The Economist 20161001 ed79b8

38 United States The Economist October 1st 2016
Saudi Arabia and 9/11
Enter the lawyers
WASHINGTON, DC
The president’s veto is ringingly
overturned by Congress
UNDER pressure from families bereaved
by the terror attacks ofSeptember
11th 2001, and with the threat from Islamic
extremism a potent talking-point in
the general-election campaign, Congress
has voted overwhelmingly to allow Americans
to sue foreign governments foraiding
and abetting terrorist acts in America. The
decision on September 28th overturned a
veto by President Barack Obama and
brushed aside furious lobbying by Saudi
Arabia, the primary target of the new law.
A vote in the Senate passed 97-1, followed
by a 348-77 vote in the House of Representatives,
easily clearing the two-thirds hurdle
for a veto override: the first of Mr
Obama’s time in office.
The vote prompted something close to
presidential scorn, with Mr Obama, in an
interview with CNN television, calling the
congressional decision a “mistake”, driven
by the desire not to be seen “voting against
9/11 families right before an election”. His
press spokesman went further, calling the
Senate vote “the single most embarrassing
thing” the chamber had done in decades.
The law, the Justice Against Sponsors of
Terrorism Act (JASTA), weakens the longstanding
principle of “sovereign immunity”,
under which governments are mostly
shielded from lawsuits filed in the courts
of another country. Before its passage such
officials as John Brennan, director of the
CIA, John Kerry, the secretary of state, and
the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff,
General Joseph Dunford, all expressed
concerns that the law may harm security
co-operation with allies and prompt other
countries to pass reciprocal laws, potentially
exposing American troops, spooks
and envoys to lawsuits.
Mr Obama raised the hypothetical example
of an attack in America by a radicalised
British citizen, prompting a victim to
use the new law to sue the British government,
“our closest ally”, allowing lawyers
to demand “all kinds of documents” from
Britain. He further imagined American
troops facing lawsuits after a traffic accident
during disaster relief in, say, the Philippines,
noting that America’s ability to secure
immunity from local prosecution for
its personnel is “mainly” based on offering
reciprocal rights to foreign governments.
Supporters of JASTA, who come from
both parties, say that the law merely gives
September 11th victims a chance to hold
foreign sponsors of terrorism to account,
and to explore in an American court longstanding
allegations that Saudi authorities
knew about or supported the hijacking
plot, which involved 15 citizens of that
country—though Saudi officials deny such
Ladies’ night
“She gained a massive amount ofweight
and it was a real problem.”
Donald Trump fat-shames Miss Universe
1996. Fox and Friends, post-debate
The campaigns
Heard on the trail
links, and the formal 9/11Commission that
probed the attacks found no evidence that
the Saudi government as an institution
was involved. Backers of JASTA note that
sovereign immunity is already not absolute,
because lawsuits are allowed under
some circumstances against countries that
have been officially designated as “state
sponsors of terrorism” by the American
government. Only three countries—Iran,
Sudan and Syria—currently labour under
that badge ofdishonour, which is imposed
after lengthy official review.
Politicians made uneasy by JASTA include
the chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee,
a Republican. Shortly before the
vote to override the president’s veto, Mr
Corker told reporters that the danger ofthe
new law was that “you end up exporting
your foreign policy to trial lawyers”. Even
some co-sponsors of JASTA admit that
their bill may have “ramifications” that
have not been properly considered.
Members who think JASTA a mistake
may return to the law after November 8th
and seek legislative fixes, perhaps by narrowing
its scope to the victims of the 2001
attacks. Congress is not at its bravest weeks
before a general election. 7
The enemy of my enemy
“Trump…[says] anything that comes to
his tongue.”
Taliban leaders on the debate. They were
sorry Afghanistan got no mention. NBC
Demanding justice, at a price
A bad workman ...
“My microphone was terrible. I wonder,
was it set up that way on purpose?”
Mr Trump explains his poor debate performance.
Fox News
... blames his tools
“Anybody who complains about the
microphone is not having a good night.”
Hillary Clinton responds
American History X
“I thinkeven most eight-year-olds will
tell you that whole slavery thing wasn’t
very good for blackpeople.”
Barack Obama takes issue with Mr
Trump’s assertion that blacks have never
been worse off. ABC News
Grumpy old men
“He’s up in years.”
Donald Rumsfeld, 84, judges former president
George H.W. Bush, 92, on his rumoured
support for Mrs Clinton. MSNBC
Selling your soul
“I’m just trying to get this Cruz sticker off
my car.”
Ted Cruz’s ex-spokesman decries his endorsement
of Mr Trump. New York Times
Art for art’s sake
“We found Mr Trump. He arrived some
time after five. He has damage.”
Miami police announce the recovery of a
nude Trump statue. Palm Beach Post
Don’t call us
“REMINDER…being mad at a presidential
candidate in a debate is NOT a
reason to call 911.”
The Lawrence, Kansas, police department
appeals for calm
Whoops
“Today I received an e-mail from @real-
DonaldTrump asking for money ... Of
course I had an answer for him.”
Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico