On Monday, the White House made clear President Obama’s intention to veto a bill making its way through the Senate, which would clear the way for families of victims of 9/11 to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia in relation to the terrorist attacks.
The bipartisan bill, which hasn’t yet come to the Senate floor, has ignited threats from the Saudi government and further strained already tense ties for the long-standing Petrodollar alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
As we reported previously, the Saudis have warned the Obama administration that if the bill becomes law, the Kingdom would sell off its U.S. treasury holdings estimated to be worth three-quarter of a trillion dollars. The Saudis are the third largest holders of U.S. debt in the world behind China and Japan and a sudden divestment would inevitably rock the dollar as well as global markets.
“Given the long list of concerns I have expressed . . . it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which the president would sign the bill as it’s currently drafted,” said White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, according to The Hill newspaper.
“A country with a modern and large economy like Saudi Arabia would not benefit from a destabilized global financial market, and neither would the United States.”
Missing from his statement is any semblance of humanity, given the thousands of victims that were killed in the 9/11 attacks.
While perhaps neither nation would economically benefit from the truth behind the attacks being revealed, the families of the victims certainly believe that a proper accounting of the events that transpired, and resulted in their loved one's deaths, is necessary.
The families of the victims have come forward to express their “distress” that the Obama administration is working to undermine the legislation.
"Your place in history should not be marked by a campaign to foreclose the judicial process as a venue in which the truth can be found," more than a dozen relatives of Sept. 11 victims wrote to President Barack Obama.
"It is not acceptable ... to succumb to the demands of a foreign government that we abandon principles of American justice while we pursue our diplomatic goals," the families wrote.
Recommended for You
The White House claims disingenuously that it opposes the bill because it could risk exposing Americans overseas to legal risks.
"If we open up the possibility that individuals in 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 News.
This assessment by Obama seems to be a very nuanced answer, as the bill before Congress pertains only to revoking immunity of those suspected of connection to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.
If other nations followed the lead of this bill, then the only Americans truly at risk would be those who have carried out attacks on foreign soil covertly (ie U.S. sponsored terrorism).
Obama understands that he can’t allow the numerous American regime change operations and false flags missions undertaken by the CIA on foreign soil to come before the light of public scrutiny.
What's that they say about chickens coming home to roost?
[author title="" image="https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/686105769691885568/ZXxXjzO2.jpg"]Jay Syrmopoulos is a political analyst, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay's work has been published on Ben Swann's Truth in Media, Truth-Out, Raw Story, MintPress News, as well as many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu.[/author]