Author Topic: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill  (Read 684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 384,376
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« on: April 19, 2016, 10:51:29 pm »
http://thehill.com/policy/international/276836-graham-blocking-saudi-9-11-bill-over-fears-of-blowback


April 19, 2016 - 01:34 PM EDT
Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill

By Julian Hattem



Sen. Lindsey Graham has placed a hold on legislation that would open the door for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

Graham (R-S.C.), who is a co-sponsor of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, put the hold on his own bill over concerns that new changes could expose the U.S. to legal attacks.

Edits made last week by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) might expand the scope, Graham told reporters on Tuesday, potentially putting the U.S. at risk of legal retaliation because of actions by individuals or unsavory allies.

“I want to make sure that anything we do doesn’t come to bite us,” Graham told reporters in the basement of the Senate.

“Anything we do in this bill can be used against us later. So let's say there’s a situation where you’ve got an American in a consulate or an embassy that’s got their own grudge against a government,” he said. “We want to make sure that we’re not liable for that.”

Sessions, for his part, suggested that he shared Graham’s underlying concerns about the potential for the bill to expose the U.S. to legal attacks. Ultimate responsibility for settling the issue, he said, ought to belong with the Obama administration.

“Generally you get leadership from the State Department,” Sessions said on Tuesday. “But when the chips were down, they never produced any real assistance.”

“Somewhere along the line the president is going to need to review it, get his best team on it and if it’s not good for America, he should veto it or try to provide leadership.”

 

The lingering unease about the bill’s ramifications hints at the legal minefield that lawmakers need to navigate; the measure has gained new prominence amid President Obama’s travel to Saudi Arabia this week.

Saudi officials have strongly opposed the bill and threatened to sell off $750 billion of U.S. assets should it be enacted.

The White House has come out against the legislation, because of what it claims would be dangerous precedent that could erode the legal system of sovereign immunity.

“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,” Obama said in an interview with CBS broadcast early Tuesday.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) expressed skepticism on Tuesday of the legislation, which is backed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), who are both leaders in their Senate caucuses.

“I think we need to look at it,” Ryan told reporters at a news conference. “I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies and that we’re not catching people in this that shouldn’t be caught up in this.”

Graham also raised the case of the People's Protection Units (YPG), the Syrian Kurdish forces that the U.S. has relied upon in the growing chaos of the Syrian civil war.

Despite being a critical tool of the U.S. in Syria, the YPG are allied with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a Kurdish nationalist group in Turkey considered terrorists by both Washington and Ankara.

“If they go out and commit a terrorist act somewhere else against Turkey, I don’t want to be held liable because that’s not what we were sponsoring,” Graham said.

“Some of our allies are a bit dubious. I want to make sure that because we find common ground in one area, we don’t own these people forever because of whatever they do.”

The changes from Sessions have yet to be made public. An official with the Alabama Republican’s office did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the edits.

“The change that was made by Sen. Sessions may be a good change. It may limit the application of the bill in a way that protects us down the road,” Graham told reporters. “I really think I know what he’s trying to do.

"But I’ve had a couple of questions that I hadn’t gotten an answer to yet, and so we’re working on it.”
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34

Offline AnybodyButaDem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 684
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2016, 11:03:30 pm »
Slippin' Teddy is letting this clown hold fundraisers for him.

 :whistle:
Guess who got the NYT's endorsement in the GOP primary?

Offline sinkspur

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,567
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2016, 11:11:10 pm »
Slippin' Teddy is letting this clown hold fundraisers for him.

 :whistle:

And Sessions (who agrees with Graham) is, for some reason a foreign policy advisor to Trump when he has no foreign policy expertise.
Roy Moore's "spiritual warfare" is driving past a junior high without stopping.

geronl

  • Guest
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2016, 12:07:55 am »
Graham is still Miss Lindsay

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2016, 09:26:42 am »
http://thehill.com/policy/international/276836-graham-blocking-saudi-9-11-bill-over-fears-of-blowback


April 19, 2016 - 01:34 PM EDT
Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill

By Julian Hattem



Sen. Lindsey Graham has placed a hold on legislation that would open the door for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.


Lady Lindsey has to protect her A-Rab Prince.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

HonestJohn

  • Guest
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2016, 11:02:00 am »
If anyone had been reading the news...

...the Saudis are threatening to dump the billions of US dollars and all the US assets they hold if the law passes.

Do a cost-benefit analysis and tell us if *YOU* think that bill is 'worth it' now?

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2016, 02:23:26 pm »
If anyone had been reading the news...

...the Saudis are threatening to dump the billions of US dollars and all the US assets they hold if the law passes.

Do a cost-benefit analysis and tell us if *YOU* think that bill is 'worth it' now?

Whatever the cost,we MUST pay it if that is what it takes to get back to the point where our nation isn't being ran or controlled from foreign nations with customs and laws contrary to everything the US was formed around.

If this means some prominent politicians will be exposed as bought and paid for whores/agents of foreign governments,that's just a bonus.

WE,THE PEOPLE either control America,or it is no longer America.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline LaRueLaDue

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #7 on: April 20, 2016, 04:34:54 pm »
Whatever the cost,we MUST pay it if that is what it takes to get back to the point where our nation isn't being ran or controlled from foreign nations with customs and laws contrary to everything the US was formed around.

If this means some prominent politicians will be exposed as bought and paid for whores/agents of foreign governments,that's just a bonus.

WE,THE PEOPLE either control America,or it is no longer America.

Couldn't agree more.

geronl

  • Guest
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #8 on: April 20, 2016, 04:39:16 pm »
If anyone had been reading the news...

...the Saudis are threatening to dump the billions of US dollars and all the US assets they hold if the law passes.

Do a cost-benefit analysis and tell us if *YOU* think that bill is 'worth it' now?

If that means they'll sell the crap they own, who cares. Seriously, someone else will own the assets then and ... a big nothing burger

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,963
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: Lindsey Graham blocks Saudi 9/11 bill
« Reply #9 on: April 20, 2016, 05:06:17 pm »
If that means they'll sell the crap they own, who cares. Seriously, someone else will own the assets then and ... a big nothing burger

Not really. If they were to dump all their stock electronically at the same moment,it would cause the stock market to crash,and there would be dozens of major bankruptcies as the corporations scrambled to find the money to pay off the debt.

Which would in turn cause other companies dependent on the larger corporations for trade to also go bankrupt,and in the end result would be another economic depression.

Think "Domino Effect".

AND.....,it would be other foreigners who bought up the stocks at a penny per hundred and ended up owning US corporations. China would probably be the biggest buyer,but not the only one.
<P>
And this ain't even addressing all the retirement and medical or health care funds that rely on dividends from stock they own in major corporations to pay off their short-term debts. This  might not be a big deal to you as an individual right now,but I assure you it would be a big deal for retired people whose retirement and health care funds come from stock ownership by the retirement and insurance funds.

And since nothing happens in a vacuum,lots of elderly care and similar facilities would have to close their doors and let their employees go,which means the employees would be facing their own bankruptcy issues because there would be nowhere else for them to work,medical supply and drug companies would have to let people go and cut back on manufacturing because their products wouldn't be selling,delivery drivers would be out of work because they had nothing to deliver,etc,etc,etc.
<P>
Still,in the long run,it is something that has to be faced,and the sooner the better because the damage will be less now than later.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 05:12:23 pm by sneakypete »
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!