Congress Overrides Obama's Veto On Sept. 11 Lawsuit Bill

Enlarge this image toggle caption Drew Angerer/Getty Images Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Updated at 3:22 p.m. ET with House vote

Congress approved the first successful override of a presidential veto from President Obama on Wednesday when the House joined the Senate in voting against Obama's objection to a bill that would allow family members to sue Saudi Arabia over the Sept. 11 attacks.

Politics House Approves Bill Allowing 9/11 Victims To Sue Saudi Arabia House Approves Bill Allowing 9/11 Victims To Sue Saudi Arabia Listen · 2:02 2:02

The override cleared the Senate earlier Wednesday, in a 97-1 vote in favor of the override, well above the two-thirds majority needed to overcome the president's objection. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid cast the lone "no" vote. Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., did not vote.

Politics Saudis Threaten Economic Repercussions If Congress Passes 9/11 Bill Saudis Threaten Economic Repercussions If Congress Passes 9/11 Bill Listen · 4:01 4:01

The House vote was 348-77.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) would, among other things, give families of Sept. 11 victims the right to sue Saudi Arabia over claims it aided or financed the terrorist attacks.

The House initially passed the measure on a voice vote earlier this month, two days before the 15th anniversary of the deadly terrorist attacks.

The Saudi government denies any role in those attacks, and the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials were involved. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, though, and there have long been suspicions that some of the hijackers received support during their time in the U.S. from individuals with possible connections to the Saudi Kingdom.

Supporters of the veto override say those suspicions should be explored in a U.S. court of law.

The Obama administration says it's sympathetic to victims' families, but concerned that allowing such lawsuits would open the door to legal challenges against American officials in other countries.

"The president understands the passion that's on both sides of this issue," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday. "It's the president's responsibility to consider the broader impact that this bill, as it's currently written, would have on our national security, and our standing around the world, and on our diplomats and our service members who represent the United States around the world."

Those concerns were underscored by CIA Director John Brennan shortly before the Senate vote.

National Security Congress Releases Long-Classified 29 Pages Of 9/11 Report Congress Releases Long-Classified 29 Pages Of 9/11 Report Listen · 3:03 3:03

"The principle of sovereign immunity protects U.S. officials every day, and is rooted in reciprocity," Brennan said in a statement. "If we fail to uphold this standard for other countries, we place our own nation's officials in danger. No country has more to lose from undermining that principle than the United States—and few institutions would be at greater risk than CIA."

Under the principle of "sovereign immunity," a country should remain immune from lawsuits in the courts of another country. Although there are some very limited exceptions to that principle already, critics complain the measure allowing lawsuits against the Saudi government creates a dangerously wide exception.

Families of Sept. 11 victims have demanded a right to seek monetary compensation from Saudi Arabia since the attacks, and versions of this bill have been floating around the Capitol since as far back as 2009, but the legislation never reached the floor until this year.

It sailed through both chambers without any opposition, but did so without a formal tally of votes. Passage of JASTA was done by so-called "unanimous consent" in the Senate, and by voice vote in the House.

What does this bill do?

JASTA would allow a lawsuit against any country by any U.S. citizen who claims the country financed or otherwise aided and abetted a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Liability would attach only if the plaintiff could show the country acted with knowledge in providing this support.

Congress already has allowed Americans to sue countries that have been designated as "state sponsors of terrorism," but currently, that list includes only three countries — Iran, Syria and Sudan. The White House says that designation is assigned only after very careful review by national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials, and that such designations should not be left to private litigants and judges.

The concerns voiced by the White House, some lawmakers

There's been talk about the principle of "sovereign immunity" and how this bill might erode that principle.

Under the principle of "sovereign immunity," a country should remain immune from lawsuits in the courts of another country. It's a long-held principle of international law. And although there are some very limited exceptions to that principle, some lawmakers and the White House believe JASTA creates a dangerously wide exception.

The fear is that other countries might reciprocate and enact laws that would drag U.S. government officials or members of our military into lawsuits in foreign courts under the theory that those people aided and abetted some injury abroad.

And to Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, that would expose the U.S. to tremendous liability.

"Let's face it. We're the greatest nation on earth. We have more involvements around the world than any country," said Corker. "We've got assets deployed all around the world more than any country. So if sovereign immunity recedes, we're the nation that is most exposed."

In his veto message, President Obama said there could be lawsuits against the United States for "actions taken by members of an armed group that received U.S. assistance, misuse of U.S. military equipment by foreign forces, or abuses committed by police units that received U.S. training." However without merit these claims may be, the White House argues, they would still suck up resources and increase the country's legal exposure.

Allowing Sept. 11 families a day in court

Supporters of the bill say it's a little alarmist to think this bill is going to corrode the principle of sovereign immunity and invite a flood of retaliatory litigation against the U.S. They point out sovereign immunity is not absolute — there are already, after all, exceptions to it.

And most importantly, they argue, all JASTA ultimately does is give Sept. 11 victims a chance to be heard in court.

"The issue is fundamentally about, is whether someone would have the opportunity to raise their concerns in the judicial system. It's not a judgment about how a case would come out," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a senior member of the Intelligence Committee. "It seems to me that it is appropriate — particularly in light of the families — that they should have a chance to raise their concerns in court. "</s>In a landmark 97-1 vote, the United States Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to override Barack Obama’s veto of a bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia.

Only Obama’s ally Nevada Democrat Harry Reid voted against the bill.

This is a severe blow to Obama, who lobbied hard against the bill, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. This is a first rebuke to Obama in his eight years of presidency.

Obama vetoed the legislation on Friday because he said the bill would infringe on the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy. It was the 12th veto of his presidency and, until now, none have been overridden even after Republicans’ longstanding control of the Congress.

The White House argued the 9/11 bill would undermine the principle of sovereign immunity and open up the United States itself to lawsuits.

In a letter to Republican and Democratic Senate leaders, Obama had said: ‘I strongly believe that enacting JASTA into law would be detrimental to US national interests.’

Obama warned of ‘devastating’ consequences for the Pentagon, service members, diplomats and the intelligence services.

It would ‘neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks, nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks’, he warned.

Families of 9/11 victims have campaigned for the law -- convinced that the Saudi government had a hand in the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, but no link to the government has been proven. The Saudi government denies any links to the plotters.

Declassified documents showed US intelligence had multiple suspicions about links between the Saudi government and the attackers.</s>WASHINGTON — Congress is poised to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill that would allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia for the kingdom’s alleged backing of the terrorists who carried out the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The showdown is scheduled for Wednesday. Proponents of the legislation say they have enough votes for what would be a first: During his nearly two full terms in office, Obama has vetoed nine bills. None has been overridden.

While there is broad and bipartisan support for bucking the president, the bill’s opponents also are pushing hard to keep the measure from being enacted. They’re warning the U.S. will become vulnerable to retaliatory litigation in foreign courts that could put American troops in legal jeopardy.

Here’s a look at the key issues surrounding the bill, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act:

WHAT WOULD THE LEGISLATION DO?

The legislation, known as JASTA, gives victims’ families the right to sue in U.S. 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, D.C., 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 U.S. 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 U.S.-backed armed militias, the improper use of U.S. military equipment, and abuses committed by U.S.-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 U.S. 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.”

Thornberry is opposed to the bill and is urging his colleagues not to override Obama’s veto.

But attorneys for the 9/11 families said U.S. military personnel are not at risk of lawsuits. Should a foreign government enact a law that allows a claim against American service members, that nation would not be reciprocating but engaging in a “transparent and unjustifiable act of aggression” that the U.S. should respond to, they said.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said Monday he is inclined to vote to override and said it looks as though there are enough votes in the House to overturn the president’s decision. The House would act after the Senate votes.

IS THERE HEIGHTENED TENSION WITH A KEY MIDDLE EAST ALLY?

An override of Obama’s veto is stoking apprehension about undermining a longstanding yet strained relationship with Saudi Arabia, a critical U.S. ally in the Middle East. Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir had previously warned lawmakers they were on a path to turning “the world for international law into the law of the jungle.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., last week advised his congressional colleagues against alienating Saudi Arabia at a time when the U.S. needs the kingdom’s support to defeat Islamic State militants. “If you want to lose Saudi Arabia as an ally, be careful what you wish for,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “They’re the heart and soul of the Islamic world.”

HOW MANY VOTES ARE NEEDED TO OVERRIDE A VETO?

A two-thirds majority of lawmakers present and voting is required in the House and Senate to override a veto.</s>In a first, Congress rebukes Obama with veto override of 9/11 bill

WASHINGTON — The GOP-led Congress has been angling for this moment: the chance to finally deliver President Barack Obama a stinging rebuke with the first veto override since he took office.

It may not be exactly the political score many Republicans had envisioned. The timing comes near the end of Obama’s presidency and on a bill — which would let 9/11 families sue the Saudi Arabian government — that some lawmakers concede is problematic.

But on Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-1 to override Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The House swiftly followed with an override vote of 348-77.

The override was the first time Congress has successfully challenged the president on a piece of legislation, despite Obama’s 12 other vetoes, including 10 when Republicans were the majority of both houses. In most instances, Congress didn’t even attempt an override.

The White House, which made modest gestures to prevent this week’s outcome with tough warnings from its national security team, blasted the vote as “embarrassing,” warning that lawmakers would have to answer to their constituents.

A cadre of blue-chip lobby shops was being paid top dollar by the Saudi government to try to derail the action.

But the opposition was a long-shot effort that has little chance against the compelling stories of the 9/11 victims’ families and friends who have pressured Congress for almost a decade to pass the legislation.

“This rare moment of bipartisanship is a testament to the strength of the 9/11 families,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the bill’s lead authors. “Overriding a presidential veto is something we don’t take lightly, but it was important in this case.”

After a personal appeal from Obama, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, was the lone vote against the override. Two other senators did not vote because they were on the presidential campaign trail in support of Hillary Clinton — Tim Kaine of Virginia, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The legislation would amend existing law to allow U.S. courts to hear terrorism cases against foreign states, narrowing the scope of immunity now granted to sovereign foreign actors.

Supporters say it will allow victims of terrorism their day in court. But opponents, including the administration, warn that it could complicate U.S. relationships abroad, impede national security investigations and open the floodgates to similar suits by foreigners against the U.S. government.

The CIA director warned the bill could have “grave implications” for national security, and Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said it could be “devastating” to the department and “undermine” counterterrorism efforts abroad.

The legislation has bounced around Washington for years, but it was never expected to advance. Schumer, the brash New Yorker who is poised to become the Senate Democratic leader next year, succeeded in passing it through the Senate in spring on a voice vote, without a formal roll call.

The House seized the opportunity to corner Obama, and just before the 15th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, approved the measure on a swift voice vote.

In the weeks since, the White House and opponents — and even some reluctant lawmakers — have scrambled to play catch-up. Top lobbying firms employing former congressional leaders, including Trent Lott, John Breaux and others, were hired quickly by the Saudi government, some on $100,000-a-month retainers, to fight the override vote.

Several key lawmakers have expressed concerns about the legislation, saying they are having second thoughts about supporting the bill. But not enough were ultimately willing to stop it.

“The president feels strongly about this. He’s also aware of how challenging the politics are,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday.

The override vote not only is a public slap at the president, but a reminder of his often tenuous relationship with Congress.

Obama has been criticized for having little experience with Capitol Hill, and even less engagement. He outsourced too much of his legislating to staff, critics said, without investing in the personal relationships needed to bargain with lawmakers.

When Republicans became the majority in both houses in 2015, they envisioned turning Obama into a vetoer-in-chief, eager to force the president into the uncomfortable position of rejecting bill after bill from the new Congress.

The strategy was seen by former House Speaker John A. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a way to fire up their partisan GOP base and show the two parties’ different approaches to legislating.

But that never really happened.

Faced with their own party infighting, the Republican House and Senate often struggled to find common ground and muster their own votes to send bills to the White House.

When they did, Obama easily swatted the bills back with a veto message. On the few occasions when Republicans mounted an override attempt, Democrats sustained the vetoes.

The closest Republicans came to a victory was on a bill to expedite construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that many Democrats also supported. But the override fell a few votes short of the 67 needed.

Obama even appeared to lament that he didn’t always have true sparring partners in the gridlocked Congress.

“I don’t generally even have to veto anything because they can’t get organized enough even to present the cockamamie legislation that they’re interested in passing,” Obama said at a recent New York fundraiser.

Officials at the White House are downplaying the significance of this week’s votes, seeing the action as an outlier after nearly two years in which a Republican congressional majority failed to produce much landmark legislation for the president to sign, let alone veto.

While adamant that the 9/11 legislation could have far-reaching consequences and potentially hurt U.S. alliances, not only with Saudi Arabia but with other allies, the administration does not appear to have made a full-court effort to stop it.

Obama’s Democratic allies on Capitol Hill suggested the override vote was not an affront to the president but rather a difference of opinion based on the roles Obama and Congress play in governing.

Obama’s thin veto record is similar to that of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, and a fraction of the 37 that President Bill Clinton dashed off with his veto pen. It’s nowhere near the 250 under President Truman or 635 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Overrides also are rare. During the last administration, Congress was able to override Bush four times, all during his final years when Democrats had control of both chambers. Clinton was overridden twice. Truman and President Gerald Ford experienced the most overrides in the modern era, 12.

“That the president hasn’t vetoed that many bills I think is a pretty damning indictment of the effectiveness of Republicans in Congress,” Earnest said. “We haven’t seen Speaker Boehner or Speaker [Paul] Ryan work effectively with Leader McConnell to pass legislation that advances the conservative agenda.”</s>WASHINGTON - Congress on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill to allow survivors and families of 9/11 victims to pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court against Saudi Arabia for alleged complicity in the terrorist attacks.

The veto override — the first for Obama — won 97-1 in the Senate and 348-77 with one present in the House despite second-thoughts by some lawmakers and intense lobbying against the legislation by the Obama administration, some foreign relations experts and Saudi Arabia.

Family members who fought for the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, applauded and cheered after the House voted, making possible the prospects they’ll see their trillion dollar lawsuit reinstated eight years after an appellate court in New York sidelined it.

Most Democrats chose to support the 9/11 families’ quest to sue Saudi Arabia than back their president, though more in the House than the Senate stood by him, as the vote in both chambers easily passed the threshold of two-thirds of the members.

Before the vote, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), the House sponsor, urged a veto override.

“It’s really essential that the House today stand on the side of justice,” King said.

Earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate sponsor, did the same. “Democrat and Republicans don’t agree on much these days,” he said. “But we agree on JASTA. Both parties believe that the families of the 9/11 victims should be able to seek justice.”

Despite the lopsided vote, several senators expressed concerns and said they would vote the override only reluctantly because of their sympathy for the 9/11 families, and House members engaged in a debate, with some urging that the veto be sustained.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) broke with Schumer as the lone Senate vote to sustain the veto. Reid’s office later distributed a letter from Obama to him explaining why he vetoed the bill on Friday after both chambers passed it without opposition earlier this month.

The White House listed its objections: it turns over national security and foreign policy to the courts; puts U.S. military, diplomats and assets at risk of retaliatory lawsuits by other countries; and threatens important and sensitive relationships with other nations.

Key members from both parties in the Senate and the House said they would continue to consider legislation to further narrow JASTA and to mitigate any blowback from other countries.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, urged a vote to sustain the veto during the House debate.

“My concern for this legislation is more related to the unintended consequences it may have,” he said, echoing the Obama administration’s caution that the bill weakens the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which protects a country and its official representatives abroad.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) agreed, saying that “this is not the way to go about getting justice.”

What if Iraq citizens sued the United States for the 2003 bombings of Baghdad that killed and maimed so many people and won compensation for each one of them, he asked.

He said the bill is narrowly drawn and won’t put U.S. military and diplomats at risk. “We must hold justice for the 9/11 families to imagined fears,” he said.</s>This frame grab from video provided by C-SPAN2, shows the floor of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2016, as the Senate acted decisively to override President Barack Obama's veto of Sept. 11 legislation, setting the stage for the contentious bill to become law despite flaws that Obama and top Pentagon officials warn could put U.S. troops and interests at risk. (C-SPAN2 via AP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate acted decisively Wednesday to override President Barack Obama's veto of Sept. 11 legislation, setting the stage for the contentious bill to become law despite flaws that Obama and top Pentagon officials warn could put U.S. troops and interests at risk.

Five weeks before elections, lawmakers refused to oppose a measure backed by 9/11 families who say they are still seeking justice 15 years after the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. The bill permits them to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for the kingdom's alleged backing of the 19 hijackers who carried out the plot. Saudi Arabia is staunchly opposed to the measure.

Senators voted 97-1 to override Obama's veto. The lone "no" vote was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

A House vote on Obama's veto was expected later in the day Wednesday. If the House also overrides, the bill becomes law. During his nearly two terms in office, Obama has never had a veto overridden by Congress.

Despite reversing Obama's decision, several senators said defects in the bill could open a legal Pandora's box, triggering lawsuits from people in other countries seeking redress for injuries or deaths caused by military actions in which the U.S. may have had a role.

In a letter Tuesday to Senate leaders, Obama said the bill would erode sovereign immunity principles that prevent foreign litigants "from second-guessing our counterterrorism operations and other actions that we take every day."

But one of the bill's leading proponents, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, dismissed Obama's concerns as "unpersuasive." Cornyn, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, and other supporters said the bill is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

"This bill is about respecting the voices and rights of American victims," Cornyn said.

Families of the victims and their attorneys disputed concerns over the legislation as fearmongering aimed at derailing the legislation that they have long urged Congress to pass.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, one of the Democrats who broke with Obama and voted to override, said "the risks of shielding the perpetrators of terrorism from justice are greater than the risks this legislation may pose to America's presence around the world."

The legislation gives victims' families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurs inside U.S. borders, according to the terms of the bill.

Still, a group of national-security minded legislators pledged to discuss how to repair problem areas during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress. But the fact that legislation could pass both chambers of Congress without closer scrutiny left at least a few senators chiding themselves for not examining more closely the bill's potential ramifications.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA, moved to the floor of the Senate in May and passed by voice vote. The bill cleared the House earlier this month, also by voice vote.

"We didn't pay much attention to this," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. "And boy is that ever a lesson learned."

Obama vetoed the measure last week, telling lawmakers the bill would make the U.S. vulnerable to retaliatory litigation.

In his letter to Reid, the president said other countries could attempt to use JASTA to justify similar immunity exceptions to target U.S. policies and activities they oppose.

"As a result, our nation and its armed forces, State Department, intelligence officials and others may find themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts," Obama wrote. As an example, U.S. troops, including those involved in counterterrorism operations, "would be vulnerable to accusations that their activities contributed to acts that allegedly violated foreign laws," the president said.

In a separate letter sent Monday to a senior House member, Defense Secretary Ash Carter described the potential for foreign litigants to seek classified intelligence data and analysis and sensitive operational information to establish their cases in what could be an "intrusive discovery process."

If the U.S. were sued overseas, a foreign court would decide whether the information should be protected from disclosure, he said in the letter to Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Paradoxically, the information could be central to a defense against the accusations. "Disclosure could put the United States in the difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal to do so," Carter wrote. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., voiced his numerous concerns with the bill before the vote but decided to override the president's veto anyway. "I do so understanding that there could be in fact unintended consequences that work against our national interests," said Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Missing the vote were Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Tim Kaine, D-Va.</s>The Senate voted on Wednesday to override President Obama’s veto of legislation allowing lawsuits against foreign sponsors of terrorism.

The House is expected to follow suit within hours, making this the first veto of Obama’s presidency to be overturned by Congress.

Last week Obama vetoed the bill explaining that the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” (JASTA) would erode the doctrine of sovereign immunity and expose the US to lawsuits around the world.

The bill would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian government over its alleged support for the terrorists who carried out the attacks.

JASTA, which passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, allows US judges to waive sovereign immunity claims when dealing with acts of terrorism committed on American soil – potentially allowing lawsuits against Saudi Arabia over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

The issue appears to cross party lines, with Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) pushing for a veto override while Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) is concerned it would “end up exporting [US] foreign policy to trial lawyers.”

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has argued that allowing JASTA to become law could lead to US being sued in foreign courts and subjected to an “intrusive discovery process.”

This could put Washington in the “difficult position of choosing between disclosing classified or otherwise sensitive information or suffering adverse rulings and potentially large damage awards for our refusal to do so,” Carter wrote to House Armed Services Committee chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) earlier this week, according to the Military Times.

The House is expected hold a veto override vote later on Wednesday.</s>US Congress votes overwhelmingly to override the president’s veto, the first such rebuke during his presidency

WASHINGTON: The US Congress voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to override Barack Obama’s veto of a bill allowing 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, the first such rebuke during his eight-year presidency.

The Senate overrode the veto in a 97-1 vote, followed a short time later by the House of Representatives, which knocked it down with a 348-77 vote.

The rare act of bipartisanship was a blow to Obama, who lobbied hard against the bill, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). Obama called Wednesday’s vote a ‘dangerous precedent.’

“I understand why it happened. Obviously, all of us still carry the scars and trauma of 9/11,” he said on CNN.

But he said the decision would harm US national interests by undermining the principle of sovereign immunity, opening up the United States to private lawsuits over its military missions abroad. “Our men and women in uniform around the world could potentially start seeing ourselves subject to reciprocal loss.”’

Some of the lawmakers who voted for the override didn’t know what was in the bill, he said, calling the result ‘basically a political vote.’ White House press secretary Josh Earnest earlier called the Senate vote ‘the single most embarrassing thing’ the legislative body has done in decades.

“Ultimately these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today,” he told reporters traveling with Obama in Richmond, Virginia. Coming in Obama’s last months in office, the vote shows the White House to be much weakened.

Obama has issued 12 vetoes during his presidency. None have been overridden until now, a rare feat given Republicans’ longstanding control of Congress.

His Republican predecessor George W Bush also issued 12 vetoes, of which four were overridden. The last president to avoid an override was the legendary Democratic congressional dealmaker – and former senator and congressman – Lyndon Johnson.

In a letter to Republican and Democratic Senate leaders obtained by AFP, Obama had previously warned of ‘devastating’ consequences for the Pentagon, service members, diplomats and the intelligence services.

The 9/11 measure would “neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks, nor improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks,” he warned.

“The United States relies on principles of immunity to prevent foreign litigants and foreign courts from second-guessing our counterterrorism operations and other actions that we take every day.”

RNC chair Reince Priebus said Obama’s veto “showed remarkable disregard for the families of 9/11 victims, and the Senate has done the right thing by overwhelmingly overriding his poor decision.”

Meanwhile Republican Florida Senator Marco Rubio said the override was “about holding anyone who supports terrorists accountable, and getting their victims the justice they deserve.”

Families of 9/11 victims have campaigned for the law, convinced the Saudi government had a hand in the attacks that killed almost 3,000 people. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, but no link to the government has been proven. The Saudi government denies any ties to the plotters. Declassified documents showed US intelligence had multiple suspicions about links between the Saudi government and the attackers.

“While in the United States, some of the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government,” a finding read. — AFP</s>WASHINGTON - The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly voted to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill to allow survivors and families of 9/11 victims to pursue their lawsuit in a U.S. court against Saudi Arabia for alleged complicity in the terrorist attacks.

The veto override — the first for Obama — won 97-1 in a vote that began at around noon, with only Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in opposition despite lobbying against it by the Obama administration, some foreign relations experts and Saudi Arabia.

The House was expected also to vote Wednesday on an override, according to Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), the House sponsor of the measure.

“Democrat and Republicans don’t agree on much these days. But we agree on JASTA,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a floor speech that led up to the vote. “Both parties believe that the families of the 911 victims should be able to seek justice.”

Several lawmakers voted for the override despite concerns, and said they would introduce additional legislation if the White House concerns about JASTA come true.

Sen Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s top Democrat, said in a floor speech that he’ll closely watch what happens next, especially other countries’ reactions, and would address any risks to U.S. diplomats, troops and assets in additional legislation.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said he would vote to override the veto despite concerns about the legislation because of his sympathy for the families of 9/11 victims who had battled for the right to sue Saudi Arabia for so long.</s>WASHINGTON — Congress on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama’s veto of legislation allowing relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia, the first veto override of his eight-year presidency.

The House of Representatives voted 348-76 against the veto, just hours after the Senate rejected it 97-1, meaning the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act” will become law.

The vote was a blow to Obama and to Saudi Arabia, one of the United States’ longest-standing allies in the Arab world.

Obama’s 11 previous vetoes were all sustained. But this time almost all of his strongest supporters in Congress opposed him in one of their last actions before leaving Washington to campaign for the Nov. 8 election.

“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,” Senator Charles Schumer, the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate, said in a statement.

Schumer represents New York, the site of the World Trade Center and home to many of the nearly 3,000 people killed in the 2001 attacks, attack survivors and families of victims.

He led the fight for the legislation in the Senate, with Senator John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York’s other senator and also a Democrat, cast the 67th “no” vote, the number needed to override the veto in the Senate.

Obama had argued that the bill, known as JASTA, could expose U.S. companies, troops and officials to lawsuits, and alienate important allies at a time of global unrest. He called Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and wrote a personal letter to him explaining that he strongly believed enacting JASTA into law would be detrimental to U.S. interests. Reid became the only senator to side with Obama.

“This is the single most embarrassing thing this United States Senate has done possibly since 1983,” spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

The Saudi government financed an extensive lobbying campaign against the legislation.

Major U.S. corporations including General Electric Co and Dow Chemical Co also opposed it, as did the European Union and other U.S. allies.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter urged lawmakers to sustain the veto, and in an unusual move, CIA Director John Brennan issued a statement before Wednesday’s votes saying the bill had “grave implications” for national security.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential running mate, and Bernie Sanders, an independent and former Democratic White House contender, did not vote.
The United States Senate and House of Representatives override the veto of President Barack Obama in regards to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. The act narrows the scope of the legal doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity, specifically, in this instance against the sovereign nation of Saudi Arabia. The action is the first such congressional veto override to Obama.