Override seen on US terror bill

This news has been read 6342 times!

WASHINGTON, Sept 27, (Agencies): The US Senate will vote on Wednesday on whether to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill allowing relatives of victims in the Sept 11, 2001 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

The vote, which Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell set as the chamber reconvened on Monday, would be the first action in an attempt by lawmakers to override Obama’s Sept 23 veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

A successful override requires support from twothirds of lawmakers in both the Senate and House of Representatives, which are controlled by Republicans.

Known as JASTA, the legislation passed the Senate and House in reaction to long-running suspicions, denied by Saudi Arabia, that hijackers of the four US jetliners that attacked the United States in 2001 were backed by the Saudi government. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

In vetoing the bill, Obama warned that other countries could use the law as an excuse to sue US diplomats, members of the military or companies, even for actions of foreign organizations that had received US aid, equipment or training.

McConnell said Wednesday’s vote will follow two hours of debate divided between Republicans and Democrats. No time for the vote has been set. Here’s a look at the key issues surrounding the bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, as the veto override vote nears: What would the legislation do? The legislation, known as JASTA, gives victims’ families the right to sue in US court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York, the Washington, DC, area and Pennsylvania.

Under the terms of the bill, courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurs inside US borders. Saudi Arabia has objected vehemently to the bill.

Why did Obama veto the bill? In his veto message issued on Friday, Obama said the bill would disrupt longstanding international principles on sovereign immunity and could create complications with even the closest allies of the United States. Foreign governments would be able to act “reciprocally” and allow their courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States and its employees for allegedly causing injuries overseas through American support to third parties, according to Obama.

As examples, Obama cited actions taken overseas by US-backed armed militias, the improper use of US military equipment, and abuses committed by US-trained police units. The bill’s proponents have disputed Obama’s rationale as “unconvincing and unsupportable,” saying the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on US soil.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that the Senate would vote Wednesday on the president’s veto. What’s the concern for American troops and secrets? Rep Mac Thornberry, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, said that even if none of the potential lawsuits against the United States succeeded, “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.”

This news has been read 6342 times!