A woman whose husband was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia Friday, two days after Congress passed a law allowing Americans to sue foreign governments over their alleged roles in terror attacks.

Stephanie DeSimone filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. Her husband, Navy Cdr. Patrick Dunn, was killed when American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. DeSimone, then known as Stephanie Dunn, was two months pregnant with the couple's first child.

DeSimone's lawsuit, which was first reported by Bloomberg, alleges that the Saudi government provided material support to Al Qaeda and its leader, Usama bin Laden. She is seeking unspecified damages for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who commandeered passenger flights to use in the attack were Saudi. 

On Wednesday, both houses of Congress overwhelmingly overrode President Obama's veto of the bill, which allows families sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurred inside U.S. borders.

The following day, Republican leaders acknowledged the law may have been flawed, with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., saying "there may be some work to be done" to make sure it doesn't lead to U.S. service members overseas being sued.

The White House had warned that it could have a chilling effect on Saudi Arabia's cooperation with the U.S. in fighting terrorism. Senior national security officials also argued that it could trigger lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role.

But top lawmakers said the White House didn't press those warnings until it was too late and the popular bill was already barreling its way through Congress. Other lawmakers acknowledged that they didn't pay much attention to the bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/02/sept-11-widow-sues-saudi-arabia-days-after-congressional-override.html

Ugh, the one time I agree with the bozo in the White House, Congress over rides his veto. This is going to create a lot of problems for us and now we and our service men and women are open to be sued by the foreign countries they are in.

Not to mention Saudi Arabia is a key ally against Iran!

Not to mention Saudi Arabia is a key ally against Iran?

Do you think they will be, after this? I thought we were at war with TERROR, not the country of Iran.

Why Lp? Why do you agree with Obama on this bill? I do too, but tell us why.

Let's check the parts we know to be true.

The White House HAD warned, yes they did release a statement well before the veto. This has been talked about before the recent release of the 28 pages from the 9/11 commission report. One could argue this was the sole purpose for not only the release of the 28 pages but the redaction of them in the first place. We all want what we can't have. 15/19 was told in the days after the event, it wasn't some missing piece of any puzzle anyone personally affected by the event so why would congress have to have waited to grant the already present means of redress for those who ENJOY diplomatic immunity? Does this or any concurrent lawsuit differ from any DIPLOMAT who committed a violent crime? Except for the fact that neither Osama nor any of the 15 or all 19 WERE NOT DIPLOMATS? Or were they? Seriously START ASKING QUESTIONS. Not just you Lp.

The law may have been flawed? Bit of an understatement. As Obama said in his town hall, many legislators HAD NOT EVEN READ THE BILL OR KNEW WHST WAS IN IT. Really? Really.

"there may be some work to be done" to make sure it doesn't lead to U.S. service members overseas being sued. This work WAS done. It is called a VETO. It was followed by more work called a Press conference explaining the VETO, and why it was done. Exactly why it was done which would be " to make sure it doesn't lead to U.S. service members overseas being sued" in reciprocal lawsuits.

Senior national security officials also argued that it could trigger lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role. So it wasn't JUST the White House making the warnings, it was the cabinet, the media, the CONTENT OF THE BILL THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ BEFORE ANY, YEA OR NAY, ANY VOTE WAS CAST ON THIS BILL. Apparently what the House thought we thought we would be thinking about what they thought we thought they voted on what they thought they were voting on this bill come November 8th was more important than what was in the bill itself (if that sounds crazy read it slower and blame Congress for their stupidity).

'could trigger lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role.' ....
Don't say a word Congress. Just think your answers silently in your head repeatedly until... forever.
How many.... Don't even think it. IF you thought about anything aside from ELECTION DAY when you voted on this I kindly refer you to the INTERNET, where not only voters tell you what we think about a bill, what may or may not happen if the bill passed or failed, and the validity of the proposed bill in general.
If that is too much work for you, READ THE DAMN BILL. If you don't have time to comprehend the contents and implications of the Bill, basic civics and reading comprehension classes are offered at community colleges everywhere. You also have the AUTHOR of the bill that should have titled it the FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE ISLACALYPSE Bill. You might also want to look into the physical evidence of 9/11, which should have been the KEY EVIDENCE for any argument for or against passage of this bill. The case is somewhat cold but fear not, there are thousands of PILOTS, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS that are MORE THAN WILLING to present whatever EVIDENCE OR EXPERT ANALYSIS of any part of the event you are unclear on. That would be about 95% of the event but that work has already been done.

"But top lawmakers said the White House didn't press those warnings until it was too late and the popular bill was already barreling its way through Congress. Other lawmakers acknowledged that they didn't pay much attention to the bill."

You mean press as in press release, press conference, in the press room by the Press Secretary? Tell us then, how was it that this bill became ''popular''? Could that mean present in the minds of the populace? Pressing issue amongst your constituents and or lobbyists? 4 Americans lose their lives in Benghazi and government grinds to a halt to focus all it's time and effort to investigate into oblivion what congress was clearly unqualified to prosecute only to follow with redundancy every strand of rabbit hair dropped by everyone Hillary ever knew but HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF US SERVICEMEN AND WOMEN are put on the line by your complete ineptitude to basically THE WORLD AND EVERY GOVERNMENT AND COURTHOUSE IN IT and WE now are legally culpable for YOUR ACTIONS, below the level of COMMANDING OFFICER all troops followed orders and mission briefs handed or verbally commanded in keeping with the OATH WE SWORE to SERVE AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION FROM ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. WE are tired of hearing the LIE that there was bad intelligence. The bad intelligence was in the halls of congress, in house committees, and other lateral official and non official U.S. and international Aencies and could councils. If you want to honor the victims families and their legitimate claims there is scant need to litigate diplomats as the suits promulgated by this vomitous projection of law. There are plenty of camel droppings to burn in the middle east, the reams of poison fruit tree paper these suits are printed on are not necessary. And dduring this unspecified period of time when ''other lawmakers'' were not paying attention to the bill that was so ''popular'' what the hell were they doing? Playing pokemon go? Digging a hole to bury Clintons evidence and Trump untaxed income for 18 years? Breaking voting machines, breaking then last minute fixing the primaries? Fund raising and eradication? Selling Wells Fargo stock? Touring dumpster fires in Chelsea and Seaside Park? Bombings, that couldn't destroy a trashcan? I do realize that you are busy people, but really? What the hell was SO important to you that you couldn't DO YOUR WELL PAID JOBS? That you couldn't take 5 minutes to glean the grounds wherein such lawsuits could be filed? What happened to that loyalty to NATO or UN allies or the constituency en masse? A very accessible sidebar with foreign policy and national security members? God forbid you listen to thr president or respect his VERY REASONABLE action and explantation of why he vetoed the bill in the first place, EXACTLY what he told you he may very well do depending on the CONTENT OF THE BILL before it ever reached his desk.

Poor laut Ryan... Yep, you got some work to do. The destupification of the House. Step 1, find every copy of the NIST reports, put 10 in a box in the Smithsonian filed under 'blunders' and start over from scratch this time don't consult anyone involved in the original investigation, prosecute all suspect people ( every NIST report and 9/11 commission contributor), they ALL perjuerd themselves before congress.

Honestly Lpdon, tell us why you disagree with the passage of this Bill. mI'm pissed of at Congress, not you. People need to talk about this.

"Courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurred inside U.S. borders."


cant wait to see the fallout from this one. Dresden'ers, take a number and stand in line! LOL

Wait a sec, if any reciprocal lawsuits come from the Saudis or other U.S. opposition and the judge finds in their favor, would it be the military the judge or those who voted for the Bill that would be on the hook for whatever the fine is? Would that also be seen as giving aid or comfort to the enemy?