Home | About | Donate

Is Obama Objection to 9/11 Bill Attempt to Prevent Lawsuits for US Overseas Terrorism?


#1

Is Obama Objection to 9/11 Bill Attempt to Prevent Lawsuits for US Overseas Terrorism?

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Is President Obama promising to veto a bill over fears that it could make U.S. officials the subject of lawsuits over drone strikes and other deadly acts during its War on Terror?


#2

So wait, if corporations want to sue a gov't then Obama obliges (TTP). But when people whose family members have been murdered want to sue, that's where Obama draws the line?


#3

Secretary of State John Kerry said nearly the same in February, telling a senate panel that the bill would "expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent."

Translated:

"Our ability as oligarchic imperialists to bug splat any brown person we like will be threatened, and that will take away the fun of the Presidency as a dictatorial power trip. This creates a terrible precedent, as were are at the moment not subject to the rule of law and are very much enjoying a world where 'might makes right'."


#7

"Secretary of State John Kerry said nearly the same in February, telling a senate panel that the bill would 'expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent.'"

--Oh, like the TPP and other disastrous trade agreements that Kerry and Obama support are already making possible?! I guess the difference is that those trade- agreement lawsuits serve the corporate behemoths of the world which these guys think is just fine.


#11

So Obama and Kerry are admitting that the US is guilty. Because forthcoming lawsuits are inevitable. Obama's guilty all right, but I think he more more worried about blowback than lawsuits. He is covering for the Bushes and Killary and ultimately himself.


#12

Sovereign impunity


#13

common_reality: it's called: they don't give a F....k about the little people...it is called
the Obama four step: betrayal, fraud, cowardice and lies. Soon to be implemented by the Slickery four step... You think they really care about those
poor souls who were murdered? not when it comes to protecting the global economic capitalist
power structure baby. They don't care about any murdered lives by anyone, anywhere....All they care
about is protecting the wealth and the power...EVERYTHING else, to them, in comparison, is secondary, if not meaningless.


#15

"If we open up the possibility that individuals and the United States can
routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up
the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other
countries."

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Galtieri, Pinochet, Mugabe, Idi Amin and like ilk would all agree with the sentiment behind that statement.

The possibility that Kerry refers to was opened up ny the Nuremberg War Crimes Trails.


#16

But there is still more than enough physical evidence and eye-witness accounts to completely through out the 9-11 white-wash report, and little doubt the 28 pages as well.


#17

So what President Obama? Are you trying to say that US terrorism should be exempt from lawsuits? Sorry but if the US did it than it should pay for it.


#18

If anything found its way into the courts regarding 9/11, people would be forced to testify under oath. We should take note of who the people are who don't want that to happen. Who was the one who refused to investigate war crimes of the Bush Administration? The biggest war crime was going to war under false pretenses. Going to war under false pretenses would take us right to 9/11. Our government doesn't want us to go there. Ask yourself why.


#19

You're more than likely right, good buddy. I'd ordinarily and willingly say that admission of guilt on the part of the United States Government is a big step forward towards progress, but, even now, I don't trust our government to be sincere. If there are blowbacks as a consequences of over a half century of United States domination over the rest of the world, which there possibly could be, it would come as no surprise, at all.


#20

Selling $100 billion of the full arsenal to known killers (beheadings, bombings of innocents in Yemen) is complicity in murder. And that's just the most obvious stuff, unquestionably documented, not even slightly hidden from a quick web search. And direct U.S. actions continue to include numerous murders in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere--also easily verifiable. These things are routinely not called "murder" because they are sanctified within the context of "war."

My understanding of karma and work for universal enlightenment leads me to feel I would rather be killed than murder another, for the ultimate result for myself and for all will be far worse if I succumb to hatred than if I hold to nonviolence and love. I think sometimes that these imperial wars carry on because we are led to make a different calculation: that saving our own skin is always paramount. But if we can consider that saving moral goodness is even greater than our own skin, perhaps that foundation leads to a very different world. Military folks (many in my family) are taught to be ready to give up their lives for a greater good. So maybe it isn't such a far leap, after all, in this U.S. culture to shift to the idea that preserving moral goodness in the world can be more precious than even one's own skin. Not blind faith--deep, questioning creativity.


#21

The argument is that if we go after other countries for their misdeeds and criminal actions, then we open up ourselves to retribution for our misdeeds and criminal actions. And??? We shouldn't be called to task for high crimes and misdemeanors? The gang that started the Iraq War shouldn't be standing before the Hague? The person who authorized drone strikes against first responders and funerals shouldn't be called to account?

The solution to that particular problem is to not commit crimes against humanity. Then you don't have to worry about facing legal retribution.


#22

If we allow the families of the 911 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, then the US government better be prepared to hand over Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to the international court of justice for orchestrating the 911 events. Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistani intelligence officials are all implicated for playing active roles in 911. Israel and the US for drone technology to maneuver the planes, Saudi Arabia for names list and Pakistan for phony money transfers and implicating Osama bin Laden and other unsuspecting leads


#23

You forgot the big sadistic criminal Netanyahu the current setting prime minister of Israel.


#24

Yes indeed it has been proven that thermite was used to melt the steel columns in the basement of the twin towers. I also have read that parts of the metal debris is still available.


#25

There is no way any American administration will allow 9/11 particulars get to court. The official conspiracy theory could never stand the strain.


#26

"Like ilk" covers many players in the game of nastiness. Just fill in the form with whatever name you wish to send to the International Criminal Court of Justice.


#27

Our elected and appointed officials, "leaders" (Republican and Democrat) along with related business interests including the MSM are complicit in helping to create and allow the conditions for barbaric acts and destabilization throughout the middle east and the world. In a Nicholas Kristof suggested, "... Saudi Arabia is more than our gas station; it is also a wellspring of poison in the Islamic world, and its bigotry fuels our bigotry." I attempted, twice, to post the following very short comment suggesting the hypocrisy of the Clinton Foundation and their involvement with Saudi Arabia - they did not post it:

" "To be blunt, Saudi Arabia legitimizes Islamic extremism and intolerance around the world." "“Americans should care, because what happens here can affect the world,” the father told me, and he cautioned that Saudi repression destabilizes the entire Middle East. He’s right."

Why does the Clinton Foundation accept millions from such tyrants? Oh yeah, philanthropy. "

NYTs OpEd, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/opinion/obama-in-saudi-arabia-exporter-of-oil-and-bigotry.html