An emotional debate over culpability for the worst terror attack in US history is expected to crescendo Friday when President Barack Obama vetoes legislation permitting the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government.
The move sets up a clash between some of the most powerful forces in Washington, and could lead to the first veto override of Obama’s presidency. The White House has until midnight Friday to officially submit the veto to Congress.
Support for the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” ran high among lawmakers, who overwhelmingly passed the bill earlier this year after pressure from victims’ groups. The bill would end foreign countries’ immunity in the United States from lawsuits, allowing federal civil suits to go forward only if the country is determined to have had a hand in a US terror attack.
But in recent days, some of the measure’s supporters in Congress have expressed misgivings about the legislation, prompting a new effort by the administration to lobby against the bill.
The White House has remained vague on when Obama will officially veto the measure, which he’s vowed to reject, claiming it could open US diplomats and service members to lawsuits. The 10-day window for the President to submit his rejection closes on Friday, and the White House is hoping to keep its options open by waiting until nearer the deadline.
“We have spent the last eight days making that case, and we’re going to continue to do so, to Democrats and Republicans in both houses of Congress,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday. He said Obama’s veto would come before the midnight deadline.
The Obama administration contends the bill could lead other nations to alter their laws upholding sovereign immunity, which protects states from legal liability. White House officials have claimed the bill would have dire consequences for Americans posted overseas.
“If this bill were to enter into force, if the President’s veto were overridden, the United States government, US service members, US diplomats, and even, potentially, US companies are at risk of being hauled into court in countries all around the world,” Earnest said.
The lobbying effort on Capitol Hill against the legislation has involved the administration but also representatives for the Saudi government, which denies any involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks. The alliance puts Obama in the unlikely position of defending the same position as the Kingdom, with which he’s had longstanding disputes over counterterrorism strategies and human rights.
It also puts the President at odds with family members of 9/11 victims, who protested outside the White House this week and spoke alongside lawmakers from New York and Connecticut on Capitol Hill. They, along with other proponents of the bill, say the language is written narrowly to prevent the types of repercussions the administration predicts.
“The president’s rationales to veto JASTA don’t hold weight. They are 100% wrong,” said Terry Strada, whose husband Tom Strada died in World Trade Center collapse. “For us, the 9/11 families and survivors, all we are asking for is an opportunity to have our case heard in a courtroom. Denying us justice is un-American.”
Strada said the lobbying efforts from representatives of Saudi Arabia amounted to an intimidation effort from a country the US still relies on heavily in the fight against terror groups like ISIS.
“Neither the President nor Congress nor lobbyists for foreign kingdoms should be permitted to make us wait another day to pass JASTA,” she said.
Administration officials had been eying a Friday afternoon veto with the hopes of submitting it to lawmakers after Congress adjourned until November’s election contests. But prolonged negotiations over a government funding bill and a package to combat Zika virus have delayed the recess, meaning lawmakers are still likely to be in Washington next week to cast an override vote.
The Republican leaders of the Senate and House have both said in recent says that an override is expected to go through, despite new qualms about the bill. If successful, it would be the first veto override of Obama’s presidency.
“Our assumption is that the veto will be overridden,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on Tuesday.
House Speaker Paul Ryan followed suit Wednesday, saying, “I do think the votes are there for the override.” But the Wisconsin Republican also voiced his own doubts about the legislation, saying the implications for lawsuits against Americans worried him.
“I worry about legal matters,” Ryan said. “I worry about trial lawyers trying to get rich off of this. And I do worry about the precedence. At the same time, these victims do need to have their day in court.”
He was one of several prominent lawmakers who have expressed buyers’ remorse for the proposed law. A pair of Republican senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, have pushed for changes to make it more difficult for the families to pursue lawsuits but could also make it harder for the US to be sued for alleged wrongdoing.
Opponents of the bill gained support Wednesday both from the European Union, which issued its opposition in the form of a “demarche” statement to the US Department of State, and from a bipartisan group of former national security officials, who penned an open letter to Obama.
“The harm this legislation will cause the United States will be both dramatic and long-lasting,” the letter read, citing arguments over weakening sovereign immunity. Its signatories included veterans of Republican and Democratic administrations, including Stephen Hadley, a national security adviser to President George W. Bush; Michael Mukasey, a US attorney general under Bush; William Cohen, a secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton; and Richard Clarke, a national security aide to Bush and Clinton.
The letter also noted the law, if enacted, “will most certainly undermine our relationship with one of our most important allies, Saudi Arabia, and damage our relationship with the entire Middle East.”
