The House passed the legislation Friday by voice vote, about four months after the measure cleared the Senate despite vehement objections from Saudi Arabia.
Advertisement
“Fifteen years is a long time to wait”.
“By saying that he does not want to strain relations with the Saudis, the president is giving in to Saudi threats, and is putting Saudi concerns before the interests of American families whose loved ones were murdered on 9/11”, the New York Republican, who picked up the legislation after the defeat of its original sponsor, Rep. Dan Lungren, R-California, said in a press release.
That connection was not lost on Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas. If you would like to discuss another topic, look for a relevant article. The kingdom has blood on its hands. Is it the blood of the victims of 9/11?
However, the Saudi government has denied responsibility for the attack and spoken out against the bill.
“President (Obama) has opposed the bill, which would let courts waive claims to foreign sovereign immunity in cases involving terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, over fears that foreign governments might exploit the move to drag American officials into court”.
But the White House believes the bill is not “an effective, forceful way for us to respond to terrorism”, according to Earnest.
The law in question is largely targeted at Saudi Arabia, a key USA ally.
Under the Constitution, Obama has 10 days to veto the bill before it automatically becomes law.
But that reasoning has not resonated with either chamber of Congress. The House and the Senate both passed the legislation with strong bipartisan support, pushed by the efforts of 9,000 victim family members and survivors of the attacks who organized heavily around the issue.
Some lawmakers find the idea of blanket immunity unpalatable.
Advertisement
The question JASTA appeared to raise was whether those costs were outweighed by its benefits, i.e., providing 9/11 victims and their families with a day in court, and ensuring that their claims would be resolved on the merits.
