Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill

Every 9/11 victim's family was guaranteed $2 million compensation from the federal government--with a catch. If someone's family got $1 million in life insurance from their loved one's employer, the government added enough to bring it to $2 million.

But many of the 9/11 victims were extremely affluent stockbrokers, stock analysts, and Wall Street executives. I remember seeing videos of the 9/11 widows from northern NJ, complaining that $2 million was not nearly enough compensation for them to support their 7 figure incomes for the rest of their lives. They didn't have much sympathy (as the 1% often doesn't). At times it seemed as if they cared about the money more than their loved ones.

Disclaimer: I had a cousin who died on 9/11. His family has started a foundation and raised hundreds of thousands for charity. Like most first responders' families, they are more invested in his memory than in getting more millions.

While I am not sure who wants to file lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, I somehow think "the real housewives" might be involved.

And I agree with President Obama's decision.

VanillaSunflowers said:

That would be an unusual move wouldn't it? They override his veto, the first time they've done this in his time in office, and then in effect change their mind to some degree?
I thought there were attorneys serving in the Senate. If so how would they not know the impact of this before going with the override at this degree? 97-1 to override his veto.

Click to expand...

Emotion over judgement? It is an emotive subject, who'd want to be a congressman or senator and to have voted against the 9/11 families?

Goonie said:

Emotion over judgement? It is an emotive subject, who'd want to be a congressman or senator and to have voted against the 9/11 families?

Click to expand...

Apparently one guy does, possibly three if you include the two who did not vote.

I can't believe it. President Obama was very clear about why he was against this bill, and now Congress is blaming him for it being passed over his veto.

Goonie said:

Emotion over judgement? It is an emotive subject, who'd want to be a congressman or senator and to have voted against the 9/11 families?

Click to expand...

Hopefully, a sagacious member of congress, one astute enough to vote against the law on the basis of the dangerous precedent set and threat of foreign nation's reciprocating.

This is why we have elected officials. At times, elected officials should do what is wise as opposed to what is politically expedient.

NotreDame said:

Hopefully, a sagacious member of congress, one astute enough to vote against the law on the basis of the dangerous precedent set and threat of foreign nation's reciprocating.

This is why we have elected officials. At times, elected officials should do what is wise as opposed to what is politically expedient.

Click to expand...

One hopes so. Though I wonder whether they were standing for reelection?

777Sloan said:

One might ask, what then, could Obama's relationship be with Saudi Arabia that would so incline him to veto this 9/11 victims bill?

Click to expand...

Well for one it opens the US and US ground troops to being sued by foreign entities.

Oafman said:

I'm sure there is a mechanism for seizing their assets if they refuse to settle following any successful cases.

Click to expand...

A legalistic form of Pillaging.

Oafman said:

As of yesterday, it is now official policy of one of the UK's 2 main political parties to ban all arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Now that is a statement.

Click to expand...

Yeah we were happy to sell them arms but we'd like to also give them this middle finger for political reasons.

Arcangl86 said:

I can't believe it. President Obama was very clear about why he was against this bill, and now Congress is blaming him for it being passed over his veto.

Click to expand...

It's amazing to blame the president for overriding his veto.

Some people.

What we have here is some spectacular bi-partisan stupidity.

Oafman said:

Just as there are Saudi owned assets in the US, which could ultimately be seized, there are US owned assets in KSA

Click to expand...

Correct.
How did the US confiscate and hold captive billions of dollars belonging to Iran?

NotreDame said:

Well, a judgment against them could result in freezing or seizing assets they have in the U.S., if they chose to "ignore" an adverse ruling.

Click to expand...

they would likely reciprocate, and their other allies may follow suit.

VanillaSunflowers said:

A President vetoed this bill an therein revoked the vote Congress made for the 9/11 families. And the Senate overrode that.

Now, some think it is a bad idea because it would somehow let other countries sue the U.S. ? Though no laws of proof have yet been posted to that effect. And the Senate is supposedly having a change of heart on their override? What, all those legal precedents that allegedly could be set by this weren't something they thought about prior?

Click to expand...

One thing I noticed is that they will probably set about "fixing" the bill after the election. In short, this was a political measure because nobody wanted to be seen right before election voting against something for 9/11 victims.

777Sloan said:

I. With this bill having passed, it would appear the following now stands true:

「Families of those killed in the terror attacks on 9/11 are now legally allowed to sue Saudi Arabia, after Congress voted Wednesday to override President Barack Obama's veto of the legislation, the first override of his presidency.」

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/28/news/override-obama-veto-911-bill/

II. As it is likewise known, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

One might ask, what then, could Obama's relationship be with Saudi Arabia that would so incline him to veto this 9/11 victims bill?

III. Although many matters remain enshrouded in mystery, were the late King of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah, still with us, perhaps he might have been able to offer assistance toward they're unravel.

Click to expand...

Right, it's Obama's relationship with the Saudi's that needs to be questioned, not the relationship of the administration that had any mention of the Saudi government in 9/11 redacted during their tenure.

So, people can sue. The resultant suit is infinitely more complex than a domestic lawsuit.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Nothing in the bill permits that...

Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the concept of legal precedent...