Obama Bows To Saudi King, Again

Because it's never too early to start thinking about funding that presidential library. And we are the new best-est friends of the Muslim world, after all.

Unfortunately, 9/11 families are none to pleased with the actions of Obama's DOJ. The New York Times has more. Given that the Bush family has been accused of being too close to the Saudis, is it safe to say this is simply Obama taking another page from Bush? What's more, will Obama endure the criticism and calls of conspiracy Bush might have had it been his DOJ? ... Yeah, right.

(CBS/AP) Relatives of Sept. 11 victims say they're angry that the Justice Department is supporting the Saudi royal family's bid to be removed from a 9/11 lawsuit. The families of some victims have accused the royal family of financially backing terror groups that carried out the 2001 attack.

Comments

[lonetown]

What I would like to know is - Where are the four harpies from the 911 families that were so indignant and so often quoted? You know, the ones Richard Clarke apologized to to try an exonerate himself.

[katablog.com]

That explains that big bling the Saudi King gave him.

[lala]

"I was interviewed by the BBC last October and found myself in a half-hour shouting match because I dared to use the President’s middle name." Gary Bauer

[IslamoLlama]

Uh oh. The wingers are getting riled up again. Time to settle things the conservative way.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31113865/
"--
SALT LAKE CITY - Federal prosecutors have charged a man with making threats against President Barack Obama after he allegedly told a bank employee in Utah he was on a mission to kill the president.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on its Web site Thursday that Daniel James Murray allegedly made the remark to a teller at a bank in St. George on May 27 as he withdrew $13,000 from an account.
--"

Lock and load. It's time to go gun nuts crazy over Obama for perceived favoritism without addressing the fact that under US Law the Saudi Royal Family can't be sued.

"--
The Justice Department filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. It supports the Saudis' argument that the royal family as a sovereign state cannot be sued in a U.S. court.

"The lower courts correctly concluded that Saudi Arabia and its officials are immune from suit for governmental acts outside the United States," wrote Solicitor General Elena Kagan. "Although the United States disagrees in certain respects with the analysis of the court of appeals, further review by this Court to determine the best legal basis for that immunity is unwarranted."

The brief also disputes the litigants claims that their lawsuit falls within acceptable parameters of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which grants immunity to foreign officials performing their duties but also allows exceptions for certain noncommercial claims involving injuries "occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of [the] foreign state."
--"

Damn you, Obama! For following the law!
Perhaps the Republicans would like to get on this issue by going about retroactively repealing or rewriting the FSIA. Any bills pending before Congress on that?

No?

Nothin'?

Better luck next time, wingers.

[lala]

Two statements that have nothing to do with each other.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Damn you, Obama! For following the law!"
I get your sarcasm but it is misplaced. The Justice Department is not so much following the law but choosing to accept that the Saudi government's action of supporting terrorists monetarily does not fall within the exceptions for FSIA. By so doing, the administration is denying a test case of the FSIA exception. Is that favoritism? Sure looks like it. I suppose if Bush had done this you would have hiked up your skirts and been stomping all over the place.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The Justice Department is not so much following the law but choosing to accept that the Saudi government's action of supporting terrorists monetarily does not fall within the exceptions for FSIA. --"

By accepting a ruling issued in the lower courts.

And the DoJ isn't even getting to decide the case. They're simply issuing a brief with the SCOTUS stating that they can't find anything wrong with the lower court rulings. If the SCOTUS wants to hear the case and feels that some Constitutional issue has been overlooked, then that is well within their purview.

But blaming the Justice Department for - what? - agreeing with a court decision because it doesn't "punish" foreign officials properly? When a domestic company has a $300 billion claim on the line and the DoJ decides to railroad a case through in its favor, that would be less favoritism?

This isn't about bringing anyone to justice, it's about an insurance company pursuing a liability claim. You'd think Osama bin Laden's head was on the line here the way Dan words it.