Obama vetoes bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia

September 24, 2016

Washington, Sep 24: President Barack Obama on Friday vetoed a bill allowing 9/11families to sue Saudi Arabia, risking a fierce public backlash and rare congressional rebuke.

barak obama

While expressing "deep sympathy" for the families of the victims, Obama said the law would be "detrimental to US national interests."

The White House tried and failed to have the legislation -- which was unanimously passed by Congress -- scrapped or substantially revised.

Terry Strada, whose husband Tom was killed in World Trade Center Tower One, told AFP the 9/11 "families are outraged and very disappointed" by Obama's decision.

She vowed that the group would now lobby "just as hard as we possibly can" to have Congress overturn the decision.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has already painted Obama and his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton as weak on terrorism, described the decision as "shameful."

"That President Obama would deny the parents, spouses and children of those we lost on that horrific day the chance to close this painful chapter in their lives is a disgrace."

"If elected president, I would sign such legislation should it reach my desk."

On that point at least Trump was in agreement with Clinton, who, according to her campaign spokesman Jesse Lehrich, would also sign the bill.

Obama now faces the very real prospect of Republican and Democratic lawmakers joining forces to override his veto for the first time in his presidency.

Such a rebuke -- which Congressional sources say could come as early as next Tuesday -- would mark Obama's last months in office and show the White House to be much weakened.

Obama has issued 12 vetoes during his presidency and none have yet been revoked.

New York senator Chuck Schumer -- a Democrat with close ties to Obama and who cosponsored the bill -- insisted that is about to change.

"This is a disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress," he said.

"If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation. If they were culpable in 9/11, they should be held accountable."

Families of 9/11 victims have campaigned for the law -- convinced that the Saudi government had a hand in the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, but no link to the government has been proven. The Saudi government denies any links to the plotters.

Declassified documents showed US intelligence had multiple suspicions about links between the Saudi government and the attackers.

"While in the United States, some of the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government," a finding read.

Behind the scenes, Riyadh has been lobbying furiously for the bill to be scrapped.

A senior Saudi prince reportedly threatened to pull billions of dollars out of US assets if it becomes law, but Saudi officials now distance themselves from that claim.

The US-Saudi relationship had already been strained by Obama's engagement with Saudi's Shia foe Iran and the July release of a secret report on Saudi involvement in the attacks.

The White House insists Obama did not veto because of concerns over ties with Saudi Arabia, saying it is worried the bill would set a dangerous legal precedent, undermining the principle of sovereign immunity.

The European Union and a host of countries have expressed similar concerns.

But that technical legal argument will struggle to be heard over emotive accusations that Obama is putting relations with Saudi Arabia before 9/11 victims.

The White House will now hold out hope that the override could be delayed until after the November 8 election, when the politics may be less toxic and minds may be changed.

Congressional sources said White House appeals to security-minded senators like Dianne Feinstein may yet be enough to avoid the rebuke.

Comments

shaji
 - 
Sunday, 25 Sep 2016

It is well known that 9/11 attack was carried out by jews supported by Israel. However, they are accusing Muslims and Sauid Arabia for this. Saudi Nationals present in the planes were only passengers and not hijackers. The buildings collapsed mainly by internal blast which was planned by jews and that is the reason why almost all the jews were absent on the particular day. It was well planned by jews to put blame on muslims. The victims should sue Israel for compansations and Amercian Govt should presurise Israel for the payment.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 15,2020

Mysuru, Mar 15: The renowned Mysore Palace will remain closed for tourists for a week from March 15 to 22, in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, Mysore Palace committee said on Saturday.

The Karnataka government has ordered shutting down for a week all places and activities where people gather in large number including swimming pools, shopping malls, schools, colleges and cinema halls, state Health Minister B Sriramulu said amid the coronavirus threat.

This comes after Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa chaired an emergency meeting with ministers and senior officials on Friday to discuss the situation.

Earlier, schools in the state had announced early summer vacation for their students this academic year as a precautionary measure. Other public places have been shut down in the state amid the coronavirus scare.

The central government had on Thursday said that the death of the 76-year-old man from Kalaburagi in Karnataka was confirmed to be caused due to co-morbidity while he was also tested positive for COVID-19. The man visited Saudi Arabia on January 29 and returned to India a month later on February 29.

Till date, India has reported two deaths and 84 confirmed cases of the deadly coronavirus.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic. The virus, which originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan last year has spread to more than 100 countries worldwide, infecting over 1,30,000 people.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
August 9,2020

Bengaluru, Aug 9: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa has expressed condolences over the death of nodal officer who died while being on COVID-19 duty and announced an ex-gratia of Rs 25 lakhs to the family of the deceased.

The deceased has been identified as H Gangadharaiah. As per reports, he died due to a heart attack while on COVID-19 duty.

A government job and Rs 25 lakhs will be provided to the officer's family, according to Karnataka Chief Minister's Office (CMO).

"Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa expressed his heartfelt condolences over the death of H Gangadharaiah, KAS, who was on COVID-19 duty as nodal officer at the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC)," Karnataka CMO tweeted.

"CM announced Rs 25 lakhs ex-gratia from Chief Minister's Relief Fund, a government job for a family member and instructed the last rites of Gangadharaiah to be performed with full state honours," the CMO added.

In the last 24 hours, 7,178 new COVID-19 cases (including 2665 in Bengaluru Urban), 93 deaths and 5,006 discharged cases were reported in Karnataka.

The total number of cases rises to 1,72,102 in the state, including 79,765 active cases, 89,238 discharges and 3,091 deaths, as per the State's Health Department.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
January 22,2020

Shivaji is a great icon in Maharashtra. Different sections of society have given him very high status, though for diverse reasons. Folklores about him abound in the state. His statues, popular songs on him are very prevalent. These folk songs (Powadas) praise his multifarious actions. So it was no surprise that when Jayabhagwan Goyal, released his book, ‘Aaj ka Shivaji: Narendra Modi’, at religious-cultural meet organized by Delhi BJP, there was a strong resentment in Maharashtra. Various leaders from Maharashtra were furious. The Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut challenged the Shivaji’s descendent, Sambhaji Raje who is in BJP and is member of Rajya Sabha, to resign on the issue. Sambhaji Raje in turn stated that "We respect Narendra Modi, who was elected as the prime minister of the country for the second time. But neither (Narendra) Modi nor anybody else in the world can be compared with Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj,"

Not to be left behind Jitendra Awhad of NCP felt Modi-BJP are insulting the pride of Maharashtra. It is not the first time that controversy is erupting around the Maharashtra warrior of medieval period. Earlier we had seen Sambhaji Brigrade demanding the ban on James Laine book, Shivaji: ‘A Hindu King in an Islamic Kingdom’, for its objectionable content. Bhandarkar Institute in Pune, which had helped James Laine in his research, was also vandalized. At another level there was a talk that Babasaheb Purandare, a Brahmin, who has written some popular material on Shivaji will be made as the Chairman of the committee for statue of Shivaji. Maratha Mahasangh and Shiv Dharm officials objected to a Brahmin heading the committee for a statue for the Maratha warrior. The caste angel in Shivaji’s case is coming to the fore from quite some time.

While there is no dearth of controversies around Shivaji, it is also true that each political tendency has created Shivaji’s image from their political point of view. Who was the real Shivaji, is the question. One can see two clear streams of projection in this matter. On one hand there is an attempt to present Shivaji as the anti Muslim King, a king who was respecting Cows and Brahmins (Go Brahman pratipalak). This view was brought forward from the times of Lokmanya Tilak and picked up by Hindu nationalists, who have been looking for icons in history to suit their political agenda. Nathram Godse, while criticizing Gandhi says that Gandhi’s nationalism was dwarf in front of the one of Shivaji or Rana Pratap.

In tune with this the Hindu nationalists are promoting both these as icons of Hindu nationalism and giving anti-Muslim slant to the whole discourse. This discourse also hides in this the Brahmanical agenda of Hindu nationalism as Cows and Brahmins are presented as the central object of veneration by Shivaji. This image of Shivaji fits well into the current agenda of Hindu nationalists, being spearheaded by RSS Combine.

It is because of this that for seeking votes in Mumbai Narendra Modi on the eve of 2014 elections stated that Shivaji attacked Surat to plunder the treasury of Aurangzeb. This also presents Shivaji-Aurangzeb, Shivaji-Afzal Khan interactions as battle between Hindus and Muslims. The truth is that Surat was plundered for its wealth as it was a rich port city and Bal Samant’s book on the topic gives in depth description of the same. It is noteworthy that Shivaji began his real career of conquest in 1656 when he conquered Javli from the Maratha Chief Chandra Rao More. He took over the treasures of this kingdom. That it was not a Hindu Muslim battle becomes clear when we know that in confrontation with Aurangzeb it was Mirza Raja Jaisingh who was negotiating and engaging with Shivaji on behalf of Aurangzeb. And Shivaji had Muslim officers like Kazi Haider as confidential secretary and many Muslim Generals in his army.

Darya Sarang was chief of armor division, Daulat Khan was in-charge of his naval division; Ibrahim Khan was another general of significance in his army.  This mixed up administration just shows that the kings were not having Hindu or Muslim administration depending on their religion. In the confrontation between Shivaji and Afzal Khan, Rustam-e-Jaman was Shivaji’s side and Afzal Khan had Krisnaji Bhaskar Kulkarni on his side.

As far as Shivaji’s popularity is concerned it was due to his being a King with welfare of his subjects in his mind. He lightened the burden of taxation on the average peasants, and reduced the domination of landlords over the serfs. This picture of Shivaji is well documents in the booklets by Com. Govind Pansare (Who was Shivaji) and Jayant Gadkari (Shivaji: Ek Lok Kalyankari Raja- Shivaji: King doing People’s Welfare). He did not belong to the warrior caste so Brahmins had refused to coronate him, for which purpose Gaga Bhatt a Brahmin from Kashi was brought in with heavy fees. Teesta Setalvad’s hand book on History for teachers underlined this fact.

Today while BJP-Brahmanical forces want to present Shivaji as worshipper of Brahmins and cows, the non upper caste have seen through the game. As such it was Jotirao Phule who brought forward the caste angel of Shivaji as he wrote Powada (Poem) in his honor and today dalit Bahujan are not toeing Hindu Nationalist projection on the issue.

The likes of Jayabhagwan Goyal of BJP as such are trying to give two messages through such attempts. One hand they want to paint Shivaji in anti Muslim and Brahmanical color, they also want to give the subtle message of similarity of this presentation of Shivaji with what Modi is doing. Non BJP forces have seen this game and want to present the other picture of Shivaji, which was highlighted by the likes of Jotirao Phule and which today many of those standing for rights of dalit-Bahujan are trying to articulate. The criticism of the said, book, since withdrawn is on these twin aspects. One about the picture of Shivaji who was concerned about welfare of the farmers, and two his respect for people of all religions.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.