Congress Rejects Obama’s Veto – Now “Terrorist Sponsor” Saudi’s Assets Can Be Seized

Pin It

Sep 29 2016
Linked In

President Barack Obama thought his “veto” power means he was the most powerful man in the world, or at least in the United States. Of course, the U.S. system, being one of the most democratic, was designed in such a way that nobody can possess absolute power. And Obama learns it the humiliating way, less than 3 months until he leaves office.


Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot. This means American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the Sept. 11, 2001 families.

September 11 - 911 Attacks USA

Obama, often called a lame duck, had believed his Democrats comrades would throw their blind support behind him. He was caught off guard when a huge number of Democrats joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable embarrassment to the president. In the Senate, his veto was defeated 97-to-1 while in the House; it was 348-to-77 vote.


It appears nobody gives a damn about Obama’s threats. When he travelled to Britain and threatened the people about “Brexit”, the Britons did exactly the opposite and voted to leave the EU. When he threatened fellow Americans about the consequences of letting Saudi to be sued, the Senate and House did exactly the opposite and voted to override Obama’s veto.

911 September 11 Terrorist Attack - Commission Report - They Lie

Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks on September 11, 2001. Saudi officials have long denied that the kingdom had any role in the 9/11 plot, and the 9/11 Commission seemed to support Saudi Arabia. However, the commission’s narrow wording has since created conspiracy theories about a massive cover-up.


Initially, under the US law, foreign nations have a degree of immunity from being sued in American courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 is one of the reasons why families of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks largely failed to bring to court the Saudi royal family and charities over suspicion of financially supporting the attacks.

911 September 11 Terrorist Attack - 19 Hijackers Identified - Mostly Saudi Arabia Citizens

Despite the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers in 2001 were Saudi citizens, Iran was made the scapegoat and found guilty instead. US District Judge George Daniels in New York had ordered Iran to pay over US$10 billion in damages to families of 9/11 victims, despite the fact that NONE” of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 were Iranian citizens.


The first sign of Saudi’s guilty was revealed when the kingdom blackmailed the U.S. government of selling off up to US$750 billion in Treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they face a danger of being frozen by American courts. Of course, the Saudi was caught bluffing about the amount of U.S. debt they’re holding.

Saudi Bin Laden Construction Group - Osama bin Laden - 2

When the U.S. Treasury Department finally released a breakdown of Saudi Arabia’s holdings of U.S. debt in May this year, after keeping the figures secret for more than 40 years, it turned out that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia held only US$116.8 billion of U.S. debt as of March, 2016 – not US$750 billion as claimed.


It would certainly be interesting to see if Saudi would make good on its threat to unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United State. If the mighty America could collapse, then China would hold the U.S. hostage too since the Chinese have a staggering US$1.3 trillion of U.S. debt.


The fact that Obama administration’s policy has been extremely sympathetic to Muslim extremists, including those who conducted domestic terrorism so much so that he won’t say the three magic words – “Radical Islamic Terrorism” – has made many Americans believe the U.S. president cares more about his Saudi brothers than fellow Americans.


If Saudi was as innocent as the kingdom has been claiming, there’s no reason to fear of lawsuits, right? Obviously, Saudi has overestimated their importance as one of U.S. key allies in the Middle East. King Salman can no longer hold United States for ransom. After 40 years under Saudi’s thumb, the U.S. has emerged as one of world’s oil exporters.

September 11 - 911 Attacks USA - Saudi Arabia Sponsors Funding

The timing is also not in favour of Saudi. With 2016 elections just over a month away, many lawmakers were reluctant to oppose a measure backed by 9/11 families who say they are still seeking justice 15 years after the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. Suddenly, everybody is avoiding outgoing Obama like a plague.


Obama’s rhetoric has been that the bill would make the U.S. vulnerable to retaliatory litigation in foreign courts that could put U.S. troops in legal jeopardy. His justification was, however, “unconvincing” because the new law applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil. Otherwise, any foreign government can actually sponsor terror attacks on American soil – and get away scot free.


Now, Barack Hussein Obama can leave the White House with tail between legs, holding a trophy of embarrassment. The last time an administration got through 8 years without Congress overriding a veto was the Kennedy-Johnson administration in the 1960s. Obama can scream until he foams at the mouth that the “veto override” was a mistake. But no lawmakers wanted to be seen as anti-9/11 families.


Other Articles That May Interest You …

Pin It

FinanceTwitter SignOff
If you enjoyed this post, what shall you do next? Consider:

Like FinanceTwitter Tweet FinanceTwitter Subscribe Newsletter   Leave Comment Share With Others


3000 killed in 9/11? That’s a lot. Wonder how many killed in Iraq under the false weapons of mass destruction lies. And other places. Perhaps US assets in Saudi can be seized if Iraqiam sue US in Saudi


Yes, the U.S. has killed more in Iraq … unfortunately, Iraq can’t sue the U.S. in Saudi …

Copying the U.S. new law, Iraqis can only sue the U.S. in Iraq’s own court (but not in Saudi’s court) if Americans can be proven as having conducted terrorist attacks on Iraq soil … provided there’s anything left of the Iraq at all …

And there’s a huge difference between terror attack and U.N. sanctioned war, mind you …

Cheers …

Our Malaysian PM also does not have absolute power. It is just that our MPs and UMNO leaders have no principles in life.

Leave a Reply


(required)(will not be published)