Slashdot Mirror
Blackmail: Obama Under Pressure To Declassify Secret 9/11 Report (cbsnews.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Families of Sept. 11, 2001 terror attack victims are pressuring Obama to support legislation allowing them to sue the Saudi government. A recent "60 Minutes" investigation has stirred up some controversy by looking at possible links between Saudi officials and the 9/11 hijackers, which revealed that new information may be hiding in a classified section of a Congressional report. The Saudis said in a report in the New York Times that they might sell "up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States" if the bill passes. The bill in question is being considered by Congress and it would permit lawsuits against countries that "contribute material support or resources" for "acts of terrorism." Van Auken, who is among those convinced that the 9/11 hijackers were helped by Saudi agents, said, "It feels like blackmail. The government, the president is siding with Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 families. If someone you loved was murdered and the person was just able to go away Scott free, would you be okay with that? I don't think anybody would." Last week the royal embassy of Saudi Arabia said, "The 9/11 commission confirmed that there is no evidence that the government of Saudi Arabia supported or funded Al Qaeda."
The government, the president is siding with Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 families.
Is anybody really shocked by this? Obama has made it a habit of failing to live up to his campaign promise to "run the most transparent administration in American history."
I remember when he first ran and got elected. I thought, "I don't agree with a lot of his policy ideas, but if he lives up to his word on just that one point by making things transparent, I would be impressed and he will have proved that he's not a politician's politician." I don't think that promise even made it to the end of his inauguration speech. Oh well.
Let them sell the bonds. Who's gonna buy 'em? Lots of people. It can only hurt the Saudis. However, in our game of empires, we need them desperately, so I doubt anybody is going to seriously ruffle any feathers.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If the Bushes are Saudi agents, we should sieze 2 trillion in assets for the Iraq disaster plus more for the 9/11 attack. Not to mention a lot of the Saudi oil was seized ("nationalized") from American companies for a song.
Saudi Arabia is hot. Iran is not.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Let the regime posture and threaten all it wants. They're in enough trouble already with gas prices in the toilet, a state budget about to collapse, and a discontent/unemployed population that is chomping at the bit for reform of the ruling classes....
Let's assume for a moment that everything 60 minutes claims is in fact true. Exactly how do they propose to force a foreign government to put themselves under the jurisdiction of a domestic civil court?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It'll always be "THEIR" terrorist, "OUR" (freedom fighter/martyr).
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
The US doesn't pay out anything when you sell a treasury security, only when they mature.
Dumping a bunch of securities at once on the market will depress bid, but that hurts the sellers as much as new issues.
Also, US treasury securities are denominated in US dollars, whose value can be controlled by the US. The Chinese renminbi is back to an unofficial peg to the dollar, and the Saudi riyal is de facto pegged to the dollar. The US could push inflation-protected securities to the buyers that the Saudis would try to sell to, weaken the dollar, China would follow the US down, exports for both countries would go up, and only the Saudis are hurt.
it's just a really, really low bar...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As a person who operates businesses in countries around the world I can tell you one thing ---
STOP WORRYING !!
This world needs America more than America needs the world
And I am not kidding !
I am not saying this because I am an American --- I am saying this as a fact --- without America this world's trade will be reduced by at least 57% and the impact of that much of a reduction to the world economy will be many times of that 57% !
Without American green backs (I know, they are worthless if we count them in term of true networth) but at this juncture, THERE IS NO OTHER WORLD CURRENCY able to substitute the American green backs, at least, not yet
Furthermore, this world has over 20 trillion dollars in excess cash --- yes, 20 fucking trillion dollars --- waiting for something to invest, and one day they are not used to invest in something, THEY LOSE MONEY ON THE CASH THEY KEEP
That is why something / someone / somehow must purchase the American treasury bills --- it is one of the surest form of guarantee in the world. No other bonds in the world gets to enjoy that
So let me repeat --- Please stop worrying so much
The world will keep on buying the American bonds. If not the towel heads, then the Chinese or the Japanese or the Koreans or the Singaporeans will snatch them up
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Obama has done things that I wanted him to do as president. But after Snowden, it became readily apparent that he isn't going to do the things I need him to do as president.
I am from China, and Russia is just north of China
You go ask any Chinese in China --- whether they want to buy the Russian bond or the American treasury bill, 99.9% will tell you they prefer the American treasury bill
Why?
Because nobody else can guarantee their treasury bill like us, the United States of America --- the US has an excellent good track record when compare to the others
So, stop being such a Chicken Little, my friend --- them towel heads can go buy up all the treasury bonds from Russia and they will end up with nothing but icy sludge
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You can't sue sovereign states. It's a foundation of international law.
If congress is is stupid enough to ignore this the US is screwed. We lose that protection.
I know it sucks. But, we have to tell these people they have NO recourse against Saudi Arabia.
Lots of people want and try to sue the US government. Constantly! Not just in the US
They all get thrown out at stage one. you can't sue sovereign states.
Just for instance:
If this bill passes
Millions of Vietnamese could sue the US
think about it!
This is off-topic, but hear me out.
I have to applaud the Saudi Arabian government for "seeing the writing on the wall" about the soon-coming phase-out of dinosaur-burning (fossil fuels) as the major source of energy for the world. They are investing very heavily in renewable energy technologies, as well as some other areas in an attempt to use their sovereign wealth to shift their economy – before the shit really hits the fan – to other potential GDP-producing sectors.
Yeah, they have sold a big portion of the oil – the burning of which has been clearly destructive to our own planet – but other countries wanted to buy this cheap source of concentrated, transportable energy. Recall that "Saudi Aramco" = "Saudi Arabian–American (oil) Company". The US has long since sold off its stake, but that is the genesis of the country.
All other issues (e.g., human rights) aside, Saudi Arabia's leaders are way ahead of the US and many other governments on planning for a post-carbon-energy world. That is long-term planning, and does deserve some respect.
Perhaps the Saudis should not have made frakking a profitable exercise by pushing up the oil price to $150/barrel. Greed got them in this situation. The Saudis created their own monsters.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Who is an 'ally'?
Someone who help us when we need their help, or someone who backstab us whenever they got the chance?
The Saudis have backstabbed America many, many times --- 9/11 is only one of the more glaring ones
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
So far the 'characters' we have gotten are the 'donkeys', those who took part in the act, but we have yet to apprehend any of those who have bankrolled and/or sponsored the terrorist act
There was a 'summit' organized by the '9/11 donkeys' in Kuala Lumpur of Malaysia and over there they discussed the procedures of the attacks
That 'summit' was sponsored by the government of Malaysia - an islamic government which has been sponsoring many islamic terrorist organization, since the 1980's
So far, none of the characters from the Malaysian government has been apprehended for the 9/11 incident, and we should go find out who is responsible for what and carry out the prosecution accordingly
As for your accusation 'syndicate of thugs', them islamists are the syndicate of thugs, not us
We did not bomb their Mecca, nor their Kuala Lumpur
They bombed us
It's pay back time and we must make sure that those who are responsible will get whatever they deserve
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You need to get a Calendar and some history books, because the US Politicians have been in bed with the Saudis since I was a kid in the 70s. Oddly we have a "travel at your own risk" warning for anyone going there, they are one of the most oppressive tyrannies on Earth, have a worse human rights record than China and close to the DPRK, and have a history of undercutting US businesses attempting to compete in the Oil business.
Did we know about the Saudis and 9/11? Well the Government gave people a fairy tale and the public eats it up. Nobody wants to believe that their own government would fuck them over, so the delusion is incredible. The brain washing around the event is still very strong, with the populace having an irrationally strong emotional reaction to any mention of 9/11, FDNY, or the Twin Towers.
Be prepared for nothing to happen and nothing to change. Remember, if you question anything the Government tells you about anything related to 9/11 you are a "Conspiracy theorist". (queue the *dun dun dun* music).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Buying US bonds and securities do not equate to "owning" the country. Foreign countries buying US bonds and securities do so because they are the most risk free and stable investments they can buy. But those investments are only safe and stable if they are on good terms with Washington. And this bill is non-sense. International terrorism will not be stopped by lawfare. The only ones who benefit from this bill in question are the lawyers who handle these types of lawsuits.
It's not just that. The Saudis and Turkey are the obvious supporters behind Daesh (ISIS) as well, and everyone with three working brain cells knows it. But everyone is so tied up with them that it took Putin of all people to point it out.
A 9/11 lawsuit would potentially bring all these ties to light as well, and open up a whole can of worms that would probably end with the Saudi ruling family on Interpols Most Wanted list.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
it really doesn't matter if the report is declassified, it's still a fake report.... It was an inside job, just look at what laws have been made possible due to 9/11.. a few thousands deaths is well the worth to the people who orchestrated it.. One big hint is the pulling(collapse) of building 7, it's just impossible to pull a building in a matter of hours (and it wasn't even hit by a plane).
Over three thousand people had perished in 9/11, and someone has to pay for the crime
Given the body count in both Afghanistan and Iraq (which, as was evident even when the war began, had fuck all to do with 9/11, but hey, collateral damage), it can be argued many people already have.
Yes. Every person who flies on an airplane in America pays for it, as well as every kid who is easier to recruit as a terrorist because we bombed countries rather than building schools in them.
Exactly, this is how Sanders and various other so-called "liberals" play their game. These people accomplish nothing, but they still win with their "feel good" bullshit.
It's not limited to one side; it's not just liberals. It is one basic tactic of politics, right up there with sponsoring bills to get referred to committee you know will never get passed, or telling different stories to your domestic population than you do at the negotiating table with a foreign nation, and crafting your agreements explicitly to let each of you pretend to your people that you agreed to different things.
Obama has made it a habit of failing to live up to his campaign promise...
To be fair, it isn't only Obama. By now, Americans ought to have caught on to the fact that all politicians promise way more than they can realistically achieve. and as a consequence, they will without fail disappoint people. Perhaps enough people are now tired of this situation and want to change it, but will inevitably take much more effort and cost everybody much more than they imagine. All of the part of the establishment will have to be dismantled in some way to allow something better to grow up and replace it; and the danger is that you either end up with the same old crap with a fresh layer of paint, or something worse - a dictatorship, maybe.
We see much the same in Europe - in UK, people are listening to a guy like Jeremy Corbyn - not a hugely charismatic fellow, and his support for EU is clearly lukewarm at best, but I think that very fact rings true with people, because they feel the same way: nobody likes EU a lot, but staying is still better than leaving. I don't get to vote in the American election, but if I may offer a bit of advice, it would be this: whatever you do, think carefully and realistically about it first. Breaking things in a fit of anger is easy, building them up again afterwards is most definitely not. And who knows, after thinking carefully, perhaps you still find that you need to break things - but then you will know why and how, and what to do after that.
To get back to the topic: how much of a chance does one man have against an establishment that most certainly doesn't want him to succeed? I don't really know another country where big business can steer the public opinion to such a degree that even those who would benefit from a new initiative like public healthcare, are turned against it. In a climate like that, how much could Obama actually achieve? I'm not the least surprised that he is now trying to ram as many executive orders down the establishment's throat as humanly possible; at least it will take whoever comes next a while to unravel, and who knows, maybe some of it will survive.
Oh, so you expect of every Syrian doctor to risk the lives of their families and kids for the greater good? I'm sure you would valiantly stay in a warzone and risk your kids being torn into pieces by a barrel bomb every day. But not everyone is as brave or as stupid as you, considering the Assad regime and its Russian allies have no qualms about leveling hospitals and ambulances from the sky.
Right, Germany should be "ashamed" of taking in doctors from Syria. We should force these people to go back into the war until they die.
This is not a question of wanting to do something. Germany (like most other countries) has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. This means that we cannot legally refuse helping refugees that arrive here. Neither can Austria, the US and 143 other countries. If we now refuse to honor that convention, it will for all practical purposes cease to exist.
Furthermore, I second that we do not really have a problem with the number of refugees in Germany. Temporary issues, yes, but in the long term this will not be a problem.
Obamacare is decidedly NOT socialist. It was based on the healthcare reform Mit Romney instituted in his state as governor, with enhancements suggested by the Heartland Foundation - one of the most far-right uber-capitalist "thinktanks" (actually lobyists) in the United States. The guys who lead the climate-denial brigade wrote that damn healthcare law.
Its as far removed from socialist as you can get - it's far right ultra-capitalist healthcare with some regulatory reform thrown in.
The amazing thing has been watching republicans fight tooth and nail against a law THEY WROTE - and demanded for years. They apparently stopped loving it the moment a democrat (and a black one at that) actually passed it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>Plenty of freedom fighters around the world and throughout history refrain from inciting terror among civilians.
There's probably nobody in the world who strikes more terror into the hearts of civilians than the US Military. There's a reason Noam Chomsky keeps pointing out that the unwritten part of the FBI's definition of "terrorism" must be "unless it's us doing it".
The Iraqi Kurds cheering at the site of American forces and jets since the first Gulf war being a notable exception.
The Iraq civilian death toll is well over a hundred thousand.
Saddam executed a deliberate genocide of Iraqi Kurds long before that, with an estimated 150-350 thousand killed. And those were not collateral casualties due to the use of human shields or suicide bombings by the Kurdish resistance. Those were civilians loaded unto buses to be shot in the desert and burried by bulldozer.
Saddam committed a second genocide at the end of the first Gulf War as Bush listened to chaps like yourself and stopped short of marching in Iraq. American forces were ordered to stand down and watch as Saddam's gunships led the charge that would kill another estimated 100+ thousand civilians.
Apologies, I know that context messes with your agenda.
Nobody even knows exactly how many people have been killed by drones in Pakistan but we do know that a lot of them were civilians - often civilians who just happened to park next to a target that may or may not be a legitimate target (we can't really tell if they are because we don't get to know who they are).
I'll tell you what people do know about the number of people killed in Pakistan. The TTP(Pakistani Taliban) kill 100 plus Pakistanis for every life lost in drone strikes. The number of Al Qaida and Taliban leaders killed by drone strikes is also too long to include here, but notably has more than once knocked off the head leader of the Pakistani Taliban in Baitullah Mehsud(2009) and Hakimullah Mehsud(2013). Baitullah also being a top suspect for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto if we are to keep track of dead 'good' and 'bad' guys.
How many civilians got killed in Libya?
Gaddafi had declared his intention to end the Arab spring uprisings in Libya by "hunting the cockroaches down house by house" and his military advance was within a single city of seizing the control required to implement his promised genocide. Finally at the urging of the Arab League the world(not the US) agreed to act and aborted Gaddafi's genocide of his people.
Or you know, tell it your way and blame the dead Libyan's on the fact things weren't all roses after the genocide was blocked.
Your abject ignorance of all context to the tragedies you reference is growing tiresome.
If someone can explain why a building that was not hit by a 747 collapsed in the same manner as the two that were, I will gladly fold my tinfoil hat into a cup and drink the kool-aid.
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
Odd how Obama-care has done the exact OPPOSITE of bankrupting private insurance or destroying the health system. Having millions more people actually able to GET healthcare is the opposite of destruction and as for the insurance companies - they've been raking it in and scoring record profits under this newly regulated regime.
If there is a reason to be critical of obamacare it's the one the liberals have: it was a giant hand-out to the insurance companies and you could achieve a lot more a lot cheaper if you just did medicaid for all.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *