The President’s Reasons for Vetoing JASTA Don’t Add Up
Last Friday, President
vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) — a straightforward bill supported by both Republicans and Democrats to help terrorism victims on U.S. soil seek justice against those responsible in court. The legislation would clarify existing law to prevent foreign nations that finance or support terrorism from invoking “sovereign immunity” in cases arising from attacks on the homeland.JASTA is intentionally narrow in focus to help provide an avenue for justice to victims of terror attacks, like the one suffered on September 11, 2001, that they currently don’t have. The bill also sends a clear message that America will not tolerate those who support terrorism against our country. After years of careful deliberation and discussion, JASTA passed both Chambers of Congress without a single vote in opposition this year.
The President’s justifications for vetoing this legislation do not stand up to scrutiny. Below is a response to several of President Obama’s objections to this commonsense bill, which he announced when he vetoed it last week.
—
JASTA threatens to reduce the effectiveness of our response to indications that a foreign government has taken steps outside our borders to provide support for terrorism, by taking such matters out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts.
The President argues incorrectly that JASTA circumvents the state sponsors of terrorism designation process. JASTA doesn’t affect the ability of the Executive Branch to designate state sponsors of terrorism, or to apply penalties once a nation is designated. JASTA simply says that any foreign government which sponsors an act of international terrorism in the United States can be sued by American victims — whether or not that country was on an Executive Branch list at the time of the attack. Without this bill many American victims of state sponsored terrorism may be left without their day in court. That’s not right, and it is one reason JASTA is so important.
JASTA departs from longstanding standards and practice under our Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and threatens to strip all foreign governments of immunity from judicial process in the United States based solely upon allegations by private litigants that a foreign government’s overseas conduct had some role or connection to a group or person that carried out a terrorist attack inside the United States.
JASTA builds on the current law “tort exception” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) which allows American victims to sue foreign governments for many different types of harms caused by the agents of that government. Consistent with the FSIA, as designed by Congress, victims can sue a foreign government if one of their employees causes damage arising from drunk driving, assault, or breach of contract, to name a few. If an American victim can sue a foreign government for these reasons, they should be able to sue a foreign government that harms their loved ones by financing a terror attack on our homeland. JASTA’s limitations to acts of terror and injury within our borders are consistent with these longstanding exceptions to sovereign immunity under the FSIA.
Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. officials — including our men and women in uniform — for allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third parties.
JASTA is an extension of FSIA principles, which are consistent with international practice regarding sovereign immunity. Today, foreign courts already hear lawsuits against the U.S., including some regarding national security matters. We have an entire office of the Justice Department — the Office of Foreign Litigation — that defends the United States in foreign courts. Unless the U.S. sponsors or finances an act of international terrorism, we will not be affected by a reciprocal law passed by a foreign government. Moreover, JASTA only allows for suits against foreign governments, not individuals like diplomats or military troops. And because JASTA contains a clear exception for “acts of war,” a reciprocal law passed by a foreign government would not apply to any members or acts of our Armed Forces.
JASTA threatens to create complications in our relationships with even our closest partners.
The President claims that JASTA threatens our relationship with some of our closest partners by subjecting them to civil litigation in an American courtroom. If other nations have concerns about the legislation, that is more a reflection of how poorly President Obama has maintained some of our most important relationships on the world stage. Foreign nations who sponsor acts of terror on American soil should not be given a free pass because the Obama Administration has mismanaged strategic alliances in the Middle East and elsewhere. And American victims of terrorism should not pay the price for President Obama’s failed foreign policy.
—
Most importantly, President Obama’s veto message overlooked the calls of many victims of the September 11th terror attacks who simply are asking for an avenue to seek justice. These brave and courageous men, women, and children have waited long enough to hold those responsible for these horrific acts of evil accountable. I look forward to Congress overriding President Obama’s veto on Wednesday so that they can finally seek out the justice they deserve.
