Topic: Obama failed to protect terrorists (Read 689 times)

Why protect criminals? They should answer their mistakes. Lives thousands of it were taken, so much suffering to families affected. How can the family get justice then. Terrorist is the enemy of the state, and at all cost our government should protect us. Once they strike, multiple lives is not spared.

But let say those arabs did it. Why should the country that they came from pay? 

And Obama has not failed? I think eight years is ruined. If we now choose trump, the America should surrender to Russia. America is waiting for a serious test.

Nawaf al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabia
Salem al-Hazmi, Saudi Arabia
Abdulaziz al-Omari, Saudi Arabia
Wail al-Shehri, Saudi Arabia
Waleed al-Shehri, Saudi Arabia
Hamza al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabia
Ahmed al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabia
Hani Hanjour, Saudi Arabia    
Khalid al-Mihdhar, Saudi Arabia
Satam al-Suqami, Saudi Arabia
Ahmed al-Haznawi, Saudi Arabia
Ahmed al-Nami, Saudi Arabia
Saeed al-Ghamdi, Saudi Arabia
Mohand al-Shehri, Saudi Arabia
Majed Moqed, Saudi Arabia

That's a lot of Arabs for an "inside job".

Why should they sue Saudi Arrabia when 911 was an inside job?

Barack Obama suffered a unique political blow on Wednesday, when the US Senate overturned his veto of a bill that would allow families of the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

If, as seems certain, the House follows suit later in the day, Obama will endure the first override of his presidency less than four months before leaving office. No Democrats came to the Senate floor to defend his position before the overwhelming bipartisan 97-1 vote. The Democratic minority leader, Harry Reid, cast the sole vote against override, which has put Congress at odds with the White House and national security establishment.

The legislation would permit courts to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurs inside US borders, according to the terms of the bill. Saudi Arabia has objected strongly to the legislation and has categorically denied any role in the 9/11 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi nationals.

The measure passed the Senate and House unanimously in May and September, but Obama vetoed it last Friday, claiming that it would make the US vulnerable to retaliatory litigation in foreign courts that could put American troops in legal jeopardy. Proponents of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) insist that it is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on US soil.

Many senators and representatives are also reluctant to oppose a popular measure and be seen as soft on terrorism with elections just weeks away.

Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, said the families of 9/11 victims favoured the measure and accused Obama of bowing to Saudi pressure. “All they want is the opportunity to present their case in a court of law,” he said on the Senate floor. “And that’s what this legislation would give them.

“The legislation has run into opposition because it is opposed by Saudi Arabia, who has been making threats against the United States about what it might do if Congress stands with the American people and 9/11 victims and their families, instead of the Saudis.

“And now, according to press reports, the Saudis have gone out and hired an army of lobbyists to work furiously in a last-minute attempt to derail it.”

Texas senator John Cornyn said: “This is pretty much close to a miraculous occurrence because Democrats and Republicans, senators [and] House members have all agreed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which gives the victims of a terrorist attack on our own soil an opportunity to seek the justice they deserve.”

The Republican rejected Obama’s objections. “He cites concerns that the bill would ‘create complications’, he says, with some of our close partners, but the truth is JASTA only targets foreign governments who sponsor terrorist attacks on American soil, plain and simple.”

The bill was revived last year by Cornyn and New York Democratic senator Chuck Schumer, who said on Wednesday: “This is a decision I do not take lightly. This bill is 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, finally giving them a legal avenue to pursue foreign sponsors of the terrorist attack that took from them the lives of their loved ones.”

John Brennan, the director of the CIA, warned that the legislation would have “grave implications” for US national security. He said: “The most damaging consequence would be for those US government officials who dutifully work overseas on behalf of our country. The principle of sovereign immunity protects US officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity. If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation’s officials in danger.”

The vote deals a late blow to Obama on an issue he feels keenly about at a time when his personal popularity is riding high. Before the vote, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters: “The president has strong views about this legislation and the impact that it would have not just on the US relationship with Saudi Arabia, but with countries around the world. It would increase the risk that is facing our service members and our diplomats and our intelligence professionals. And that is a view that president has stated on a number of occasions.

Earnest had a scathing response to the vote on Wednesday. “I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done, possibly, since 1983,” said Earnest. “Ultimately these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today.”

Before the vote was held, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, acknowledged the president’s concerns over sovereign immunity procedures and admitted he had difficulty supporting the bill, which “has problems”.

He concluded: “With tremendous reservations and concerns about where this legislation is going to lead us, with tremendous empathy towards the victims that have lived through so much, have seen loved ones gone, that has affected their lives and will affect their lives for the long term, I’m going to support passage of this legislation today, but I do so understanding that there could be in fact unintended consequences that work against our national interest and with a determination should that occur to work with others in this body to try to overcome that.”

The House is set to hold a vote later on Wednesday. If the House also overrides the veto, as seems certain, the bill would become law. During his nearly two full terms in office, Obama has never had a veto overridden by Congress.