion saying essentially what Talez just said?

The Supreme Court takes a very handsoff approach to the foreign affairs clause. Typically what happens is Congress delegates broad authority to the President to regulate some aspect of foreign relations, and if SCOTUS is forced to weigh in at all, they approve the Executive's actions pursuant to Congressional delegation, or (rarely) say the President exceeded the scope of the authorization.

The situation where Congress allows a private cause of action against a foreign power is...atypical.

Also there would have to be trial and appellate proceedings first, and those could damage US relations on their own without SCOTUS even getting a say.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:13 PM on September 29, 2016 [1 favorite]

This certainly shows the power of the presidency

It does, as a proviso stipulates the executive branch can step-in and hold the courts decision.

"We didn't think of that incredibly obvious flip side"
Oh but we did. For example the American hostages suing Iran because of this:

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

"An Act to deter terrorism, provide justice for victims, provide for an effective death penalty, and for other purposes."

-providing restitution/assistance for victims of terrorism (Title II),
designation of foreign terrorist organizations and prohibitions on funding (Title III),
removal or exclusion of alien terrorists and modifications of asylum procedures (Title IV), etc.

Signed into law by President Bill Clinton
posted by clavdivs at 8:14 PM on September 29, 2016

Ryan: I'm going to cut off my dick with this sharp knife
Obama: that's a terrible and stupid idea which will be incredibly painful.
Ryan: shit fuck the pain!!! this is all your fault for not warning me.
(Scene)
posted by humanfont at 8:33 PM on September 29, 2016 [25 favorites]

really, who just got the rear door treatment from China, who got laughed at by Putin all up in his face like, then gets insulted by the president of the Phillipines with racist slurs, and has a nuclear missle launched upon his leaving Asia via NK.

Interesting that the wiki article for JASTA has the "anti-terrorism bill" listed but no link. Probably because the name is ANTITERROISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
Someone should edit that "mistake".
posted by clavdivs at 8:53 PM on September 29, 2016

Saudi Arabia is yet another reason to get off oil.
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:56 PM on September 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

Er, after a few kabillion barrels.

"Are there no treaties with Saudi Arabia that predate the FSIA (which I assume is what is being amended by this law) that allow Saudi Arabia to claim treaty exceptions?"

This is why the EB will step in on the courts decision...have we all read the bill and its antecdents going back to the Ford administration. Is that all the push back: "sovereignty and the bag of Pandoras?"
The box is open and this law has been in existence, in one form or another, for near 40 years!

"Tim Kaine No Show at 9/11 Bill Vote!"
Busy guy, a mere 10 miles away camsplaining.
posted by clavdivs at 9:53 PM on September 29, 2016

So any speculation on the real reason?

Fascinating - apparently Clinton and Sanders both support the bill.

I hate to be so negative/cynical, but this really looks like a shallow election gambit to me.

Nobody wants to be on record voting against it because it sounds so awful -- not letting American families sue for damages from such a heinous crime, etc.... during an election year. Doing so would leave a massive opening for opponents to batter them on, with (equally shallow) negative advertising. Imagine what Republicans would do to Clinton right now if she came out publicly "against the American people."

Obama, not being up for reelection, can do the right thing no matter how bad it looks at first glance. Clinton, after the election, will almost certainly take the same position.
posted by rokusan at 10:29 PM on September 29, 2016 [5 favorites]

And then what would her postion be.

I find it interesting that folks on the Facebook support the veto when an overwhelming percentage of the American people had it overun. They don't give a reason why? Sure, I can "habius corpus/sovereignty but those precedents have been set years ago.

Don't people want a chance at justice.
posted by clavdivs at 10:47 PM on September 29, 2016

Here is how people voted in the Senate (S.2040) this year and in the House (H.R.3815) in 2015.
posted by lampshade at 12:55 AM on September 30, 2016

I want to know exactly whose brainless, unthinking, emotionally manipulative idea this was.
posted by E. Whitehall at 2:25 AM on September 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Serious question: can the legal precedent here be used to support mass-shooting victims suing state or federal government for their role in supporting easy access to guns?
posted by nakedmolerats at 6:01 AM on September 30, 2016 [7 favorites]

So it wasn't enough that we invaded their country, overthrew their government and oversaw the execution of their leader?

Just in case this is being asked in earnest: we haven't done anything at all to our good ally Saudi Arabia, from whence came 15 of the 19 hijackers. We did all those things to Iraq, whose government has no known ties to 9/11 at all.

USA! USA! USA!
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:28 AM on September 30, 2016 [6 favorites]

Yeah, this isn't a partisan thing or "the GOP" when literally 97/100 senators voted yes. Nearly all of our senators made shitty, self preserving votes

I mean, I think the US has the military power to enforce our own sovereign immunity for our people overseas, but it would get really, really fucking messy.
posted by corb at 7:40 AM on September 30, 2016 [4 favorites]

I checked the voting list and was about to get annoyed at both my senators and representative for voting for this. And then I remembered that I live in NYC and even though I wasn't here in 2001, voting against this would kill the political career of anyone in New York State or City.

I would like to think more of Kirsten Gillibrand, but there is some realpolitik in there. (I don't have nearly that much faith in Shumer.)
posted by Hactar at 9:14 AM on September 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

On the other hand, that makes it seem like they're representing us rather well.

You're talking about complex geopolitics on one side of the ledger versus holding a government accountable for the murder of thousands on the other.

I would be shocked if this bill weren't broadly and overwhelmingly supported by the public. Which would mean a vote for it is representing the public.
posted by jpe at 12:26 PM on September 30, 2016

can the legal precedent here

This isn't a legal precedent. It's a bill passed by Congress.
posted by jpe at 12:26 PM on September 30, 2016

poor 9/11 victims

You would be referring to the well-off and well-connected family members of the victim who can get the ear of politicians. Congress couldn't give a flip for the other 9/11 victims, those first-responders or union workers dying from all the terrible toxins they breathed in cleaning up the mess.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 3:30 PM on September 30, 2016 [3 favorites]

"Congress couldn't give a flip for the other 9/11 victims, those first-responders or union workers dying from all the"

Sure about that? First off about "caring", second, about subsequent acts passed before last year.
posted by clavdivs at 5:42 PM on September 30, 2016

So, should we be surprised when the people of Iraq, sue us for bombing Baghdad for no particularly veritable reason? I am starting to get my head around this. Uh oh.
posted by Oyéah at 7:22 PM on September 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

What do you think the chances that Obama would have vetoed this in September 2012 if it had come up?

Legislation 40 days before an election is going to be weird. The Iraq Resolution was deliberately timed for late 2002 and voted on in October, right before the election.
posted by JackFlash at 10:41 PM on September 30, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just in case this is being asked in earnest: we haven't done anything at all to our good ally Saudi Arabia, from whence came 15 of the 19 hijackers.

The Saudi citizenship of the hijackers was a deliberate choice. Due to their status as an ally, Saudi passports were not particularly viewed with suspicion when Saudi nationals entered the US, and OBL's documents forger was pretty good at erasing traces of visits to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq from legitimate passports. IIRC, Iran didn't stamp passports, so no worries there. OBL was from Saudi Arabia himself, and had a stated goal of forcing the Americans to withdraw from SA, weakening the royal government and leaving it ripe for overthrow. There were a couple of reasons for this--OBL resented the modernity and excess of the royals, feeling it was incompatible with Islam and the inevitable result of Saudi royals getting educated in America. (For instance, Bill Clinton tutored the future head of Saudi intelligence, Turki, in ethics.) He also felt that the presence of non-Muslim American soldiers, some of them women, anywhere near Mecca was a desecration of the holiest ground. And, last but not least, the Saudis forced the Binladen Group to sever their relationship with OBL, seizing most of his assets and expelling him from SA. (I think he went to Sudan, but it's been a minute since I read the 9/11 Commission Report and The Looming Tower.) So there was some resentment there.

The current case against the Saudi government, as outlined by the families of those who were personally affected by 9/11, is focused on the contents of the previously classified "28 pages" that resulted from a Joint Intelligence Inquiry into the activities of the US intelligence communities prior to 9/11. There is indeed damning evidence that there was financial support for the hijackers and possibly OBL himself from officials in the Saudi government. But in order to indict the government of SA for the crime of state sponsored terrorism, there would have to be some evidence that officials at the highest levels of government knowingly sponsored this particular attack. It seems highly unlikely that such evidence could ever be credibly presented in an open US court without exposing intelligence sources and methods, and we can be pretty damn sure that the Saudis aren't going to just fax over everything they've got in response to a subpoena.

So this legislation is effectively useless and just puts billions of dollars of Saudi buy-in to the American economy at risk. I mean, do I love the Saudis and their dedication to exporting extremist Wahhabism all over the world while trying to destroy Shi'as in Yemen? No, not at all. But the situation with SA is far more complicated than a feel-good court case could possibly resolve, and I truly resent Mitch McConnell for growing a huge case of buyer's remorse and blaming the President for not communicating with him about this bill. Obama sent a multi-page letter outlining exactly what the issues were, and he chose to ignore them.
posted by xyzzy at 2:16 AM on October 1, 2016 [6 favorites]

It seems like everyone but Obama is being a shithead here, but how do you convince congresspeople to act against their own interests? Trying to do that must be one of the least fun bits of being president. (Also, thirding or fourthing what Talez said.)
posted by iffthen at 4:08 AM on October 1, 2016

I think the American people decided who the "shit head" is concerning this bill. The 28 pages is the Rosetta stone here for specificity, they are housed in Congress, not with the EB.

Sorry, but calling everybody involved who overrode the veto a bathroom name with no citation or exposition is not really productive.
posted by clavdivs at 6:47 AM on October 1, 2016

should we be surprised when the people of Iraq, sue us for bombing Baghdad

The government of Iraq - that we give a lot of support to, that uses the US banking system, and so on - would have to pass a law permitting it. The odds of that are between slim and none.
posted by jpe at 7:53 AM on October 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

There is indeed damning evidence that there was financial support for the hijackers and possibly OBL himself from officials in the Saudi government

The law imposes liability if those officials were acting in their official capacity.
posted by jpe at 7:56 AM on October 1, 2016

Interesting

"To seek legal redress, Comar Law is invoking the Alien Tort Statute, a law passed in 1789 that permits a non-U.S. national the ability to sue in federal court for injuries “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The case was filed on March 13, 2013, with the U.S. District Court in Northern Calif., and the defendants have all been served notice to appear. Just like any other legal proceeding, there will be a great deal of back and forth before the hearing, which is scheduled to take place sometime in early 2014.""

Precidents. Also, a few people named in the '28' pages are now dead, making redress more difficult.
posted by clavdivs at 8:40 AM on October 1, 2016

The case was filed on March 13, 2013, with the U.S. District Court in Northern Calif., and the defendants have all been served notice to appear.

I remember that lawsuit, which was marvelously crazy.

If they'd just added a RICO cause and God as co-defendent, it could have been a hall of famer of crazy.
posted by jpe at 9:22 AM on October 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

Q. What's the difference between a cow and 9/11?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:32 PM on September 29 [2 favorites +]

A. You can't milk a cow for 15 years.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:54 PM on September 29 [141 favorites +]

Lesson: Being a straight man doesn't pay.
posted by fairmettle at 5:16 PM on October 1, 2016 [1 favorite]

I remember that lawsuit, which was marvelously...

No, you don't.
posted by clavdivs at 7:48 AM on October 2, 2016

Lesson: Being a straight man doesn't pay.

Make America Great Again!
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:18 AM on October 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

No, you don't.

Sure I do. It was pretty widely reported at the time, and you don't forget lawsuits that bonkers.
posted by jpe at 8:48 AM on October 2, 2016

Bonkers is suing someone over cake baking. This case is still on appeal with new evidence. Sure, it's conspiratorial, implicated big wheels and Obama squished it.
So what, the person has a right to lose a lawsuit in order to make a higher point. If you think bringing liers and war mongers to trial is bonkers, well, enjoy your democracy.
posted by clavdivs at 10:12 AM on October 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

This case is still on appeal with new evidence.

It was dismissed with prejudice years ago. If that's been appealed, fine. That dismissal will be upheld, because we don't get to sue elected officials when we don't like their decisions.

That's what democracy means: if you don't like an elected official, the remedy is to vote him or her out.
posted by jpe at 4:28 AM on October 3, 2016 [1 favorite]