His move, which was anticipated, now sets the stage for what could be his first veto override in his eight years in office, with lawmakers in both chambers working in recent days on how and when to schedule a vote.
Advertisement
Both the House and Senate had hoped to depart Friday for a fall recess in order to campaign, but are stuck in Washington to hammer out a spending bill by October 1 to avert a government shutdown.
His administration argues that other nations could act reciprocally, changing their laws so foreign citizens could take up lawsuits against the US – a nation with “a larger global presence, by far, than any other country”.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has just proven that the September 11 bill that allows victims’ families to sue Saudi Arabia is truly a bipartisan effort. It would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor make the US response to such attacks any more effective.
“We also make a strong case that the most effective way for the United States to confront state sponsors of terrorism is to level a government-wide designation against them and take appropriate steps, including sanctions, to isolate them from the United States and the rest of the worldwide community, that that is a forceful way to compel them to stop supporting terrorism”, he said.
Mr Obama long had objected, too, warning that foreign countries might reciprocate by dragging American diplomats and military members before courts.
Obama is widely expected to veto the legislation, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, on the grounds that it would open up the U.S. to lawsuits in courts around the world.
“The families of the victims of 9/11 deserve their day in court, and justice for those families shouldn’t be thrown overboard because of diplomatic concerns”, he said.
“If elected president, I would sign such legislation should it reach my desk”.
Both the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, said they would have signed the bill into law if they were in the White House.
“What the president is imagining is this will create an environment where every court system in the world starts bringing the United States up on charges in foreign courts, and the United States has to defend itself”, Alterman said to the Post. While the White House has tried to downplay the report’s contents as inconclusive, their argument still boils down to the idea that America needs to ignore Saudi alliances with worldwide terror to protect the American government’s many criminals from similar legal repercussions.
“The concept of sovereign immunity is one that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world given the way that the United States is engaged in the world”, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said ahead of the president’s veto. “But when it comes to the stakes and the impact that this could have on our national security, the President is willing to take some political heat in order to try to do the right thing”.
In the case of 9/11, If passed, the bill would allow relatives of victims to seek financial reparations from any nation accused of being complicit in the attacks – perhaps most notably, Saudi Arabia, which has been linked indirectly to the 2001 attacks.
Democratic New York Sen.
Brian McGlinchey, director of advocacy for the website 28pages.org, said making the documents public “strengthened the resolve of 9/11 families and other advocates of justice to bring about the enactment” of the bill.
In a three-page statement that accompanied the veto, Obama spelled out his reasons for seemingly defying the wishes of the grieving families.
But he went on to argue that the bill, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act or JASTA, was misguided.
Administration officials had been eying a Friday afternoon veto, which would have come after Congress was expected to adjourn until November’s election contests.
The override votes will likely take place next week. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives are led by the opposition Republican Party, and its leaders have indicated they are confident they have enough votes to overturn Obama’s veto. But the Wisconsin Republican also voiced his own doubts about the legislation, saying the implications for lawsuits against Americans anxious him.
“I worry about legal matters”, Ryan said. “At the same time, these victims need to have their day in court”.
Lawmakers who support the legislation have argued that if Saudi Arabia did nothing wrong, it should have nothing to fear in this law.
“We’ve certainly been making a case to members of Congress”, Earnest said.
Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said this week that the Saudi government has warned that enacting the bill would cause a “significant change” in the U.S. -Saudi relationship.
Advertisement
Blumenthal also dismissed the argument that the legislation would increase the liability of the United States, saying “it fails the test of fact and law”.
