While the US media follows the red herring of this legislative drama which is Saudi Arabia, the real point of this bill – and why President Obama is so vehemently opposing it – is going completely unnoticed.
If any case was brought to court by 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia for ‘state-sponsored terror’ regarding the attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001, the court would find there is no real forensic case proving Saudi involvement in this event. Other problems will crop up too. For starters, at least 7 of alleged hijackers were actually found to be alive after their faces were plastered on US TV screens after 9/11. As it stands, the US government’s official story of 9/11 is so flimsy and full of holes, including the complete omission or mention of the collapse of WTC Building 7 (which was hit by nothing, and yet collapsed into its own footprint in 7 seconds) and the lack of any plane wreckage at the Pentagon (we’re meant to believe that the passenger airliner evaporated into thin air on impact, and no real CCTV footage has been provided to back the government’s own wild explanation). In actuality, the US government would love a dead-end lawsuit against Saudi Arabia which could only result in some out-of-court settlement anyway – because this would supply a nice diversion away from any further scrutiny of the US government’s bogus explanation of what really happened that day.
More to the point, however, is the real potential story here. If passed, this bill would allow a number people, particularly those in Syria, to sue the US, British, French, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Turkish and Saudi Arabia and Qatar too, all of who are actively involved in supplying money, equipment, arms and military training to a number of known Salafist Terrorists fighting groups in Syria.
KEY POINT: Why is Obama protecting Saudi Arabia? One of Obama’s top financial partners in the dirty war on Syria is Saudi Arabia, who has also paid for “off-the-books” CIA operations there. Unlike Saudi and 9/11, by definition, this is state-sponsored terrorism.
The House is expected to hold a vote later this week. It could be the first override of a Presidential veto during the Obama administration….
The Senate on Wednesday voted to override President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow 9/11 victims’ families to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged support for the terrorists who carried out the attacks. The vote was 97 to 1.
The House is expected to vote later in the day and if successful, it will be the first time Congress has overridden a veto during the Obama administration.
“Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who co-authored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), said in a statement.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cast the lone vote to sustain the veto after receiving a letter from Obama arguing the consequences could be “devastating,” and urging him “to vote to sustain the veto.” Reid voted against the override despite telling reporters earlier this month that “I support that legislation” and Schumer’s efforts.
“He’s always had the president’s back,” said Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson.
Both chambers passed the legislation without dissent earlier this year, but now several lawmakers are echoing the White House’s argument that the legislation could set a dangerous precedent, inviting other nations to respond by suing American diplomats, military personnel and other officials in foreign courts.
Critics of the bill are now focusing on how to scale back the measure once it becomes law. Approximately 20 senators have signed onto a letter expressing their intention to return to the issue during the lame duck if there are negative consequences once the 9/11 bill becomes law…