U.S. Senate passes bill allowing Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia

[IDemo]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate passed legislation on Tuesday that would allow survivors and relatives of those killed in the Sept. 11 attacks to file lawsuits seeking damages against the government of Saudi Arabia.

The legislation, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, passed in the Senate by unanimous voice vote.

If it passes the House of Representatives and is signed into law by U.S. President Barack Obama, JASTA would allow lawsuits to proceed in federal court in New York as lawyers try to prove that the Saudis were involved in the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The Saudis deny any involvement.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-senate-passes-bill-allowing-sept-11-victims-163810658.html

---

I expect the veto on this to come as swift as a lash.

[leftynyc]

1. It would be a mistake to veto this bill

which is, what I believe, the President has promised to do. The royal family was up to their necks in this.

[olddad56]

9. as was the Bush crime family.

[Javaman]

16. maybe george w. moron* and his room full of dopes can be sued for collusion.

I can only hope.

[atreides1]

20. They may have been!

But, where is the evidence of Saudi government involvement!

And why is the US Congress still allowing sales of military equipment to a sponsor of terrorism?

Maybe the first group to be sued should be the US Government!!!

[leftynyc]

21. Isn't the Saudi government

mostly made up of the royal family and their 400 princes?

[KansDem]

2. "The Saudis deny any involvement."

Yeah, sure. They just went apeshit in response to the mere mention of releasing the redacted 28 pages and threatened to divest in the US--some $750 billion.

To Hell with them!! Release the 28 pages and we can start arresting the criminals...

[lark]

3. It will never get to a veto.

The House will not pass this, they love the rich too much.

[iandhr]

4. I don't know.

This passed by unanimous vote.


Both Sanders and Clinton support it.

[lark]

12. They don't have a lot of pull in the House.

Their support would make a lot of the tealiban House members reflexively vote against it.

[iandhr]

18. I never said they did.

I was just making the point that a unanimous vote in the Senate says a lot.

[red dog 1]

5. You're probably right

[colsohlibgal]

6. Consequences

If this passes what's to stop Iraq from suing us?

That his effort contains "democrats" is beyond troubling.

We need folks to wake up soon!

[Purveyor]

17. Iraq should have every goddamned right to sue the US for what we have done to that country. ffs has

anyone paid any attention at all to the devastation taking place in Iraq? Many should be charged, convicted then hung for what the good 'ole, God fearing country, called the USA brought to that region.

[chknltl]

22. Other than international tial first, i agree.

The whole BFEE should have been tried before an international tribunal. They lied us into war with Afghanistan and Iraq plus they used known WMD in that war.

[IronLionZion]

23. Maybe our leaders would think twice before starting more wars?

[red dog 1]

7. K&R

I'm reminded of the scene in "Fahrenheit 911" where Michael Moore is merely standing across the street from the Saudi Arabian embassy, and the police show up
- not the D.C. police, but the Secret Service!

[IkeRepublican]

8. The President won't have to veto

The Cuckservatives will make sure taxpayer funds will lawyer-up the Saudis to where no suit can even begin litigation, let alone get anywhere.

Yes, I know "cuck-servative" is a Trump voter term, but let's be honest here...it's a very fitting name.

[Ferd Berfel]

10. Obama said he's not signing it

[Blue_Tires]

11. Why veto?

Any lawsuit would be more symbolic than anything, and after 10 years being litigated the Saudis would never pay no matter what the court ruled...

[Else You Are Mad]

13. Then they can place leins on their property in the US.

But this is the US and we all know how the top .01% of the wealthy get away with everything so, sadly, it will never even get that far.

[cstanleytech]

14. My prediction is it will barely pass in the house and the President will then veto it

and the reason it will pass in the house is because the varies politicians want to exploit their vote on it in the upcoming election.
Of course after the election you will then see them be unable to get the votes to override the veto or they will just not bother to bring it back up ever again or at least not until it's closer to the next election.

[MariaThinks]

15. this is a very good thing. I really hope there is no veto.

[abelenkpe]

19. It's symbolic only

Senators voted to show constituents they hear them but Senators also know it will not be signed by the president. So they're safe with this totally symbolic move. Much like the vote to end Citizens United and many many other things. It's just a show.