What the 9/11 Justice Bill Really Means

When a bipartisan bill to allow relatives of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian government came up for a vote, members of the normally rancorous Senate — which hasn’t seen bipartisanship in eons — suddenly joined hands and sang “Kumbaya.” The members approved the bill unanimously in a voice vote.

Under the bill, families could collect compensation if the Saudi Arabian government is found to have some responsibility in the 9/11 attacks.

But President Obama let it be known almost immediately that he hates the bill, formally named the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. And he hates it so much that he vows to veto it should the bill reach his desk.

“This legislation would change long-standing international law regarding sovereign immunity, and the president of the United States continues to harbor serious concerns that this legislation would make the United States vulnerable in other court systems around the world,” Obama press secretary Josh Earnest said. “Given the concerns that we have expressed, it’s difficult to imagine the president signing this legislation.”

Under the bill, families could collect compensation if the Saudi government is found to have some responsibility in the 9/11 attacks. But Obama argues that it would endanger national security and undermine the doctrine of sovereign immunity — the idea that an entire country itself cannot commit a crime, and thus cannot be sued or prosecuted.

But first, the bill must pass through the House. Although House Speaker Paul Ryan has dodged choosing an explicit side on the issue, he said he has reservations about the bill and its potential unintended consequences.

“I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies.” — Paul Ryan

“I think we need to look at it,” Ryan told reporters last month. “I think we need to review it to make sure we are not making mistakes with our allies and we’re not catching people in this that shouldn’t be caught up in this.”

In addition to Ryan’s reservations, Earnest said other members of the House have expressed their uncertainty regarding the bill and the consequences its passing could have for the U.S. and its international relations.

“Before we get to the question of a veto override, there’s a question about whether or not this legislation will pass the House,” Earnest told reporters on Tuesday. “There are Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives that have raised concerns about the bill in the same way that the administration has.”

Ryan’s dodging and the White House’s disapproval illuminate the doubts many have expressed about the bill. If enacted, it could have even more far-reaching consequences than the single issue of families demanding compensation from the Saudi Arabian government for any part in the 9/11 attacks. The bill’s passage could set an unpredictable precedent that would backfire and raise a host of new issues the U.S. must face and navigate with other foreign countries — especially if sovereign immunity is scrapped completely.

[lz_related_box id=”141548″]

For its own part, the Saudi Arabian government has threatened to liquidate its huge stake of $750 billion in U.S. assets and treasury securities if the legislation is passed, Agence France-Presse reported.

“We said that a law like this is going to cause investor confidence to shrink,” Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said earlier this month, according to The Hill. “And not just for Saudi Arabia, but for everybody.”

Although the Saudi Arabian government has never been formally held responsible for the 9/11 attacks, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens.