Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[WTF]

Dobro, tu za Hillary i Trumpa imas element lokal-patriotizma jer su oboje iz NY, a odatle je i velika vecina 9/11 zrtava.

[MayDay]

WTF, kakav ti je to molim te izgovor? Ne može emotivno da se postupa na tom nivou politike.

[iDemo]

WTF, kakav ti je to molim te izgovor? Ne može emotivno da se postupa na tom nivou politike.

Zasto ne bi moglo kad oni ionako odradjuju samo jedan segment svih tih drzavnickih aktivnosti??

"Ne glume POTUS-a ni bolje ni gore nego oni pre njih" #quote Dragosh Salonski Kalajic.

[Lezilebovich]

Nemoj tako, kome je potrebno nekakvo istrazivanje ili promisljanje - vidis da je ovde gore i na onom drugom topiku vec sve jasno.

 

hoćeš reći da većina kongresa, senata, pa i budući potus ne promišljaju dobro i ne istražuju ?

[Prospero]

WTF, kakav ti je to molim te izgovor? Ne može emotivno da se postupa na tom nivou politike.

 

Može pre izbora, dok se bore za glasove, a šta će raditi kad dođu na vlast - videćemo.

[WTF]

WTF, kakav ti je to molim te izgovor? Ne može emotivno da se postupa na tom nivou politike.

Nije izgovor nego objasnjenje.  Ne branim ja njih, samo pricam kakva je realnost.  Od 9/11 svi politicari iz NY imaju specijalnu osetljivost i odnos prema terorizmu, zrtvama 9/11, spasiocima koji su posle zaglavili razna teska oboljenja.  I nekome ko nije iz NY ili nema neku licnu vezu sa NY to naravo izgleda previse emotivno, ali tako je kako je.

[Prospero]

Senate votes to override Obama’s veto of 9/11 bill

 

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 discussing the issue with Obama in recent days.

“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 a bill are now focusing on how to scale back the measure once it becomes law.

 

“We see the writing on the wall: the override is going to occur,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been leading efforts to negotiate a narrower alternative.

Corker is one of several members who argue the bill, which would allow courts to waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in situations involving acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts.

 

He complained that if the bill becomes law “what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers,” adding that U.S. personnel might find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.

 

Members might be more open to scaling back the measure after observing the “blowback” once the legislation becomes law, Corker argued. He said he is working with Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) — who also announced his intention to support the override Wednesday — in the hopes that “during the lame duck, maybe there’s a way to be successful in tightening this up.”

 

One alternative lawmakers have discussed is limiting the measure to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, as a way of satisfying the demands of the 9/11 victims’ families without opening the United States to continuing diplomatic and legal problems.

 

The Saudi government has denied it had any ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and has lobbied fiercely against the bill. But victims’ families have pushed for the legislation so they can press their case in courts and lawmakers who support the measure argue if the Saudis did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about.

 

In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked “damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries” and “could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts.”

 

Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto.

 

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.

 

While White House staffers have reached out to certain members of Congress, Obama did not launch an all-out lobbying push to pull members away from this bill.

 

“I know of no counting or anything they’ve asked me to do on that,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. Pelosi intends to vote to override Obama’s veto.

 

Bill supporters have not warmed to any of the alternative proposals critics are floating and Cornyn dismissed the idea Congress will revisit the legislation later this year.

 

“As far as I’m concerned this bill is a done deal,” Cornyn said. “Obviously any senator or group of senators can offer any additional legislation they want, and we’ll take it up in due course.”

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Prospero

[3opge]

 

Senate votes to override Obama’s veto of 9/11 bill

 

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 discussing the issue with Obama in recent days.

“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 a bill are now focusing on how to scale back the measure once it becomes law.

 

“We see the writing on the wall: the override is going to occur,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who has been leading efforts to negotiate a narrower alternative.

Corker is one of several members who argue the bill, which would allow courts to waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in situations involving acts of terrorism on U.S. soil, is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts.

 

He complained that if the bill becomes law “what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers,” adding that U.S. personnel might find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.

 

Members might be more open to scaling back the measure after observing the “blowback” once the legislation becomes law, Corker argued. He said he is working with Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Md.) — who also announced his intention to support the override Wednesday — in the hopes that “during the lame duck, maybe there’s a way to be successful in tightening this up.”

 

One alternative lawmakers have discussed is limiting the measure to the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, as a way of satisfying the demands of the 9/11 victims’ families without opening the United States to continuing diplomatic and legal problems.

 

The Saudi government has denied it had any ties to the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks and has lobbied fiercely against the bill. But victims’ families have pushed for the legislation so they can press their case in courts and lawmakers who support the measure argue if the Saudis did nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about.

 

In a letter Monday to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and ranking member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter warned that allowing the bill to become law risked “damaging our close and effective cooperation with other countries” and “could ultimately have a chilling effect on our own counter-terrorism efforts.”

 

Thornberry and Smith both circulated letters among members in the last few days, urging them to vote against overriding the veto.

 

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.

 

While White House staffers have reached out to certain members of Congress, Obama did not launch an all-out lobbying push to pull members away from this bill.

 

“I know of no counting or anything they’ve asked me to do on that,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Tuesday. Pelosi intends to vote to override Obama’s veto.

 

Bill supporters have not warmed to any of the alternative proposals critics are floating and Cornyn dismissed the idea Congress will revisit the legislation later this year.

 

“As far as I’m concerned this bill is a done deal,” Cornyn said. “Obviously any senator or group of senators can offer any additional legislation they want, and we’ll take it up in due course.”

 

 

 

pozdravljam!

sada lepo odrati onu zlikovacku dinastiju sauda.

[borris_]

"...kome je potrebno nekakvo istrazivanje ili promisljanje"

[Prospero]

The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11

 

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

SEPT. 28, 2016

 

 

The Senate and the House are expected to vote this week on whether to override President Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role it had in the terrorist operations. The lawmakers should let the veto stand.

The legislation, called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, would expand an exception to sovereign immunity, the legal principle that protects foreign countries and their diplomats from lawsuits in the American legal system. While the aim — to give the families their day in court — is compassionate, the bill complicates the United States’ relationship with Saudi Arabia and could expose the American government, citizens and corporations to lawsuits abroad. Moreover, legal experts like Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School doubt that the legislation would actually achieve its goal.

Co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, the measure is intended to overcome a series of court rulings that have blocked all lawsuits filed by the 9/11 families against the Saudi government. The Senate passed the bill unanimously in May, and the House gave its approval this month.

 

The legislation would, among other things, amend a 1976 law that grants other countries broad immunity from American lawsuits — unless the country is on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Sudan and Syria) or is alleged to have committed a terrorist attack that killed Americans on United States soil. The new bill would clarify that foreign governments can be held liable for aiding terrorist groups, even if that conduct occurred overseas.

Advocates say the measure is narrowly drawn, but administration officials argue that it would apply much more broadly and result in retaliatory actions by other nations. The European Union has warned that if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States — with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs — the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.

 

The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, were Saudis. But the independent American commission that investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.

Proponents of the legislation cite two assassination cases in which legal claims were allowed against Chile and Taiwan. Administration officials, however, say that those cases alleged the direct involvement of foreign government agents operating in the United States.

The current debate is complicated by the fact that Saudi Arabia is a difficult ally, at odds with the United States over the Iran nuclear deal, a Saudi-led war in Yemen and the war in Syria. It is home of the fundamentalist strand of Islam known as Wahhabism, which has inspired many of the extremists the United States is trying to defeat. But it is also a partner in combating terrorism. The legislation could damage this fraught relationship. Riyadh has already threatened to withdraw billions of dollars in American-based assets to protect them from court action.

The desire to assist the Sept. 11 families is understandable, and the bill is expected to become law. The question is, at what cost?

 

[3opge]

evo, vec stize i pretnja kontra-merama:

 

Agencija navodi da Saudijska Arabija ima arsenal oruđa kojim bi mogla da uzvrati na američke mere, uključujući smanjenje zvaničnih kontakata, povlačenje milijardi dolara iz privrede SAD i ubeđivanje bliskih saveznika Saudijaca u Savetu za saradnju u Persijskom zalivu (GC C) da umanje saradnju u borbi protiv terorizma, investicije i pristup SAD važnim regionalnim vazdušnim bazama. 

 

 

 

shupichkumaterinu

[Prospero]

In the House, the veto override was approved a few hours later, 348 to 77.

 

 

I HoR je poništio veto.

[Eraserhead]

 

Covek koga savrseno boli kurac.

[iDemo]

Nobelovac sitno broji, to je ono sto je bitno... 

[Gandalf]