Obama Just Vetoed A Bill That Would Allow Families of 9/11 Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

September 24, 2016, 3:51 PM EDT

President Barack Obama rejected a bill Friday that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, arguing it undermined national security and setting up the possibility Congress may override his veto for the first time in his presidency.

Obama’s move escalates the fight over an emotional issue that has overlapped with the campaign debate over terrorism and the Middle East. The bill had sailed through both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support, clearing the final hurdle just days before the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

The president said the bill, which doesn’t refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, could backfire by opening up the U.S. government and its officials to lawsuits by anyone accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly.

“I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,” Obama wrote to the Senate in a veto message about the bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. But, he said, “the JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly.”

Declassified 9/11 Report Shows Possible Saudi Ties

Congress is determined to try to overturn the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. Previous attempts to overturn Obama’s vetoes have all been unsuccessful.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said an override would pass in the Republican-controlled House. Yet the Senate would be the greater challenge. After furious lobbying to try to peel off supporters, the White House said Friday it was unclear whether enough had defected to avert an override.

With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign, a vote could come early next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office said the Senate would vote “as soon as practicable in this work period.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat and a traditional Obama ally, came out swinging against Obama while predicting lawmakers would reverse it “swiftly and soundly.”

“The families of the victims of 9/11 deserve their day in court, and justice for those families shouldn’t be thrown overboard because of diplomatic concerns,” Schumer said.

Hillary Clinton Has the Best Solution to Homegrown Terrorism

A coalition of 9/11 victims’ families, meanwhile, said they were “outraged and dismayed.” In a response circulated by their lawyers, the families insisted the bill would deter terrorism, “no matter how much the Saudi lobbying and propaganda machine may argue otherwise.”

Though the concept of sovereign immunity generally shields governments from lawsuits, the bill creates an exception that allows foreign governments to be held responsible if they support a terrorist attack that kills U.S. citizens on American soil. Opponents say that’s a slippery slope considering that the U.S. is frequently accused wrongly by its foes of supporting terrorism.

“Americans are in countries all over the world,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican, wrote Friday in a letter urging colleagues to support a veto. “Many of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as ours.”

Fifteen of the 19 men who carried out 9/11 were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court for any role elements of Saudi Arabia’s government may have played. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, strongly objected to the bill.

Obama long had objected, too, warning that foreign countries might reciprocate by dragging American government, diplomats and military members before courts. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a difficult yet strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis to counter Iran’s influence in the Middle East and help combat the spread of terrorism.

Since the bill’s passage, the White House has lobbied aggressively to persuade lawmakers to withdraw support, and found some sympathetic listeners. The bill had passed by voice vote—meaning lawmakers didn’t have to go on the record with their positions—and the White House was hoping the prospect of a recorded vote would lead some Democrats to reconsider publicly rebuking their president.

Debate about the bill has spilled onto the presidential campaign trail, as candidates vie to appear tough on terrorism. The issue is one of a few where Democrat Hillary Clinton, who supports the bill, has publicly disagreed with Obama. Trump, too, backs it, and said Obama’s veto was “shameful and will go down as one of the low points of his presidency.”

What the World’s Biggest Leaders Learned on 9/11

The bill had triggered a perceived threat by Saudi Arabia to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy if it was enacted. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir said in May the kingdom never issued threats, but had merely warned that investor confidence in the U.S. would shrink if the bill became law.

The House vote on Sept. 9 came two months after Congress released 28 declassified pages from a congressional report into 9/11. The pages reignited speculation over links that at least a few of the attackers had to Saudis, including government officials. The allegations were never substantiated by later U.S. investigations.

Joe Biden Says Chances of Congress Passing the TPP Are Slim

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

September 22, 2016, 2:39 AM EDT

Vice President Joe Biden said on Wednesday that he sees a “less than even chance” that the U.S. Congress approves the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact before the next administration takes office in January.

Biden, speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said that the brief “lame duck” session of Congress after the Nov. 8 presidential election was “our only real shot” for approving TPP.

The sweeping trade deal has been a central plank in President Barack Obama’s foreign policy shift to counter the rising economic and military might of China, and has been broadly supported by U.S. business interests.

But the TPP is opposed by both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, who have blamed trade deals for U.S. job losses.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has said the TPP would not get a Senate vote this year, and House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan has said he does not see enough votes for it to pass.

See also: Here’s What Jack Ma Thinks American Voters are Getting Wrong

“Sometimes when there’s no election to face and people are leaving and others who are staying, they may see the wisdom of TPP,” said Biden, who was a long-time Democratic senator, calling the post-election session “our only real shot” at passing the deal.

“But it’s going to be hard. I think it’s less than an even chance, but there is a genuine chance. It’s possible we can get it passed,” Biden said.

U.S. Congressional Panel to Hold Fuel Rules Hearing

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

September 15, 2016, 3:07 PM EDT

A congressional panel will hold a hearing on Sept. 22 to look at the fate of U.S. fuel efficiency rules through 2025 amid growing concerns from automakers.

An auto trade group representing General Motors Co. gm , Ford Motor Co. f , Toyota Motor Corp, Daimler AG and Volkswagen AG vlkay has said with lower gasoline prices it would be difficult to meet the requirements. Sales of less fuel-efficient trucks and SUVs have risen as gas prices have fallen.

U.S. regulators must decide by 2018 on whether the 2022 through 2025 model year requirements are feasible or should be changed.

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing Thursday that will include testimony from U.S. regulators and auto trade groups.

“We need to know if these standards are impacting vehicle choices, raising prices, and most importantly whether they are pushing low-income consumers out of the car-buying market altogether,” said Representatives Michael Burgess and Pete Olson, both Republicans of Texas, in a joint statement.

Check out Monterey Car Week’s Hottest Concepts in 2016:

In July, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said automakers have the technology to meet aggressive mandates to hike fuel efficiency by 2025, but the fleet-wide improvement will not be as great as the Obama administration once forecast because buyers are switching to pickup trucks and SUVs.

When the Obama administration first outlined its goal of boosting average fleet fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon in 2011, regulators forecast that 67 percent of vehicles sold in 2025 would be cars.

Since then, gasoline prices have plummeted and truck and SUV sales have surged. The agencies forecast cars will be between 48 percent and 62 percent of the mix. Regulators now estimate the fleet will average 50 to 52.6 mpg in 2025.

Automakers are not required to achieve the target average. Instead, the government’s complex scorekeeping system allows them to hit different targets for different sizes of vehicles—with larger trucks and SUVs allowed to achieve lower targets than small cars.

Cars and trucks account for 42 percent of total U.S. oil consumption, or about 8 million barrels a day.

Why Mitch McConnell Should Move Ahead on the Pacific Trade Deal

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

September 12, 2016, 6:11 AM EDT

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell announced recently that Congress would not take up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement this year. Considering all the benefits the 12-nation trade deal would offer, this would be a mistake. Here are four reasons why McConnell should reconsider:

Safeguarding America’s stake in Asia

China is expanding its influence in the Asia-Pacific region through its “One Belt, One Road” initiative and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, pouring funds into not only a number of TPP signatories, but also countries that have expressed an interest in joining the agreement. In this environment, maintaining U.S. military presence in Asia is not enough. The TPP is the best tool available for the U.S. to offset China’s initiatives without starting a shooting war.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has called the TPP “probably one of the most important parts of America’s rebalance” to Asia, and that “in terms of our rebalance in the broadest sense, TPP is as important to me as another aircraft carrier.” Other respected national security voices also agree on the TPP’s importance to America’s national security, including former secretaries of state and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The TPP is not just about lowering foreign trade barriers for American exports. (U.S. trade and investment barriers are already low, but tariffs and other trade and investment barriers in a number of the other TPP signatories—such as Vietnam and Malaysia—are considerably higher.) The agreement will also enhance cooperation and deepen economic relationships across the Pacific—a point President Obama emphasized during his meetings with heads of state in Asia this week. It establishes mechanisms for cooperation in new areas, such as enhancing digital trade, promoting international labor rights, building capacity to enforce environmental laws and conservation programs, and regulating commercial competition from state-owned enterprises.

Boosting the U.S. economy

The government’s independent U.S. International Trade Commission found that the TPP would add tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy over the next 15 years from the agreement’s reductions in trade tariffs and quotas for U.S. exports. This calculation does not even take into account the deal’s new rules concerning trade in services, software, and cutting-edge IT products, where the U.S. is most competitive.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics puts the gains even higher, estimating that the “TPP will increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion, or 0.5 percent of GDP, and annual exports by $357 billion, or 9.1 percent of exports, over baseline projections by 2030, when the agreement is nearly fully implemented.” The fastest rate of future economic growth is in Asia, where the TPP provides new market access for American goods and services. These benefits should not be passed up.

Constructing 21^st century trading rules

Existing agreements were negotiated over two decades ago, when e-commerce was not a significant factor in world trade. They are now inadequate. Though new rules are needed, the 160 members of the World Trade Organization are divided on how or even whether to create them.

The TPP can be America’s first major step in updating international trading rules and setting a high standard for future agreements. Other potential trade agreements, such as Asia’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, do not contain the same positive disciplines that the TPP does, such as preventing interference with the flow of data across borders, establishing greater transparency, regulating the conduct of government-owned commercial competitors, or raising labor standards.

Maintaining credibility

No government will readily enter into economic negotiations with the U.S. if Congress does not approve the TPP. Congress knew most of what is in the TPP when it voted last year to give Obama a mandate to sign the agreement, after which Congress would consider and vote on it without amendment. Given that Congress willingly paved the way for concluding the TPP negotiation, it needs to work with the administration urgently to resolve any remaining issues and schedule a vote for just after the U.S. presidential election.

The next administration should harbor no illusions that it will find willing trading partners to negotiate a better deal over the next few years. Instead, America’s international economic and strategic interests will suffer as the country struggles to maintain its international leadership.

Alan Wm. Wolff served as a senior trade negotiator in Republican and Democratic administrations, is chairman of the National Foreign Trade Council, and is a senior counsel with the Washington DC office of Dentons.

Here’s Why Zika Funding Is Stalled in Congress—Again

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

September 7, 2016, 5:20 AM EDT

This article originally appeared on Time.com.

Correction appended, Sept. 6, 2016

The U.S. Senate came back on Tuesday from its longest summer recess in 60 years and the first thing it did was fail to pass a bill to address the growing Zika crisis.

The same bill failed twice earlier this summer due to partisan squabbling in an election year. Apparently, the arrival on the mainland of Zika-carrying mosquitos and the local infection thus far of 56 people in Florida alone in the past month has done little to move Washington’s entrenched positions.

“Before the work period, Senate Democrats filibustered funding to combat Zika … not once, but twice,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. “It’s hard to explain why, despite their own calls for funding, Senate Democrats decided to block a bill that would keep pregnant women and babies safer from Zika.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid responded minutes later: “Democrats pleaded with the Republicans to cut short the seven-week break and return to the Capitol in order to pass emergency Zika funding. Republicans said no, we’re going to stay home some more. And while the Republican Senate insisted on vacation, Zika spread to the mainland here in the United States.”

Seven months ago, President Obama requested $1.9 billion of emergency funding to address the coming crisis. In May, the Senate voted 89-8 on a $1.1 billion bill. The Republican-controlled House rejected that measure, and instead passed a bill of its own which added in a bunch of controversial ways to pay for the spending, taking money from Obamacare and Planned Parenthood. The measure would also weaken decades-oldpesticide restrictions to combat mosquitoes, a move Democrats oppose. Democrats have decried the provisions as poison pills—indeed they shut down the government in 2013 in order to protect Obamacare from such defunding and nearly shut it down again last year to avoid defunding Planned Parenthood.

Meanwhile, nearly 17,000 Americans have been infected with Zika, including 1,600 pregnant women and thus far 16 babies have been born with the birth defects caused by Zika. The Centers for Disease Control predict by the end of the year 25 percent of Puerto Rico’s population will be infected by Zika. That’s nearly a million people. And as of Sept. 30 the Administration has warned that their current funds available to fight Zika will be used up.

“The cupboard is bare,” CDC Director Thomas Frieden told reporters on Aug. 30. “Basically, we’re out of money, and we need Congress to act to allow us to respond effectively.”

Republicans lost Tuesday’s vote by 52-46; it needed to clear a 60-vote threshold to advance. McConnell’s staff says the conference will now meet to consider how to proceed. Democrats have said they are open to piggybacking the Zika funding—minus the poison-pill provisions—on a massive bill that must pass by Sept. 30 to continue funding the government and avoid a shutdown. But that bill has its own problems, with Reid warning that if Republicans continue to push for a longer funding bill—one that stretches into next spring—the government will shut down just weeks before the election. Democrats, anticipating large advances in the election, are keen to limit GOP influence in next year’s session. The first hundred days are key to a president’s first term and Democrats don’t want to handicap a potential Hillary Clinton presidency.

So, what will happen? Given the pressures faced by vulnerable members—and Republicans have a lot more of those than Democrats this cycle—the issue is likely to find some compromise in the coming weeks. What that will look like depends on how hard Democrats, and vulnerable Republicans, push their leaders and conservative flanks.

Here’s how that might play out. Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican, is in a close fight for reelection. His opponent, Democrat Rep. Patrick Murphy, as well as outside groups have been hitting Rubio all summer for his inaction on Zika. Rubio has a narrow lead of 5.7 percentage points, according to an aggregate of Pennsylvania polls done by RealClearPolitics. “Senator Rubio is putting the interests of extreme right-wing groups ahead of the women of Florida,” Sasha Bruce, senior vice president for campaigns and strategy at NARAL, a group that advocates for women’s reproductive rights, said in a statement releasing a television ad by the group hitting Rubio on Zika on Tuesday.

On Tuesday night, Rubio came to the Senate floor to call for passage of the funds, he urged Republicans to consider the Democratic suggestion of rolling the money into the government funding bill.

“Tonight, for the third time, the minority party, the Democrats in the Senate have blocked more funding to fight this virus. And I want to be frank, at times my own party has not taken the issue seriously enough either,” Rubio said. “My message to both parties and both chambers for this month is simple and straightforward: Zika is not a game. And if you think it is, then you should take your game somewhere else. This issue is about human beings, not political chess pieces, and we have a duty to solve it.”

The election pressures that created the funding impasse may end up spurring a solution too.

Correction: An earlier version of this story included a provision to reverse a House vote that bans the flying of Confederate flags in military cemeteries among the reasons the Zika legislation has stalled. That provision has since been removed.

The U.S. Government Is About to Buy 11 Million Pounds of Cheese

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

August 24, 2016, 9:08 AM EDT

The U.S. government is about to take care of America’s massive cheese problem.

The USDA is buying 11 million pounds—$20 million worth—of cheese to combat a 3o-year high cheese surplus which has led to a stalled marketplace and a 35% drop in revenues for dairy producers. This is the largest payment since the program started two years ago, the USDA reports.

The cheese will be distributed to food banks across the country and “provided to families in need across the country through USDA nutrition assistance programs,” according to the USDA.

The surplus led Congress, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau, and the National Milk Producers Federation to request that the USDA make the purchase.

“We understand that the nation’s dairy producers are experiencing challenges due to market conditions and that food banks continue to see strong demand for assistance,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

He continued: “This commodity purchase is part of a robust, comprehensive safety net that will help reduce a cheese surplus that is at a 30-year high while, at the same time, moving a high-protein food to the tables of those most in need. USDA will continue to look for ways within its authorities to tackle food insecurity and provide for added stability in the marketplace.”

This isn’t the first time the U.S. has reported a growing cheese-surplus problem. In April, cheese stockpiles were the highest since 1984—with more than half of it made up of American cheese.

Although the USDA projects dairy prices will increase throughout the rest of the year, low world market prices, increased milk production, and a slower demand have all contributed to the current surplus and resulting stagnant marketplace for dairy producers.

“By supporting a strong farm safety net, expanding credit options and growing domestic and foreign markets, USDA is committed to helping America’s dairy operations remain successful,” said Vilsack.

The USDA reported that it will continue to monitor market conditions and will evaluate additional actions if need be.

Appeals Court Bars Feds From Prosecuting Medical Marijuana Cases

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

August 17, 2016, 8:42 PM EDT

A federal appeals court told the U.S. Department of Justice this week that it can no longer prosecute cases against medical marijuana businesses where the defendants are compliant with relevant state laws.

The ruling on Tuesday by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco comes despite the fact that marijuana remains illegal in any form on the federal level. Last week, DOJ agency the Drug Enforcement Administration declined to change marijuana’s classification as a Schedule 1 drug—the category reserved for the most dangerous drugs, such as heroin, that the federal government claims have no known medical application.

While the marijuana industry’s legalization advocates may have been disappointed by the DEA’s decision—which, at the very least, did open the door slightly wider for additional research into marijuana as a medical treatment—the legal marijuana movement managed a small victory on Tuesday. The federal appeals court’s ruling followed the congressional passing of a budget rule two years ago barring the DOJ from putting federal funds toward obstructing medical marijuana operations in states with legal markets for the drug. The appeals court on Tuesday sided with defendants in 10 combined cases—dealing with marijuana dispensaries and growing operations in California and Washington—who argued to have federal charges against them dropped because their businesses were operating within the guidelines set by their respective states’ legal medical marijuana markets.

The Washington Post notes that the DOJ had previously interpreted Congress’ 2014 rule as meaning that the agency could still prosecute medical marijuana cases as long as it did not interfere with states’ rights to enact medical marijuana laws, but this week’s ruling suggests otherwise.

So far, 25 U.S. states, and the District of Columbia, have legalized medical marijuana, while four states have legal recreational marijuana markets. The legal marijuana market in the U.S. generated more than $5 billion in sales last year and industry analysts expect total revenue to soar in coming years as legalization spreads to more U.S. states. As many as 10 states could vote on marijuana legalization ballot measures this fall. Proponents in California, where medical marijuana has been legal for years, are widely expected to win passage of new legislation to legalize adult-use, or recreational, marijuana in November, which would easily create the country’s largest legal marijuana market.

Congressional Leaders Were Briefed a Year Ago on Hacking of Democrats

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

August 11, 2016, 8:40 PM EDT

U.S. intelligence officials told top congressional leaders a year ago that Russian hackers were attacking the Democratic Party, three sources familiar with the matter said on Thursday, but the lawmakers were unable to tell the targets about the hacking because the information was so secret.

The disclosure of the Top Secret information would have revealed that U.S. intelligence agencies were continuing to monitor the hacking, as well as the sensitive intelligence sources and the methods they were using to do it.

The material was marked with additional restrictions and assigned a unique codeword, limiting access to a small number of officials who needed to know that U.S. spy agencies had concluded that two Russian intelligence agencies or their proxies were targeting the Democratic National Committee, the central organizing body of the Democratic Party.

The National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies sometimes delay informing targets of foreign intelligence activities under similar circumstances, officials have said.

Why Hackers Can’t Rig the U.S. Election

The alleged hacking of the Democrats and the Russian connection did not become public until late last month when the FBI said it was investigating a cyber attack at the DNC. The DNC did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The congressional briefing was given last summer in a secure room called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, to a group of congressional leaders informally known as the “Gang of Eight,” the sources said.This group includes four Republicans: Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, and Senator Richard Burr and Representative Devin Nunes, the House and Senate intelligence committee chairs. Their Democratic counterparts are Senator Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the intelligence committees.

Ryan’s press secretary, AshLee Strong, declined to comment, and Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Pelosi on Thursday called the hacking an “electronic Watergate” and said the Russians were behind it.

For more on the DNC hack, watch:

DNC officials have said they did not learn about the hacking until months after the initial congressional briefing, when an agent from an FBI cybersecurity squad asked them last fall about the party’s data security arrangements.

Even then, the Democratic sources said, the FBI agent never mentioned that U.S. intelligence officials suspected that Russian hackers were targeting the organization.

The attack on the DNC later led the hackers to other party organizations, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which raises funds for House candidates, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and other groups.

The DCCC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Email Scammers Prefer “Trump” Over “Clinton” by a Huge Margin

The hackers initially used “spearphishing”—attacks on the private email accounts of dozens of people working for the organizations, several sources said.

One of the sources said the Clinton campaign first detected attacks on its data system in early March, and was given what the source described as a “general briefing” about it by the FBI later that month. The source said the FBI made no mention of a Russian connection in that briefing and did not say when the penetration first took place.

According to a memo obtained by Reuters, interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile said on Thursday she was creating a Cybersecurity Advisory Board “to ensure prevent future attacks and ensure that the DNC’s cybersecurity capabilities are best-in-class.”

One Area Where Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine Don’t See Eye to Eye

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

July 27, 2016, 1:18 PM EDT

For the many Americans concerned about Hillary Clinton’s tendency to support military intervention overseas, her selection of Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate could offer partial reassurance.

The Virginia Democrat, who sits on the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, has established a record in the Senate of advocating for restraining the president’s ability to make war without congressional consent.

Clinton, a former Secretary of State, has a national security record marred by her support for the invasion of Iraq, a position she has called a mistake, and for many critics by what seems a reflective tendency to back the use of force. She supported attacks on authoritarians such as Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

Kaine, who is set to speak Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, won’t satisfy anyone who wants the United States’ penchant for military intervention fully reversed. How much influence he’d wield as vice president is uncertain. He is not Clinton’s opposite. He is a cautious politician who keeps his views within striking distance of the mainstream Washington consensus.

But Kaine’s support for military restraint represents a rare area where his views diverge sharply from Clinton’s.

He has established a record as a sort of procedural dove. He has advocated for more congressional power to check the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally wage war. As the Obama administration considered and engaged in military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, Kaine argued that each intervention required approval from Congress.

He has rejected the administration’s claims that an Authorization of Military Force passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks permits any action by U.S. military forces to combat terrorism.

“I remain deeply concerned about the open-ended nature of the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Kaine said in a statement summarizing his efforts on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

That stance directly contradicts Clinton’s. She said during her presidential campaign that the 2001 authorization “certainly” permits violence against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Kaine worked with Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee on legislation giving Congress a role in approving the administration’s nuclear deal with Iran. He partnered with Sen. John McCain of Arizona in proposing that Congress beef up the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires presidents to consult with Congress on the use of force, a policy White Houses often ignore.

Such positions, usually taken with a Republican co-sponsor, have won the Virginia senator praise from GOP colleagues.

Kaine’s calls for consulting Congress, to be sure, can be a bit of dodge. They leave his view on whether specific military actions should occur a bit murky.

In a 2014 Washington Post op-ed urging the White House to seek congressional approval to act against ISIS, for instance, Kaine did not say if he thought Congress should okay a new authorization.

“I’m open to hearing the case for military action in Iraq, but first we need a new playbook,” Kaine wrote.

Despite such hedging, Kaine’s arguments have a clear upshot. Less war. Presidents enjoy a virtually free hand now to intervene militarily overseas. If they followed Kaine’s call to seek congressional authorization each time, their power would be reduced, making use of force harder and less frequent. Kaine knows that.

“Ultimately, the allocation of war powers is based on a value,” he wrote in the same Washington Post op-ed. “The nation should not send U.S. service members into harm’s way unless there is a consensus among the civilian leadership — executive and legislative — that the mission is worth it. Ordering people to risk their lives without Washington doing the work necessary to reach a political consensus is immoral.”

It is not yet clear if Kaine would curtail Clinton’s hawkishness. There is also no guarantee the senator, who reversed his position on the Trans Pacific Partnership when Clinton selected him as her running mate, would maintain his support for congressional power from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue. The shift in office certainly helped alter Obama’s view on seeking congressional approval.

Vice President Joe Biden underwent a similar shift. “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war,” he argued in 2007, “unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked.” In the White House, Biden dropped that view.

But unlike Obama and Biden in 2007, Kaine is already arguing with a president from his own party on the matter. While he’d presumably be a team player under Clinton, his record on urging congressional authorization would be hard to abandon.

If she wins, decisions of war and peace would be determined ultimately by Clinton, but it’s a good bet Kaine would ben a internal advocate against war.

Declassified 9/11 Report Shows Possible Saudi Ties

by
The Associated Press

@FortuneMagazine

July 16, 2016, 9:13 AM EDT

The U.S. Congress on Friday released a long-classified section of the official report on the Sept. 11 attacks describing an array of potential links between some of the hijackers and officials in Saudi Arabia.

The 28 pages of the report on the 2002 investigation focus on potential Saudi government ties to the 2001 aircraft attacks on the United States, in which nearly 3,000 people died.

The report said the alleged links had not been independently verified.

The pages were released by the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee after years of wrangling in Washington between Congress and different administrations, Republicans and Democrats, and urging by families of those killed.

“The matter is now finished,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told a news conference in Washington. Asked whether the report exonerated the kingdom, he replied: “Absolutely.”

The release of the previously classified pages is unlikely to end the controversy over the role of Saudi Arabia, an important U.S. partner in the Middle East. Many U.S. officials who opposed their release had worried they would damage diplomatic relations.

Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi citizens.

“According to various FBI documents and CIA memorandum, some of the September 11 hijackers, while in the United States, apparently had contacts with individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government,” the report said, giving a catalog of alleged links.

They included reported contacts between Saudis in California, money possibly sent from the Saudi royal family to the hijackers and even a statement that a reported Saudi Interior Ministry official stayed at the same Virginia hotel as one hijacker in September 2001.

One section said Omar al-Bayoumi, said to be a Saudi intelligence officer, met with two hijackers at a public place after they arrived in San Diego. Citing Federal Bureau of Investigation files, it said his salary rose to $3,700 a month from $465 two months after two of the hijackers arrived in California.

Another described how two of the hijackers asked flight attendants technical questions during a trip in 1999 from Phoenix to Washington to attend a party at the Saudi embassy. One tried twice to enter the cockpit. The plane made an emergency landing and the FBI investigated, but did not prosecute.

The newly declassified pages also say a telephone number found in a telephone book of Abu Zubaydah, a Saudi-born al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan, was for a Colorado corporation that managed the affairs of the residence of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to Washington.

LAWSUITS AHEAD?

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said its agreement to the release is not an indication that the intelligence community agrees with the pages’ accuracy or concurs with the information it contains.

The office also on Friday released a declassified summary of an assessment of whether Riyadh may have supported al Qaeda before and after the attacks, saying the Saudi government and many of its agencies had been infiltrated and exploited by individuals associated with or sympathetic to Osama bin Laden’s militant network.

Several members of Congress said they were pleased the pages had finally been released. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, said he hoped the release would quiet rumors.

“The Intelligence Community and the 9/11 Commission, which followed the Joint Inquiry that produced these so-called 28 pages, investigated the questions they raised and was never able to find sufficient evidence to support them,” he said.

Legislation that would allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, was passed unanimously by the U.S. Senate and is making its way through the House, despite President Barack Obama’s veto threat.

“While the pages do not reach a conclusion regarding Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks, they provide more than enough evidence to raise serious concerns,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. His state was home to many people killed when planes hit the World Trade Center in neighboring New York.

Sept. 11 families made clear the pages’ release would not stop their push for the legislation. “Congress has to stand up for the interests of the thousands of innocent Americans who lost loved ones on 9/11,” one group said in a statement.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters before the pages were released that they would show no evidence of Saudi complicity.

The Obama administration sent a declassified version of the 28 pages, with many lines and sentences blacked out to protect intelligence sources and methods, to Congress on Friday morning. The House intelligence panel released it a few hours later.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy, Mark Hosenball, Roberta Rampton, Amanda Becker; Editing by James Dalgleish and Tom Brown)

Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
22
«

Want the Full Story?