US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill

[goldenequity]

House Resolution 3815 - JASTA, was passed WITHOUT opposition by the House of Representatives.
The White House aka Bammyland, has THREATENED to veto JASTA.
Now imagine if you all will, the KSA's response to this and the dirty folders of intel they have on ALL of the U.S. co-conspirators that had permitted 9/11 to go down in the first place.
***popcorn ready***


US House adopts ’Sue the Saudis’ 9/11 bill
(https://www.rt.com/usa/358827-house-bill-sue-saudi/)

Saudi Arabia has tried to block the bill, using the services of its many lobbyists in Washington.
Among them is the Podesta Group, co-founded by current Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta
and run by his brother Tony.

https://img.rt.com/files/2016.09/original/57d2dd8ac4618856538b4612.jpg


House Resolution 3815, also known as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” or JASTA,
creates an exception to sovereign immunity created by a 1976 law,
thus allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries
for terrorism that kills Americans on US soil.
The law has been invoked to shield Saudi Arabia from lawsuits
over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jvJEqktXv8

[luctor-et-emergo]

So legislation passed the both house and senate. The same bill ? How much will come out of it ? Interesting.. :eek:

[goldenequity]

I'm thinking bout a RPF Class Action...
Who here hasn't been materially damaged by 911?
Any lawyers among us?
Let's get this party STARTEDDDD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

[juleswin]

Then who do we sue for covering up for the crime? maybe charges for complicity with their silence. I bet it must have been the Saudis who setup the NORAD drill exercise simulation a plane hijack in the NE region, that way when the real thing happened, it would confuse the pilots defending the air ways.

My guess would be that the only part the Saudis were responsible for was supplying the patsies who died in the crash. Before I forget, these people documenting the event should also be charged with something.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

[goldenequity]

I could get MUCH more motivated about SUING
than I can voting.
I just want to cause TROUBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:)

[Lucille]

Saudi Barbaria's making threats again (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?493988-Saudi-Arabia-Warns-of-Economic-Fallout-if-Congress-Passes-9-11-Bill).

Saudis Threaten US: "Passage Of Sept 11 Law Will Lead To Instability, Chaos And Extremism"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-14/saudis-threaten-us-passage-sept-11-law-will-lead-instability-chaos-and-extremism


When Congress unaninmously passed a bill last Friday known as "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," or JASTA, allowing families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts, there was confusion whether Obama would still veto said bill, as he had threatened to previously, even though by sheer numbers Obama's veto may be overruled, leaving him hanging and appearing to support a Saudi position over that of the US people. Then on Monday we got the answer when White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced that Obama would still veto said bill. "That is still the plan," Earnest said. "The president does intend to veto this legislation."

The Saudis, however, are not taking any chances, and are back to engaging in the same verbal warnings they unleashed in April of this year, when they suggested passage of the law would force the kingdom to sell its US-denominated reserves: threats.

As Reuters reports, a senior Saudi policy adviser on Wednesday condemned a U.S. bill that would allow families of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue the kingdom for damages, "warning it would stoke instability and extremism." In other words, if Obama fails too stop a law which everyone in Congress voted for, the US would suffer.

"This legislation sets a dangerous precedent in the field of international relations," Abdullah Al al-Sheikh was quoted as saying by state news agency SPA. Al al-Sheikh is the speaker of the Shura Council, an appointed body that debates new laws and advises the government on policy.

"(The bill risks) triggering chaos and instability in international relations and might contribute to supporting extremism, which is under intellectual siege, as the new legislation offers extremists a new pretext to lure youths to their extremist thoughts," al-Sheikh added without elaborating.

JASTA would remove sovereign immunity, preventing lawsuits against governments, for countries found to be involved in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said on May 2 that the kingdom had warned the United States that the proposed law would erode global investor confidence in America.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners in New York, outside Washington and in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001 were Saudi nationals; furthermore the recently released formerly classified "28 pages" showed a clear connection between Saudi officials and events on Sept 11, but the Saudi government has strongly denied responsibility and has lobbied against the bill.

That has not stopped some members of Congress from becoming increasingly vocal in criticizing Saudi Arabia, long a U.S. ally and trade partner.

A bigger question is whether the Saudis have backed off their previous threat to dump US Treasuries in case Obama fails to veto a bill which all of America wants passed; needless to say Obama finds himself in a rather unpleasant situation - deciding how to appease a country which has openly threatened the US if it does not get its way, potentially roiling the bond market at a very sensitive time, and at the same time avoiding to appear like a traitor to an entire nation with just a few months left in his term.

[Lucille]

Obama poised to veto 9/11 bill – and could face first successful override
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/22/obama-poised-to-veto-911-bill-and-could-face-first-successful-override.html



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAtXPZW1_Wg
[...]
At issue is a white-hot bill approved by both bodies of Congress to permit families of 9/11 terrorism victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia. President Obama wants to veto the measure. Both bodies of Congress are tentatively prepping to override Obama’s veto.
[...]
The Senate originated the 9/11 bill. So it was up to the Senate to send the measure to the White House. The Senate did so on Monday, Sept. 12. That set in motion the 10-day calendar (excluding this past Sunday) which requires Obama to veto the bill by 11:59:59 p.m. ET Friday, Sept. 23 or the bill becomes law regardless.

It was thought the Senate could approve all of its work for the fall last week and skip town. That would have been the perfect scenario for the Obama administration. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., itches to cut loose vulnerable GOP senators facing competitive re-election bids. Also, it was doubtful the president would veto the bill while he huddled with world leaders at the start of the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week.

Many thought it was unlikely the Senate would reconvene prior to the election for an override vote. Moreover, punting the override vote until after the election inoculated lawmakers who may oppose the bill. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution requires a recorded roll call tally to document how lawmakers vote on an override. So, postponing an override vote protects lawmakers from bad optics of “opposing 9/11 family victims.”

But Congress hasn’t figured out a way to expeditiously finish its work to fund the government – this week, let alone last week. So Congress will meet at least through next week. And McConnell plans a veto override effort in the coming days.

So expect the president to veto the bill Thursday or Friday and return the package to Capitol Hill alongside an exhaustive set of objections.

[Lucille]

Siding With Saudi Arabia, Obama Vetoes Sept 11 Bill Passed Unanimously In Congress
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-23/siding-saudi-arabia-obama-vetoes-sept-11-bill-passed-unanimously-congress


It has been a day of Friday afternoon surprises: just one hour after Ted Cruz pretended to endorse Donald Trump when he really meant don't vote for Hillary, president Obama denied what all American citizens demanded - and got - after both chambers unanimously passed the Sept 11 law several weeks ago, when he decided to veto the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act bill.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/09/20/obama%20saudi_0.jpg

As The Hill reports, Obama on Friday vetoed legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S courts, setting up a high-stakes showdown with Congress. Obama’s move opens up the possibility that lawmakers could override his veto for the first time with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. Worse, it now appears - with reason - that Obama has now sided not with the US population but with a small minority of Saudi emirs.

Republican and Democratic leaders have said they are committed to holding an override vote, and the bill’s drafters say they have the support to force the bill to become law.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) unanimously passed through both chambers by voice vote.

But the timing of the president’s veto is designed to erode congressional support for the bill and put off a politically damaging override vote until after the November elections. Obama waited until the very end of the 10-day period he had to issue a veto, hoping to buy time to lobby members of Congress against the measure.
[...]
The measure has touched a political nerve ahead of an election in which terrorism has emerged as a central issue. It has strong bipartisan support and is backed by 9/11 families’ organizations.

Those families have sought damages from Saudi Arabia, since 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001 hailed from that country. Critics have long been accused the Saudi government of directly or indirectly supporting the attacks, though a concrete link has never been proven.

* * *

Obama has strongly opposed the legislation, arguing it would undermine sovereign immunity and open up U.S. diplomats and military service members to legal action overseas if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws.

But most of all, the administration is also wary of angering Saudi Arabia - one of the most generous donors to the Clinton Foundation and an alleged sponsor of Hillary's presidential campaign - which is forcefully lobbying against the measure.

[wizardwatson]

Obama has strongly opposed the legislation, arguing it would undermine sovereign immunity and open up U.S. diplomats and military service members to legal action overseas if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws.

To paraphrase: "If we demand justice then other people could demand justice from us. - Obama"

In all seriousness, he's kind of right. The day the world starts suing the U.S.A. for all the illegal actions it's taken...YIKES.

Barry is just being consistently evil. Americans may like the idea of "stickin' it to the Saudi's" for 9/11 but we got a lot more blood on our hands than Americans want to admit.

[Ender]

To paraphrase: "If we demand justice then other people could demand justice from us. - Obama"

In all seriousness, he's kind of right. The day the world starts suing the U.S.A. for all the illegal actions it's taken...YIKES.

Barry is just being consistently evil. Americans may like the idea of "stickin' it to the Saudi's" for 9/11 but we got a lot more blood on our hands than Americans want to admit.

He's right- not even "kind of right".

The supposed Saudis that took down the towers were said to have been trained in Germany; shall we sue them too? Plus the US gov safely and secretly took rich and famous Saudis out of the US after 911 to protect them.

Also, some of the IDs found from the supposedly dead terrorists were from people still alive and well in the ME. How did that happen?

[goldenequity]

So.. if I follow the 'logic'... I'm still left with one question:
Other than 'talk'....
How (then) does one hold a 'State' accountable for it's actions?
If it's not suit or legal claim for damage...
What is the mechanism?
You know the answer don't you. yep.
The founders did too.

But you see the prob Ender?
You condemn (logically) the posed solution..
w/o offering an alternative.
What's your alternative?
(This isn't 'Ender's Game' is it? haha :) )

Just being curious... as I was about to post this...
Obama vetoes bill allowing to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 (https://www.rt.com/document/57e53811c36188ae5e8b459d/amp)

and found Lucille beat me (as usual :)).

[goldenequity]

►Obama Vetoes 9/11 Bill, but Congressional Override Is Expected (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/politics/obama-veto-saudi-arabia-9-11.html)

I feel like I have to take a shower after I post from the New York Times.

(my 2K post at RPF... whowhoooo :) )

ps... I got up early Lucille.

[Jesse James]

I'm with Rand Paul on this one. as usual

[goldenequity]

Well.... here we are folks. It'll be an interesting Cspan to watch tomorrow. 2 hrs of senate debate... then up or down vote.

►US Senate to Consider Overriding Obama’s 9/11 Act Veto on Wednesday
(https://sputniknews.com/us/20160926/1045725125/us-senate-consider-overriding-obama-act-veto.html)
https://cdn4.img.sputniknews.com/images/103835/45/1038354515.jpg


►Iraqis Set to Sue US Government for War Crimes (https://sputniknews.com/us/20160927/1045766921/iraqi-lawsuit-us-war-crimes.html)

https://cdn2.img.sputniknews.com/images/102350/34/1023503493.jpg

[goldenequity]

Might as well throw this one in as well.

►Should U.S. pay reparations for slavery? U.N.-appointed experts think so (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-us-pay-reparations-for-slavery-united-nations-working-groups-think-so/)

"The slave trade was a crime against humanity and the U.S. government should pay reparations."

[goldenequity]

Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 2 min.
BREAKING: US Senate votes to override Obama's 9/11 bill veto - @AFP

They did it. Just now. :)

[dannno]

Then who do we sue for covering up for the crime?

Freas Neuman?

[Ender]

So.. if I follow the 'logic'... I'm still left with one question:
Other than 'talk'....
How (then) does one hold a 'State' accountable for it's actions?
If it's not suit or legal claim for damage...
What is the mechanism?
You know the answer don't you. yep.
The founders did too.

But you see the prob Ender?
You condemn (logically) the posed solution..
w/o offering an alternative.
What's your alternative?
(This isn't 'Ender's Game' is it? haha :) )

Just being curious... as I was about to post this...
Obama vetoes bill allowing to sue Saudi Arabia over 9/11 (https://www.rt.com/document/57e53811c36188ae5e8b459d/amp)

and found Lucille beat me (as usual :)).

We're already in Ender's Game: Detached killers in a computer room in the US killing those terrible 'buggers' in the ME.

Obviously the solution is to GTH out of the ME and stop bombing innocents and taking their resources.

ETA: And Obama was right on this- suing the Saudis is a stupid move, even if was actually Saudis that did it.

Next can the US be sued for drone killings, forming al Qaeda & ISIS, helping to overthrow Iran's government in 1953, and the Ukraine's just recently? The list could actually be YUGE.

[wizardwatson]

We're already in Ender's Game: Detached killers in a computer room in the US killing those terrible 'buggers' in the ME.

Obviously the solution is to GTH out of the ME and stop bombing innocents and taking their resources.

ETA: And Obama was right on this- suing the Saudis is a stupid move, even if was actually Saudis that did it.

Next can the US be sued for drone killings, forming al Qaeda & ISIS, helping to overthrow Iran's government in 1953, and the Ukraine's just recently? The list could actually be YUGE.

I actually agree with this. Seems like Americans are being duped.

In the game of country-suing who has most to lose? America. Likely even if 3000 families sued, they'd lose or Saudis wouldn't pay.

But somehow I believe it more likely that Uncle Sam would be more than willing to cut a check to countless countries for crimes committed (by past administrations of course) in order to sink America even further into debt slavery and certain economic collapse.

This thing seems like a cleverly thought out ruse.

[goldenequity]

yes... YUGE. HAHAHA.
I've been damaged.
but
I'm willing to settle.

[osan]

If we are indeed tossing the Saudis under the bus, I would strongly recommend everyone start looking for the thing that Congress desperately does not want us to notice.

[charrob]

...
Obama warned in a veto message to the Senate last week that the bill would improperly give legal plaintiffs and the courts authority over complex and sensitive questions of state-sponsored terrorism.

He also cautioned that it would undermine protections for U.S. military, intelligence and foreign service personnel serving overseas, as well as possibly subject U.S. government assets to seizure.

Obama sent a letter to Senate leaders reiterating his concerns.

“The consequences of JASTA could be devastating to the Department of Defense and its service members — and there is no doubt that the consequences could be equally significant for our foreign affairs and intelligence communities,” he wrote in the letter, which was later circulated by a public affairs company working for the embassy of Saudi Arabia.
...
Senators who are worried about the risk posed by the bill to U.S. personnel in foreign countries huddled on the Senate floor Tuesday to discuss passing additional legislation to protect them.
...
"The focus right now is how can we over a period of time create some corrective legislation to deal with whatever blowback might occur,” Corker said.
...
Schumer revived the bill last year by teaming up with Cornyn, a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee. They overcame an early objection from colleagues by empowering the president to pause a lawsuit against a foreign government if the administration proves good-faith effort to reach a settlement are underway. [So the executive can override the jurisdiction of the courts?]

The administration initially wanted unilateral authority to stop a lawsuit regardless of the status of negotiations, something the 9/11 families rejected.


http://thehill.com/policy/international/298264-senate-overrides-obama-9-11-veto-in-overwhelming-vote

[devil21]

If we are indeed tossing the Saudis under the bus, I would strongly recommend everyone start looking for the thing that Congress desperately does not want us to notice.

The Saudis threat to dump their dollar assets? That's basically the end of petrodollar standard if they do it.

Interesting timing of this 9/11 stuff right when OPEC announces production cuts, Saudi threatens to dump the dollar assets, yuan entering SDR officially on Sat Oct 1 and a possible fed.gov shutdown over the weekend if spending bill isn't passed by Fri Sep 30. Somethin's a brewin my friends.

[Lucille]

Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 2 min.
BREAKING: US Senate votes to override Obama's 9/11 bill veto - @AFP

They did it. Just now. :)

"The single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done."

Hardly.

Obama Humiliated: For The First Time, Congress Votes To Override President's "Sept 11" Bill Veto
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-28/senate-overrides-obamas-veto-sept-11-bill


Summary: The US Congress, first the Senate and then the House, humiliated the president when it voted on Wednesday to override Obama for the first time in his eight-year tenure, as the House voted 348-77 to reject a veto of legislation allowing families of terrorist victims to sue Saudi Arabia. The House easily cleared the two-thirds threshold to push back against the veto. The Senate voted 97-1 in favor of the override earlier in the day, with only Democratic Leader Harry Reid voting to sustain the president’s veto.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/09/20/harry%20reid_0.jpg

“We can no longer allow those who injure and kill Americans to hide behind legal loopholes denying justice to the victims of terror,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.).

The White House immediately slammed lawmakers following the Senate vote.

“I would venture to say that this is the single most embarrassing thing that the United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One, an apparent reference to a 95-0 vote to override President Ronald Reagan that year.

The override was widely expected in both chambers, with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle characterizing it as an act of justice for the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The so-called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism (JASTA) would amend current law to allow victims of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil to sue countries that are not formally designated as sponsors of terrorism — like Saudi Arabia.

As reported before, the implications for capital markets should the House follow the Senate in overriding Obama's veto, they could be dramatic: as noted earlier, the threat of the 9/11 bill passing has put on hold Saudi plans to issue its megabond, effectively putting even more pressure on the kingdom's finances; alternatively as Saudi Arabia has threatened before, should the bill pass, it would (and may have no other choice considering its liquidity crisis) have to sell US reserves, among which billions in Treasurys and an unknown amount of US equities.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/09/20/obama%20saudi_0.jpg


http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2016/09/23/20160928_9111_0.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

If an American commits a crime in another country, should that country be able to sue the US Government (taxpayers) in a foreign court over it?

[Danke]

If an American commits a crime in another country, should that country be able to sue the US Government (taxpayers) in a foreign over it?

Like bombing a hospital or wedding party?

[goldenequity]

Al Arabiya: Saudi has ways to hit back at 9/11 lawsuit effort (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/analysis/2016/09/28/Saudi-Arabia-has-ways-to-hit-back-at-9-11-lawsuit-effort.html)

http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/9/2/8/4913829.jpg


The kingdom maintains an arsenal of tools to retaliate with, including
curtailing official contacts,
pulling billions of dollars from the US economy,
persuading its close allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council
to scale back
counterterrorism cooperation,
investments
and US access to important regional air bases.

"This should be clear to America and to the rest of the world:
When one GCC state is targeted unfairly, the others stand around it,"

"All the states will stand by Saudi Arabia in every way possible,"

"No one knows how Saudi Arabia might respond to an override of President Obama's veto?"

The CEOs of DOW and GE sent letters to Congress
warning of the bill's potentially destabilizing impact on American interests abroad.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter this week sent a letter to Congress saying
"important counterterrorism efforts abroad" could be harmed
and
US foreign bases and facilities could be vulnerable to monetary damage awards in reciprocal cases.

Such reactions may not come directly from Riyadh
but countries connected to Saudi Arabia,

He said the eight-decade-long US-Saudi relationship is "entering into a new phase,"
in which ties will be mostly underpinned by arms sales,
unlike during the era of warm relations under President George W. Bush.



Buh-bye. :)

[Lucille]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-28/obama-responds-veto-override


Obama reiterated his longstanding argument that the measure carries serious unintended consequences, despite the noble intentions of its supporters.


The president said the measure could erode the concept of sovereign immunity, leaving American citizens and assets abroad vulnerable to lawsuits if foreign countries pass reciprocal laws.

“The concern that I've had is -- has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia per se, or my sympathy for 9/11 families,” Obama said.

“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.”

"Work." You mean the terrorism the American Empire perpetrates on a daily basis all over the GD planet?

http://66.media.tumblr.com/beeb4769995db6f158290052e8cb89cd/tumblr_inline_o6m9k6KwTv1tyx5kb_500.gif


Wonderful! (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2016/april/20/sue-saudis-for-911-and-the-us-for-all-its-wars/) Let the lawsuits rain down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream!

[Cleaner44]

To paraphrase: "If we demand justice then other people could demand justice from us. - Obama"

In all seriousness, he's kind of right. The day the world starts suing the U.S.A. for all the illegal actions it's taken...YIKES.

Barry is just being consistently evil. Americans may like the idea of "stickin' it to the Saudi's" for 9/11 but we got a lot more blood on our hands than Americans want to admit.

I think it is time that Americans face the destruction that our government creates in our name. I don't think we should ignore the blood on our hands... do you?

[wizardwatson]

I think it is time that Americans face the destruction that our government creates in our name. I don't think we should ignore the blood on our hands... do you?

Well, what I'm really saying is that people feel righteous through this bill, when what it should do is remind them of their own crimes. Obama is aware, which is more than we can say for average American who thinks 9/11 forever sanctifies American exceptionalism.

We shouldn't ignore the blood, but likely will, and thus destruction will likely come.

[Cleaner44]

Well, what I'm really saying is that people feel righteous through this bill, when what it should do is remind them of their own crimes. Obama is aware, which is more than we can say for average American who thinks 9/11 forever sanctifies American exceptionalism.

We shouldn't ignore the blood, but likely will, and thus destruction will likely come.

Then it seems to me that this bill becoming law is exactly what we need. If more people knew that our CIA overthrew governments around the world repeatedly, perhaps a will to stop it would develop. Perhaps someone with some sense like Rand Paul would get nominated for president rather than the dipshits we currently have. Maybe just maybe people would renew their faith in the golden rule. Perhaps then America would return to the status of being admired around the world instead of being despised.

With any luck this will result in Americans getting pissed at our government droning wedding parties.

[AZJoe]

Ron Paul: Secrecy held by the 9/11 Commission was atrocious


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ViGGnlc1PA

[RandallFan]

As if Obama cares if foreign countries want to sue the US; he wishes they could, for every grievance possible. I don't know what Obama's real reason for opposing this is. He doesn't seem likely to vacate in arab countries in retirement.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is dangerously shocking:


U. S. - Jihadists Relation, Part II: Waging Jihad to Defeat the Soviet Union

Updated Sep 01, 2014

Up until 1989, when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan, the CIA still had a positive view of bin Laden, viewing him as a wealthy Saudi Arabian who had fought with the Soviets in Afghanistan and had defeated them, and who must be greeted as a hero upon his return to Saudi Arabia. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee that made those decisions, was reported saying (http://www.globalissues.org/article/474/bin-laden-comes-home-to-roost) that he would make the same call again today, even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said, adding, “Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/u-s-jihadists-relation-pa_b_5553529.html


If BL were alive and above is factual, would he be used by same lobbies to fight against Russians in Syria?



That said, CIA should have protection against lawsuits from family members.

[Lucille]

Congress Gets "Case Of Rapid-Onset Buyer's Remorse" One Day After Passing 9/11 Bill
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/congress-gets-case-rapid-onset-buyers-remorse-one-day-after-passing-911-bill


Apparently Congress will never learn that "passing a piece of legislation so you can see what's in it" is never a good strategy. It certainly didn't work out well with Obamacare and it looks to be backfiring with the controversial 9/11 bill as well with many members of Congress expressing remorse over supporting the bill just 1 day after overriding Obama's veto. Per The Hill, both Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have expressed some concerns with the bill just 1 day after passing it:


"We want to make sure the 9/11 victims and their families have their day in court," Ryan told reporters. "At the same time, I would like to think that there may be some work to be done to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarements that occur, any kind of retribution."

“Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were but nobody had really focused on the potential downside in terms of our international relationships, and I think it was just a ball dropped,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky told reporters Thursday, saying it was worth discussing possible fixes after the elections.

“I don't think we had enough time to consider all of the ramifications,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said on Tuesday. “It's a political issue that people jumped on without really thoroughly looking at everything.”

Pointing out that members of Congress couldn't possibly be expected to read legislation or conduct any other form of due diligence on their own, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blamed the White House. [...]

As Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, pointed out to the Washington Post, the biggest issue with the bill is that it opens the U.S. government up to "court-ordered discovery."


CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill’s “grave implications for the national security of the United States” in a statement Wednesday.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in an interview that it could take time to grasp the bill’s full implications, and there may be “some time to tweak the law before some of the most damaging consequences become clear.”

“But the biggest issue is that it opens up government agencies to court-ordered discovery,” Alterman said, adding that the federal government could face lawsuits from those who have been victims of drone strikes and other American military activities. “It’s not limited to Saudi Arabia, and it’s likely to have a much larger impact on the U.S. government than the Saudi government, because the U.S. government takes rules very seriously.”

But we're not too concerned about the whole discovery issue...our high-ranking government officials have thoroughly demonstrated a masterful ability to circumvent federal subpoenas and destroy emails and other evidence with relative ease...BleachBit is about to get a lot more use.

[devil21]

^^^^^
They can always just repeal it if they think they made a mistake.

But lol@Congress repealing a statute. When pigs fly.

[goldenequity]

Saudis won't pay 1 dime. They didn't do it.

Even Tehran knows
9/11 was US state-sponsored terrorism


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX60xELZwGE

[devil21]

^^^^^
Can't hang 9/11 on any particular country or entity. It was multiple intelligence entities working together. Mossad, CIA, Saudi intel, etc.