Executive Intelligence Review
Subscribe to EIR

PRESS RELEASE


Senate JASTA Vote Set for Wednesday Morning; It’s American Patriots vs. Saudi $Sycophants

Sept. 26, 2016 (EIRNS)—The U.S. Senate will vote on an override of Obama’s Veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) on Wednesday morning, following two hours of debate, The Hill announced today. Obama needs 34 votes in the Senate to sustain his veto of JASTA. If the override passes the Senate, JASTA will go to the House for a vote on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning.

The 9/11 families and their supporters, LaRouche PAC, and others, are mobilizing intensively for the override.

Five Republicans from the House have released a letter (see Documentation) refuting the "scare tactic" of the Obama/Saudi backers: that passing this bill will open up individual American citizens to foreign lawsuits. They have written a "Dear Colleague" letter exposing this desperate tactic, which was used today in a "Dear colleague" letter by House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.) and Ranking Committee Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.). Thornberry and Smith made the bogus claim that

"other countries could respond by adopting similar policies, which would threaten U.S. personnel with any number of foreign civil and criminal penalties, and also subject U.S. service members to risks of foreign trials and discovery processes, including requirements to risk disclosing sensitive information and testify under oath."

JASTA allows no such action against individuals. It dictates that a foreign state is subject to U.S. litigation for any international act of terrorism in the U.S., or the wrong act of any government official "while acting within the scope of his or her office". If a foreign government were to enact new laws that allow claims against U.S. personnel, it would not be reciprocating, but rather engaging in a transparent and unjustifiable act of aggression, and the United States would be expected to respond by making clear the economic, diplomatic, social, and military consequences of such aggression, as it would in any other case," the proponents explained.