JASTACongress overrides Obama's veto of law allowing 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia

The Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill which would allow families of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia, seeking damages for the 9/11 attacks. The Senate voted 97 to 1 to override the president’s veto, and the House voted 348 to 77 to do so (59 Democrats and 18 Republicans in the House backed the president’s position). This is the first time Congress has successfully overruled a veto during Obama’s tenure.

“Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case that the families of the victims of 9/11 be allowed to pursue justice, even if that pursuit causes some diplomatic discomforts,” said Senator Charles Schumer (D-New York), who co-sponsored the bill with Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas).

“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” Schumer said.

The only senator to vote against overriding the veto was the Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

Obama vetoed the bill on Friday, citing concerns that the bill could open up U.S. officials to foreign lawsuits.

“Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign governments that are not designated as state sponsors of terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign governments’ actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these longstanding principles that protect the United States, our forces, and our personnel,” Obama wrote in his veto message to Congress.

“As a result, our nation and its armed forces, State Department, intelligence officials and others may find themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts.”

Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a letter Monday to a senior member of Congress, said he is sympathetic to the intent of the measure. But the legislation could lead to the public disclosure of American secrets and even undercut counterterrorism efforts by sowing mistrust among U.S. partners and allies, according to Carter.

CIA Director John O. Brennan also warned of the 9/11 bill’s “grave implications for the national security of the United States” in a statement Wednesday.

Obama, speaking at a CNN town hall with members of the military in Fort Lee, Virginia, later said he considered the override “a mistake” but added, “I understand why it happened. All of us still carry the scars and trauma of 9/11.”

“I wish Congress would have done what’s hard,” he said. “My job as commander-in-chief is to make sure we are looking ahead on how this will impact our overall mission.”

Even senators who voted for the bill expressed their concern with the bill’s ramifications.  

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), joined several other senators in arguing that the bill is so broad that it could expose the United States to retaliation in foreign courts.

“I do want to say I don’t think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation,” said Corker, who presumably could have played a role in the hearings and debate he said went lacking. “I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote,” which he then cast.

He complained that if the bill becomes law “what you really do is you end up exporting your foreign policy to trial lawyers,” adding that U.S. personnel might find themselves dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.

Corker said he and Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), who also supported the override, hope that “during the lame duck, maybe there’s a way to be successful in tightening this up” he legislation – for example, by limiting the measure to the 9/11 attacks as a way to meet the demands of the 9/11 victims’ families without exposing the United States to continuing diplomatic and legal problems.

Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told the Washington Post that it could take time to grasp the bill’s full implications, and there may be “some time to tweak the law before some of the most damaging consequences become clear.”

“But the biggest issue is that it opens up government agencies to court-ordered discovery,” Alterman said, adding that the federal government could face lawsuits from those who have been victims of drone strikes and other American military activities. “It’s not limited to Saudi Arabia, and it’s likely to have a much larger impact on the U.S. government than the Saudi government, because the U.S. government takes rules very seriously.”

Both chambers passed the 9/11 legislation without dissent in May.