Obama rejects bill that would allow 9/11 victims to sue Saudi government

Mr Obama said the law, which was passed without opposition by both chambers of congress, would be “detrimental to US national interests.”

President Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia. The move sets Mr Obama up for a possible first veto override by congresShow more

ABU DHABI // Barack Obama on Friday vetoed a bill passed by the US congress this month that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government over alleged ties to the attacks.

While expressing “deep sympathy” for the families of the victims, Mr Obama said the law would be “detrimental to US national interests”.

The US president’s action sets up the prospects of the first veto override of his tenure, as the bill was passed without opposition by both chambers of congress.

A vote to override a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the senate and the house of representatives.

Congressional leaders in both the senate and house of representatives said earlier this week that they planned to hold an override vote before breaking next week for the November elections.

Members of both the Democratic and Republican parties have recently voiced concerns with the bill, and the White House had hoped an override vote could be delayed until after the elections in order to press their argument and work on a compromise version, in an environment of less political pressure.

The legislation as it stands would lift the protection of sovereign immunity, as currently mandated under a 1976 law, for cases involving terrorist attacks within the US, allowing lawsuits brought against Saudi Arabia by families of 9/11 victims to go forward.

Under the current law only countries that have been designated as sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, can be sued.

While congressional and 9/11 commission investigations found no connection between the Saudi government and the September 11 plot, the families of the victims claim that details of circumstantial links between some of the hijackers while they were in the US and lower level Saudi officials are grounds for their lawsuits.

In an election year, the issue has found unanimous support in congress, which is usually bitterly divided.

The US administration argued that the law would end the concept of sovereign immunity and place US military personnel, diplomats and citizens at risk around the world for lawsuits over US military actions. European Union officials reportedly also have lobbied congress to not override the veto for the same reason.

The US defence secretary, Ashton Carter, told the senate’s armed services committee on Thursday that “were another country to behave reciprocally, this could be a problem for our service members, and this is something that, at the department of defence, we are concerned about”.

Saudi officials have reportedly told US legislators they would be forced to sell billions of dollars’ worth of US assets in order to shield them from the lawsuits.

Some members have appeared to change their stance, such as senator Dianne Feinstein, the most senior Democrat on the senate intelligence committee, which is chaired by a Republican. She called on her colleagues to delay the vote so that a compromise version could be drafted that would address the administration’s concerns.

But other senior members of congress, even those who now are concerned about the effects of the bill, have said they expect the vote to be held next week.

Senate foreign relations committee chairman, Republican Bob Corker, said on Tuesday the vote to override the presidential veto was a “fait accompli”. It would need 34 out of 100 senators to vote against the override, he said.

“Unless there are 34 people willing to fall on their swords over this, it’s probably not worth falling on your sword over,” he said.