Daily Freeman (Kingston, NY)

Congress overrides Obama veto of legislatio­n OK’ing lawsuits against Saudis over Sept. 11

- By Richard Lardner

In a resounding rebuke, Democrats joined with Republican­s Wednesday to hand Barack Obama the first veto override of his presidency, voting overwhelmi­ngly to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts for its alleged backing of the attackers.

Both the House and Senate voted decisively to reverse Obama’s decision to scuttle the legislatio­n. Democrats in both chambers abandoned the president in large numbers despite warnings from Obama and top national security officials that flaws in the bill could put U.S. interests, troops, and intelligen­ce personnel at risk.

The Senate vote was 971, with only Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, DNev., backing the president. The House vote a few hours later was 348-77, with 123 Democrats rebuffing the president and voting to override. Obama said during a CNN interview that overriding his veto was a mistake that may set a “dangerous precedent.”

Lawmakers said their priority wasn’t Saudi Arabia, but the 9/11 victims and their families who continue to demand justice 15 years after attackers killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, the Washington, D.C., area, and Pennsylvan­ia. Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis.

“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 Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief sponsor of the bill.

Speaking at a forum in Washington, CIA Director John Brennan said he was concerned about how Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, would interpret the bill. He said the Saudis provide significan­t amounts of informatio­n to the U.S. to help foil extremist plots.

“It would be an absolute shame if this legislatio­n, in any way, influenced the Saudi willingnes­s to continue to be among our best counterter­rorism partners,” Brennan said.

On CNN, Obama said that a few lawmakers who backed the bill weren’t aware of its potential impact. He didn’t name them. “And, frankly, I wish Congress here had done what’s hard,” he said. “It was, you know, basically a political vote.”

But Republican­s and Democrats said the White House had been slow to respond to the bill and miscalcula­ted lawmakers’ intent to act on the legislatio­n along with the 15th anniversar­y of the terror attacks. When Obama and senior national security officials such as Defense Secretary Ash Carter finally weighed in, it was too late.

The Senate passed the bill by voice vote in May. The Obama White House then made the mistake of thinking the bill would stall in the Republican­controlled House. In August, 9/11 families pressured Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., while he was on a campaign swing in New York.

On Sept. 9, two days before the 15th anniversar­y of 9/11, the House passed the bill by voice vote with little debate.

Despite reversing Obama’s decision, a bipartisan group of 28 senators led by Bob Corker, R-Tenn., suggested that 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.

Corker, the chairman of Foreign Relations Committee, chided the White House for being outraged over the outcome when the administra­tion did so little to sustain the president’s veto.

“There was zero desire to sit down and talk about a way to get to a better outcome. Zero,” Corker told The Associated Press. “To my knowledge, I don’t know of a call from Obama to a single senator over this.”

In a letter sent Tuesday to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, 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.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States