Obama now faces the prospect of Republican and Democratic lawmakers joining forces to override his veto for the first time in his presidency.
Advertisement
Debate about the bill has spilled onto the presidential campaign trail, as candidates vie to appear tough on terrorism. Congress’ previous attempts to overturn Obama’s vetoes have all been unsuccessful.
A 28-page section of an congressional investigation into the terrorist attacks, declassified earlier this year, said, “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government”.
The act, commonly referred to as the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act”, passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate.
From the beginning of the legislation’s life, the president said that he would veto the bill, but there was hope that once he saw the massive support for the bill, he would reconsider.
Behind the scenes, Riyadh has been lobbying furiously for the bill to be scrapped.
The White House hasn’t specified when Obama will officially veto the measure, which he’s vowed to reject claiming it could open USA diplomats and service-members to lawsuits. Friday’s veto was the twelfth of his presidency. When Congress is not in session, the president can issue a “pocket” veto, which can’t be overriden – but that tool is no longer an option. Yet the White House has worked to try to peel off supporters, and said Friday that it was unclear whether enough had changed their minds to avert an override.
A person familiar with the administration’s thinking said that Friday afternoon still appeared the most likely period for the veto to come down. Chuck Schumer (D – NY) expressed confidence that the votes were there to keep the bill from being killed by the president.
“It’s politically inconvenient”, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said of the bill. “And we’ll, you know, deal with the ramifications after that”.
Thornberry reminded his GOP colleagues that the bill “quickly passed the House by voice vote without a lengthy discussion”.
The Senate has not yet set a date for the override vote, but Sen.
But House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters this week that he is anxious the measure could lead to lawsuits against Americans.
“The risks of discovery or trial in foreign courts, including the questioning of government employees under oath, will disclose sensitive information and subject Americans to legal jeopardy of various kinds”, Thornberry said.
“I do have concerns about it because I worry about legal matters. At the same time, these victims do need to have their day in court”.
“If any of these litigants were to win judgments – based on foreign domestic laws as applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the U.S. Government held overseas to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States”, Obama said. And now we’re getting correspondence from the European Union and many others: “‘Don’t do this.’ So I’m going to take a look at that”, she said.
The legislation would revive a lawsuit brought by families of September 11 victims against the Saudi government by clarifying a 1976 law governing the principle of sovereign immunity.
“State immunity is a central pillar of the global legal order”, the “demarche” noted, adding that other countries could take “reciprocal action”.
Advertisement
Obama rejected the bill Friday, warning of a host of unintended and severe consequences if it were enacted.
