Democrats waver on override for 9/11 bill by Seung Min Kim and Heather Caygle, Politico
Summary:
The legislation that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia is beginning to lose Democratic support, suggesting that Obama’s opposition to the bill is beginning to resonate with lawmakers. Although the law was unanimously passed by both chambers, key lawmakers now remain undecided on their vote to override Obama’s expected veto, reconsidering arguments against the measure. However, without enough support to oppose the bill from the Senate, the Obama presidency will see its first presidential veto override. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer both agree that the bill is very complex and needs to be reconsidered with its potential consequences. Other senators have begun to express their qualms as well, but have been met with relentless lobbying from family members. White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that members of Congress from both parties are open to and share Obama’s concerns, such as sovereign immunity, but questions whether they will be able to cast a vote consistent with their own views. The legislation amends the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act to prevent countries involved in terrorist attacks from invoking sovereign immunity. Proponents of legislation have noted that changes have been made to accommodate Obama’s concerns; however, there is little room for a compromise that will satisfy both the victims’ families and the diplomatic concerns. While many members of the Senate still remain undecided, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and firm supporter of the legislation, Sen. Chuck Grassley, argues that “If people don’t want to override the veto, they should’ve expressed their opposition earlier.”
Questions:
Why was the bill passed unanimously through both chambers of Congress?
What are some concerns that Obama has about the bill?
Is there a way for Congress to satisfy the victims’ families while considering the diplomatic concerns?
What are some of the ways Congress and its procedures are structured in regards to this event (Whip, sovereign immunity, votes)?
The 9/11 Bill allows the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, however this bill poses several possible problems. One of the reasons that Obama and members of the White House oppose the bill is because it may give too much power to the judges. The legislation would allow the judges to come up with "varying terror designations"about the same country. In addition, the courts would be meddling with international problem which is best left to national security and foreign policy officials.
ReplyDeleteThe 9/11 Bill was passed unanimously in both chambers of Congress simply due to public opinion and sympathies. The attacks in 2001 have affected everyone living in the United States in some way or another, whether it's as magnitudinous as a directly related family member dying in the towers or on an airplane, or as seemingly unrelated as taking off one's shoes in an airport due to revamped FAA measures. Because of this, for better or for worse, all members of Congress have a tie to it. Even if someone was to argue that a few members didn't feel sympathy, or enough of a connection to support the bill, we must remember that the pure occupation of Congressmen and women is to represent the interests of their districts and states. Since this bill would not harm domestic relations as much as it would hurt foreign policy, it was in the best interest of the Congress members to please their constituents (the people who will sponsor their careers and success) instead of helping the President evade inevitable, mounting issues regarding foreign relations with The Middle East. In short, the Bill passed because Congress is sympathetic, but also corrupted by wealthy, supportive constituents.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Caroline. This legislation is driven by public (well deserved) anger towards the events of 9/11, however, it does not consider the diplomatic consequences of such an act. The ability for American families to sue Saudi Arabia sets the stage for citizens of other countries to also sue the United States. The success of suing another country, Saudi Arabia in this case, is highly unlikely and sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
DeleteAlthough the want for such a bill is understandable, the bill will deteriorate our already fragile relationship with Saudi Arabia. Even though the country go against all Western values, we must retain our ally in order to have a friend in the middle East. If the bill is passed, we could lose their aid and help against ISIS.
ReplyDelete9/11 holds a very emotional place in all of the United States. I am saddened that so many innocent lives were taken, however I do think this bill can have a lot of negative outcomes. If this bill passes, the legislation would put military and other U.S. officials overseas at risk. The bill’s enactment, “would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor improve the effectiveness of of our response to such attacks" (Obama). In addition, the bill can lead to U.S. personnel dragged into lawsuits abroad over American drone use in Pakistan and Afghanistan, or even its support for Israel.
ReplyDeleteI feel the Bill is proposed for the right reasons, it may ultimately lead to complications. This will grant 9/11 victims the power to sue Saudi Arabia. This is legal because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, which allows the victims to sue, but this may have some unseen consequences if some changes are not made. This bill should be made for purpose of reparation, but at the same time could cause serious unrest between our nations.
ReplyDeleteThe main concerns the White House and Obama had addressed is that it could "open up U.S. officials to legal retaliation in foreign courts". If we can sue Saudi Arabia that gives them the right to sue the U.S. right back, which will definitely cause tension in the future between our two countries. He has also stated that this could "lead to different judges in different courtrooms coming up with varying terror designations about the same country". This gives too much power to judges who can rule unfairly.
ReplyDeleteThe bill was passed unanimously because along with minority whip Hoyer, members of Congress recognize "there is great sympathy among the Senate, the House, bipartisan, to assure that the American families who have suffered great grief and loss have an avenue to address their grievances." They feel an obligation to offer sympathy given that the tragedy was out of their control and as representatives of America, they want to offer their condolences in order to represent the interests of their constituencies. With that said, I don't agree with the legislation given that it will come with consequences and I personally don't believe it is lawful to sue a whole country for some of its citizens. If citizens of the United States ever engage in anything comparable, it sets a precedent that the U.S. may be sued as well, which is potentially very threatening. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country and I have witnessed the consequences of an entire religion/group being blamed for a small percentage of its kind.
ReplyDeleteCAN YOU SAY OVERRIDDEN???
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke openly about concerns on his way to vote for the override. In addition, 30 Senators wanted to discuss modifying the law after they overrode the President.
The bill was unanimously passed from both houses for Congress because the house representatives and senators were sympathetic to the families that were victims of 9/11. Not only that but not supporting such a bill would make a politician seem not patriotic to America. This bill was most likely passed out of impulse emotions and any negative side effects were probably overlooked.
ReplyDeleteThe two main reasons this bill was passed unanimously from both the Senate and House of Representatives is due to the intense amount of lobbying along with the immense amounts of sympathy toward the 9/11 victims and the event itself. As it is widely know, lobbying plays a key role when it comes to the passage of bills, and it is quite evident in this case. On top of that, 9/11 is one of the most tragic events inflicted upon the United States, everyone mourns that date whether you are a victim or an average America. Many Americans feel as if they have not gotten any justice post 9/11, and this can be seen as their new form of justice.
ReplyDeleteThe two main reasons this bill was passed unanimously from both the Senate and House of Representatives is due to the intense amount of lobbying along with the immense amounts of sympathy toward the 9/11 victims and the event itself. As it is widely know, lobbying plays a key role when it comes to the passage of bills, and it is quite evident in this case. On top of that, 9/11 is one of the most tragic events inflicted upon the United States, everyone mourns that date whether you are a victim or an average America. Many Americans feel as if they have not gotten any justice post 9/11, and this can be seen as their new form of justice.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the bill was passed unanimously through both chambers of congress due to sympathy for those who suffered the effects of 9/11. Obama had addressed the concern that the bill may open U.S. officials to counterattack in foreign courts. If Americans are allowed to sue Saudi Arabia, they will want to sue us back, thus causing problems.
ReplyDelete