Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families

The United States Congress delivered a stinging blow to the president this week when they voted to override his veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), marking the first time Congress rebuked Obama’s veto.

JASTA is legislation pushed by the families of the victims of the attacks on September 11, 2001. In particular, the legislation weakens sovereign immunity laws to allow victims of terrorism to sue countries that were involved in the funding of those events. In this case, 9/11 survivors have, for the past 15 years, tried to sue the Saudi government for its presumed role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Although both chambers of Congress overwhelming defeated Obama’s veto — in the Senate, 97-1 and in the House, 348-77 — the law is controversial. Concerns have been raised that it will weaken sovereign immunity laws in a way that will violate international law. Perhaps the greatest concern, however, is the backlash this new law will have on the U.S.

The possibility for backlash is predicated on the U.S.’ ability to claim sovereign immunity in the courts of other countries. As the New York Times writes,

A nation’s immunity from lawsuits in the courts of another nation is a fundamental tenet of international law. This tenet is based on the idea that equal sovereigns should not use their courts to sit in judgment of one another … international law continues to guarantee immunity, even for alleged egregious crimes.

The NYT then argues, perhaps accurately, that few nations benefit as much from sovereign immunity than the U.S., especially given our status as the most active player in diplomatic, economic, and military endeavors around the world.

Examples that help illustrate the hazards of this bill would include Iran and Cuba. Both nations have sued the U.S. and hold billions of dollars in judgments against us. (Although, hopefully we haven’t actually paid those off.) More so, lawyers are also uncertain how to view foreign aid — particularly military foreign aid — for example, to Israel. In the event military aid could be traced to deaths, say in the West Bank, the U.S. could be subject to a litany of lawsuits.

In all fairness, the bill certainly raises a number legitimate questions. But the fear mongers — and, well, it’s just about every news outlet and blog — need to calm down.

First, as much as Obama hates this bill, in the end, the new law grants the executive considerable power over suing foreign nations. That power allows the attorney general to request a court to halt a lawsuit proceeding against the foreign nation for 180 days if the U.S. government is “engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state defendant concerning the resolution of the claims against the foreign state.”

Since the bill provides the option to extend the stay by an additional 180 days if more time is needed, in theory, the government could thwart a lawsuit indefinitely.

And really, there’s nothing stopping Obama from assisting the Saudis over the 9/11 families.

I wouldn’t put it past him.

Second, this bill is all about seeking justice for 9/11 families against the Saudi government’s involvement. It’s hard to argue against that. The role Saudi Arabia played in the worst terrorist attack on American soil is increasingly obvious as the U.S. government offers additional transparency into U.S. intelligence reports.

In July, The Washington Times reported that based on the “28 pages” — classified pages from a congressional report on the 9/11 hijackings — that Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the country’s ambassador to the U.S. at the time, was funneling cash to one particular individual who had ties to the hijackers. Sadly, the list goes on and on.

After all, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, including terrorist mastermind too, Osama bin Laden. Yet, after all these years, Saudi Arabia has faced no repercussions, mostly thanks to our dependence on oil and its strategic location in the Middle East accessible to U.S. military assets.

Nevertheless, the Saudi government, just as any nation’s, should be held accountable for its participation in the murder of 3,000 Americans. Period.

Finally, this is merely a law that is aimed at terrorism. Lawyers Jack Goldsmith and Curtis Bradley argue in their op-ed, How to Limit JASTA’s adverse impact”:

It also will create a broad precedent that can be used against the United States and its allies as an excuse for “reciprocal” or “analogous” reductions in immunity even if no suit is brought against those countries in the United States.

However, there will be limited instances in which foreign nations directly contribute to terrorism in the U.S. Those that may are certainly not countries that should cause the U.S. significant alarm in any reciprocal actions. Even if other nations decide to follow America’s lead in reducing sovereign immunity clauses regarding terrorism, it should be expected that again, there would be only a few nations we would have to worry about.

In the end, this bill represents the voices of thousands of families who feel that for too long politics has outweighed justice for the tragedies on September 11. Sometimes it’s better to do what is right than it is to do what is easiest. Victims of terrorism deserve justice, and this is but one small step. (For more from the author of “Checks and Balances: Congress Rebukes Obama’s Attempt to Protect Saudi Arabia From 9/11 Families” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.