President Obama is threatening to veto legislation that would make it easier for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to sue Saudi Arabia. Supporters of the bill vow that they will push for a congressional override.

The measure is an outgrowth of a long-running lawsuit against the government of Saudi Arabia by 9/11 victims and their families, who claim that the Saudis funded Islamist charities that in turn bankrolled al-Qaeda. The suit was filed by the Center City firm of Cozen O’Connor, which was instrumental in pushing for enactment of the bill.

The veto threat – first made earlier this year, as the Senate was considering the bill – was reiterated Monday by White House press secretary Josh Earnest, who argued that passage of the measure would expose American diplomats and military personnel to retaliatory litigation abroad.

“The president does intend to veto this legislation,” Earnest said. “The concept of sovereign immunity is one that protects the United States as much as any other country in the world. So it’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members . . . into courts all around the world.”

The House passed the bill unanimously on Friday; the Senate unanimously passed the measure May 17. To reverse a presidential veto, two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate must vote for the override.

“All this bill ever purported to do is to confer jurisdiction to the courts to hear the evidence,” said Sean Carter, a lawyer with Cozen O’Connor. “It does not determine liability. It simply says the courts have jurisdiction to hear the evidence.”

From the beginning, Saudi Arabia and its lawyers have argued that there is no evidence the Saudi government had any role in the attacks.

Under the law, the president has until Sept. 23 to either sign the bill or veto it. If he does veto the measure, a concerted campaign by victims’ families and other interests, including insurance companies that lost billions at ground zero, is likely to follow.

One of the Senate sponsors of the measure, John Cornyn (R., Texas), promised an override effort.

“The American people, through their elected representatives, have been clear in their support for this legislation,” Cornyn said. “Unfortunately, President Obama has already threatened to veto it. . . . But I want to simply point out that this veto threat isn’t about a president and his soured relations with Congress, it’s about the victims of 9/11 who’ve made clear that they deserve to have this avenue of justice made into law.”

Family members and victims urged the president to sign the bill in a letter sent to the White House shortly after the House passed it.

“Mr. President, we don’t need your comfort,” said the letter signed by Terry Strada, a North Jersey widow whose husband, Tom, died in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. “We have each other. We don’t need words – other than the words ‘I will sign JASTA into law when it reaches my desk.’ ”

The bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, would clarify the law by permitting lawsuits against foreign governments to go forward, even if only a portion of the harmful act took place on U.S. soil. Several defendants in the litigation have argued that since much of the plot took place outside the country, U.S. courts don’t have jurisdiction.

The bill also strengthens language permitting plaintiffs to file suit against foreign entities that aid in the commission of a terrorist act without actually participating in the act itself.

The Cozen lawsuit has followed a roundabout path since it was filed in 2003, nearly two years to the day after the World Trade Center attacks. Saudi Arabia, initially dismissed as a defendant in 2005, was restored as a defendant in 2014.

Please visit the source link below to read the entire article.