| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Congressmen want Saudi Accountability Act |
| 2003-12-28 |
| The Saudi Arabia Accountability Act was introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate and is currently in committee. The bill seeks to place sanctions against the kingdom for not cooperating with the United States in the war on terror. "The reality is the kingdom is in a daily battle against terrorism and has cooperated fully with the United States in combating terrorism," says the Saudi-American Forum. Saudi Arabia has been praised for its efforts from President Bush and numerous high-ranking officials. This accountability bill only seeks to damage the U.S.-Saudi relationship and to impair the U.S.’s ability to effectively work with its allies, maintains the Forum in a press release. Weakening our partnership in the war on terror will make Americans less safe, says the Forum, which asks that voters, "Please tell your Member of Congress and Senators your opinion on the continued effort to castigate a critical partner in America’s war on terrorism." On Nov. 18, 2003, Sen. Arlen Specter. R-Pa., introduced the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2003. The bill was later introduced in the House on Nov. 21, 2003, by Rep. Anthony D. Weiner, D-N.Y. This bill, says the Forum, seeks to place sanctions on Saudi Arabia unless the president makes a certification that Saudi Arabia is making maximum effort to fight terrorism. If a certification is not made, according to the bill, the president should take the following actions: # Prohibit export to Saudi Arabia of any defense articles or services listed on the Arms Export Control Act. # Prohibit export to Saudi Arabia of any items listed on the Commerce Control List (these are materials that have both economic and military uses). # Restrict travel of Saudi diplomats to a 25-mile radius of the city in which their offices are located. (This would apply to the Saudi Embassy in D.C., the Saudi U.N. mission in New York, and the Saudi Consulates in Houston and Los Angeles). The Saudi-American Forum believes these types of hostile legislative initiatives damage the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #9 "Frankly, I suspect the Bush administration is behind this bill in the first place. I've said a number of times that I've been expecting Bush to very gradually, but relentlessly, ratchet up the pressure on the Saudis to make radical changes in their society- like aggressively reining in the Wahhabi clerics, and criminalizing all forms of support for jihaditerrorism. I think this bill is just one more piece in that gradual ratcheting-up." I definitely agree with Dave D. on this: I don't think President Bush is going to give the Saudis a pass on squat and he may be "letting" Arlen McSpecter and other members of Congress do his dirty work for him. KLo posted this excellent in-depth analysis of the Saudi problem on NRO's the Corner: The Saudi Paradox from Foreign Affairs Magazine which I think should be a must read for every American right now. The author, Michael Scott Doran, points out that the (Sunni) Wahhabs are engaged in a global religious war against the Shi'ites until Judgement Day and you know what that means. Sunni or later (Ha-ha) the Sauds are going to have to give this up or get their 72 virgins trying. 2004 and beyond promises to be an interesting year. |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2003-12-28 2:02:13 PM |
| #8 Here is a link to the language of the bill. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-12-28 1:46:37 PM |
| #7 Where's the clause outlawing foreign financial support for religious establishments in the US? |
| Posted by: Nero 2003-12-28 1:02:01 PM |
| #6 Civics lesson, guys: The Legislative makes laws. The Executive enforces them. Congress hands W a club. It's up to him how hard to swing it. A bill to limit Presidential authority might cause a spasmodic stab at the veto button. |
| Posted by: Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-28 11:10:04 AM |
| #5 "If the Donks are smart they'll jump on this bill..." "Donks"... "smart"... both words in same sentence... cognitive dissonance... head hurts... OWWW! Who know what they'll do; they probably will support this bill, out of opposition to what they perceive (or pretend to perceive) as the Bush administration's coddling of the Saudis. It'll be interesting to watch the progress of this bill, and who's for it and who's against it, and the administration's reaction to it. Interesting, also, is that it's Arlen Specter (R-PA) sponsoring the bill. Specter is up for re-election next year, and Bush is strongly supporting him against a more conservative challenger. Would Specter jeopardize Bush's support by introducing a bill that the administration finds anathema? My hunch is, no. I don't think we need to worry about a presidential veto of this bill. The administration may emit a few mild, pro forma public complaints about it, but it won't be vetoed. Frankly, I suspect the Bush administration is behind this bill in the first place. I've said a number of times that I've been expecting Bush to very gradually, but relentlessly, ratchet up the pressure on the Saudis to make radical changes in their society- like aggressively reining in the Wahhabi clerics, and criminalizing all forms of support for jihadi terrorism. I think this bill is just one more piece in that gradual ratcheting-up. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-12-28 10:30:31 AM |
| #4 Meaning with 61 Senators I think Bush would actually have to sign it... |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-28 9:28:13 AM |
| #3 If the Donks are smart they'll jump on this bill. Bet you could get enough votes override and thus avoid a veto. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2003-12-28 9:26:18 AM |
| #2 And we know the terrain is ideal... |
| Posted by: .com 2003-12-28 7:16:15 AM |
| #1 "damage the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. " ANd the fact that the main whckos in the region that attacked the US are from Saudi dint already demolishit? Or the wild-assed Wahaabi rabblerousing and funding of terror hasnt dented things a bit? The "Saudi-American" forum had best tend to their back yard if they want to keep us helping them instead of rolling the tanks in once we are done with Iraq. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-12-28 5:35:22 AM |