US Politics: Sioux suing suits

[Mexal]

On 9/27/2016 at 3:03 PM, Commodore said:

wow, obstructionist Democrat senators willing to hold the country hostage and shut down the government

 

Oh the humanity. They're holding the country hostage to help Flint, MI. EVIL DEMOCRATS!

It's been sorted and the CR is expected to pass. So much for being held hostage.

[Altherion]

Congress overrode Obama's veto on the bill that would allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis by fairly large margins: 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House (in case you're curious, the lonely anti-veto Senator was Harry Reid). The Saudis are not happy. Their threat to sell off American assets is not very convincing, but they can make a considerable nuisance of themselves by covertly opposing the US in the multitude of conflicts currently ongoing in the Middle East.

[Swordfish]

27 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Congress overrode Obama's veto on the bill that would allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis by fairly large margins: 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House (in case you're curious, the lonely anti-veto Senator was Harry Reid). The Saudis are not happy. Their threat to sell off American assets is not very convincing, but they can make a considerable nuisance of themselves by covertly opposing the US in the multitude of conflicts currently ongoing in the Middle East.

Pretty interesting.  I'm not sure what to think about it TBH.

Pretty poorly played here by Obama and the dems.

[Commodore]

19 hours ago, Mexal said:

Oh the humanity. They're holding the country hostage to help Flint, MI. EVIL DEMOCRATS!

It's been sorted and the CR is expected to pass. So much for being held hostage.

of course it passed, GOP always caves to any Dem spending demands (lest they be accused of shutting down the government)

[MerenthaClone]

21 minutes ago, Commodore said:

of course it passed, GOP always caves to any Dem spending demands (lest they be accused of shutting down the government)

Or, you know, they didn't want to run into campaign ads about how they opposed a bare minimum of federal aid towards an area certainly deserving of it.  I'm sorry you feel that predominantly black areas aren't worth any help, Commodore, but I am thankful enough of Congress' constituents do that Congress was worried about campaign ads.  

[Commodore]

52 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Or, you know, they didn't want to run into campaign ads about how they opposed a bare minimum of federal aid towards an area certainly deserving of it.  

what's the limiting principle to that argument? (it's certainly not whatever funds are available, as we borrow well beyond that)

[TerraPrime]

6 minutes ago, Commodore said:

what's the limiting principle to that argument? (it's certainly not whatever funds are available, as we borrow well beyond that)

Oh, I don't know. How's the "stop more children from suffering lead poisoning and start treating those who are already affected" bar sound to you? Low enough?

[TerraPrime]

Second post:

 

And here's where I just can't relate to small-government people who abhor spending. Like, we have a case where the entire city is being poisoned by lead-laced water because the state government's decision to manage the finance of Flint forced them into making a decision that was not implemented correctly. Why are we dickering about sending financial aid to help them recover from this problem? Like, what is wrong with their moral compass that a whole city worth of young children being at risk of lead poisoning doesn't toll the bell of urgency in their world? That type of thinking is just so alien to me.

[Commodore]

5 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Second post:

 

And here's where I just can't relate to small-government people who abhor spending. Like, we have a case where the entire city is being poisoned by lead-laced water because the state government's decision to manage the finance of Flint forced them into making a decision that was not implemented correctly. Why are we dickering about sending financial aid to help them recover from this problem? Like, what is wrong with their moral compass that a whole city worth of young children being at risk of lead poisoning doesn't toll the bell of urgency in their world? That type of thinking is just so alien to me.

yes we know, reason for all problems is not enough money, throw more at it (other people' s of course), no consideration for limited resources and prioritization of them, or offsets

 

 

[TerraPrime]

37 minutes ago, Commodore said:

yes we know, reason for all problems is not enough money, throw more at it (other people' s of course), no consideration for limited resources and prioritization of them, or offsets

 

 

But that wasn't your question. You didn't ask what are some balancing measures. You asked what's the limiting factor in arguing for dispensing money for events like the Flint poisoning. If you had said "Yes we need to send money, but how can we pay for it? Where would the money come from?" Then that'd be a different question.

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

what's the limiting principle to that argument? (it's certainly not whatever funds are available, as we borrow well beyond that)

If we want to talk about what to cut to get the financial aid being sent to Flint, just say so instead of blathering about principles that only matter when you feel like it.  

e:  This is especially bleak because the problems in Flint were caused explicitly by your principles in the first place.  

[Shryke]

On 9/28/2016 at 5:15 PM, Altherion said:

Congress overrode Obama's veto on the bill that would allow 9/11 families to sue the Saudis by fairly large margins: 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 in the House (in case you're curious, the lonely anti-veto Senator was Harry Reid). The Saudis are not happy. Their threat to sell off American assets is not very convincing, but they can make a considerable nuisance of themselves by covertly opposing the US in the multitude of conflicts currently ongoing in the Middle East.

And look they are already regretting it for the exact reason Obama vetoed it and why alot of people were saying it was a stupid idea:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-29/congress-signals-regret-after-overriding-veto-of-saudi-9-11-bill

These chucklefucks probably played this as they did to try and pin this shit on Obama for the election and now find themselves in shit.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

On one hand, fuck Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, this will have long term consequences.

[Horza]

Quote

But Republicans said the White House didn’t make a forceful case, putting themselves in the awkward position of blaming the president for a bill they enacted into law over Obama’s veto.

The last two terms in a nutshell.

I think this is a symptom of how little political outlet there is for putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and the US's other Gulf allies, but how about focusing on something like the Administration's record arms deals or Saudi's war in Yemen?

[Altherion]

I understand that politicians try to weasel out of the consequences, but they need to try harder to at least keep things plausible. Congress overrode a veto by nearly universal agreement in the Senate and by a bipartisan consensus with more than 80% of the vote in the House. They did this for a controversial law the possible consequences of which were plastered all over the media for a week and repeated by a variety of figures in the executive branch, the military and the intelligence community. And then, after the vote, they come out and say that the case made wasn't good enough because they somehow failed to understand precisely the above-mentioned consequences? Seriously?

[Horza]

What do you expect from a class of people who hardly read legislation and most of whom get re-elected on safe margins every few years and spend most of their time chasing donors because their only worry is being out-crazied in the primary?

[The Anti-Targ]

I guess at election time no one wants to be seen to be voting against 9/11 families, well almost no one. Seems like there is almost a case to be made that legislation with populist appeal should not go through congress for at least 6 months leading up to an election.

I reckon if this vote was held on 9/11/16 in my date format (hint 9 November), there probably wouldn't be a veto-busting majority.

On a related note, if the Saudi Arabia govt can be proven to have substantially contributed to 9/11 does that not mean it was an act of war and not an act of terrorism? Surely, if Saudi Arabia's govt is guilty of an act of war against the USA then there must be substantial remedies the USA can enforce without telling individual survivors they have to sue Saudi Arabia. Why isn't the US govt seizing some assets, and withdrawing diplomats, and imposing sanctions, and denying entry visas and lots of other stuff?

Seems like this legislation is really just a smokescreen to obscure what the US govt should actually be doing to Saudi Arabia for attacking the USA. Or the Saudi govt never actually did anything, and this law isn't going to achieve anything for 9/11 families and will only get on the nerves of the Saudis. Either way, it seems like it's a pretty shitty and weak arsed move by Congress.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess at election time no one wants to be seen to be voting against 9/11 families, well almost no one. Seems like there is almost a case to be made that legislation with populist appeal should not go through congress for at least 6 months leading up to an election.

I reckon if this vote was held on 9/11/16 in my date format (hint 9 November), there probably wouldn't be a veto-busting majority.

On a related note, if the Saudi Arabia govt can be proven to have substantially contributed to 9/11 does that not mean it was an act of war and not an act of terrorism? Surely, if Saudi Arabia's govt is guilty of an act of war against the USA then there must be substantial remedies the USA can enforce without telling individual survivors they have to sue Saudi Arabia. Why isn't the US govt seizing some assets, and withdrawing diplomats, and imposing sanctions, and denying entry visas and lots of other stuff?

Seems like this legislation is really just a smokescreen to obscure what the US govt should actually be doing to Saudi Arabia for attacking the USA. Or the Saudi govt never actually did anything, and this law isn't going to achieve anything for 9/11 families and will only get on the nerves of the Saudis. Either way, it seems like it's a pretty shitty and weak arsed move by Congress.

Was it the SA government though? I was pretty sure it wasn't the government directly but just someone in the (rather large) royal family or something.

[Horza]

It's murky:
 

Quote

The 28 pages show that, according to FBI documents, several numbers found in the phone book of Abu Zubaydah, a senior al-Qaida operative captured in Pakistan in March 2002 who is still being detained at Guantánamo Bay, could be linked, at least indirectly, to phone numbers in the US. Among them was a number “subscribed to” by a company in Aspen, Colorado, that managed the residence of the then Saudi ambassador, Bandar bin Sultan.

In addition, according to an FBI document, the phone number of a bodyguard at the Saudi embassy in Washington, “who some have alleged may be a” – several words have been redacted – “was also found in Abu Zubaida’s (sic) possession”.

...

The newly declassified section of the congressional inquiry does not draw conclusions about Bandar, let alone accusations of complicity in 9/11, despite listing known or suspected associations to people once believed to have aided the terrorist attack. At several points its source material, largely derived from the FBI, states that it has closed inquiries or held them in “abeyance”, as with the Aspcol connection.

Yet some of the sections of the declassified pages remain withheld. One such section concerns a Saudi navy officer who in March 2000 was in telephonic contact with two of the hijackers. It is unclear if the FBI ultimately found anything relevant on the officer, but the FBI currently does not consider the Saudi Arabian government complicit in the attack.

...

Many of the intelligence community’s findings were included in the 9/11 commission report, he added, as well as in a newly declassified executive summary of a CIA-FBI joint assessment that will soon be released by the director of national intelligence.

Perhaps most intriguingly, the 28 pages reveal that Osama Basnan, whom the documents describe as a supporter of two of the 9/11 hijackers in California, received a cheque from Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the US.

“On at least one occasion, Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar’s account,” it says. “According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan’s wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar.”

Basnan lived across the street from two of the hijackers – Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi – in San Diego and told an FBI asset that he had helped them, according to the document. Basnan was allegedly a supporter of al-Qaida mastermind Osama bin Laden and spoke of him “as if he were a god”.

For whatever its worth, Bandar Bin Sultan has a very long and close relationship with the highest levels of US politics and famously got on very well with the Bush family. W nicknamed him "Bandar Bush".

The declassified stuff has apparently been investigated by the FBI, but despite this there are still ongoing investigations into Saudi complicity in 9/11:

Quote

The 28 pages from 2002 were “based almost entirely on raw, unvetted material that had come to the FBI”, they added. “That material was then written up in FBI files as possible leads for further investigation. As of June 2003 none of these leads had been checked out. The documents are therefore comparable to preliminary law enforcement notes, which are generally covered by grand jury secrecy rules.”

Kean and Hamilton also noted that last year the 9/11 review commission reviewed the Saudi-related leads in the 28 pages and concluded that, despite the fact that two FBI teams continue to actively investigate the issue, “there was no new evidence against the Saudi government”.

It's worth keeping in mind that the Kingdom is largely a family business that happens to run a state, and that family lives in fear of its religious leadership going all theocrat on them. Its government is both heavily compartmentalised (so these AQ-huggers could easily have operated alone) and personalised, and it uses that to its advantage where possible (so maybe they weren't operating alone).

[Guest]

Another awesome thread title.

 

Fuck Trump.