First of two parts

On Sept. 28, 2016, the House and Senate overrode President Obama’s veto of legislation that would allow United States citizens to bring lawsuits against foreign sponsors of terrorism. The impetus for this legislation came from the 9/11 attacks, now dubbed as the 9/11 Act.

The figure attached to this article provides a summary of the topic of this article. While the act is general in nature, the immediate target is Saudi Arabia, because several of the 9/11 terrorists were citizens of that nation. The bill is effective for any act of terrorism on or after Sept. 11, 2001.

The veto count was overwhelming, well above the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto. The House vote was 348-77; the Senate 97-1 in favor of the override. The President protested, declaring the law would impede a president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

No matter, both Democrats and Republicans weighed in to support what John Cornyn, R-Texas declared: The bill “gives the victims of the terrorist attack on our own soil an opportunity to seek the justice they deserve.” Furthermore, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md, stated, “We cannot in good conscience close the courthouse door to those families who have suffered unimaginable losses.”

Major aspects of the law

(See www.congress.gov/bill/114th congress/senate-bill/2040)

Section 3 of the law “authorizes federal court jurisdiction over a civil claim against a foreign state for physical injury to a person or property or death that occurs inside the United States. …”

A key point: The law does not deal with an act of war. It deals only with attackers who have not made a formal, internationally recognized declaration of war. It is not the stuff of FDR addressing the nation Dec. 8, 1941 with his “day of infamy” speech after Pearl Harbor, followed by a request for Congress to declare war. The 9/11 bill is more modest in its scope, and is focused on terrorist victims finding redress in civil litigation.

Thus, Section 4 of the bill amends the U.S. criminal code to impose civil liability on a person who conspires or provides support to commit an act of international terrorism. The word “civil” is important, because civil cases involve individuals and usually result in monetary settlements. Criminal cases usually are settled with prison time.

As of this writing, it appears that lawsuits from individuals will be filed against a country, and not a person. Nonetheless, the potential exists for lawsuits to be filed against individuals.

Which courthouse?

Section 5 establishes an “exclusive federal court jurisdiction over civil claims under this bill.” Although the bill is not precise about this new institution, it appears another level of government bureaucracy (an exclusive U.S. federal court) will have the power to put this bill into place. Thus, this mandate does not include international courts of law, three of which are located at The Hague in the Netherlands: the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court.

The question becomes: Will a nation such as Saudi Arabia allow itself and perhaps its citizens to be subjects of a U.S. civil suit brought by an aggrieved American citizen? How would the Saudis deal with the possibility that their anti-American Wahhabis might indeed be found to have had a hand in 9/11? The Wahhabis are known to have had an influence on some of the 9/11 terrorists.

How about Russia, China, Iran, and the Syrian regime? Your guess is as good as mine, but my guess is no nation will accept a U.S. civil court proceeding, whose very creation is designed to cause them grief. Of equal importance, this act will compromise their sovereignty.

Which culprit?

The 9/11 Act deals with foreign sponsors, but how is it determined if the terrorist is an American or a foreigner? For example, if the Boston Marathoner bombers, who were U.S. residents, had foreign sponsors, who brings lawsuits on whom? On the two men? On their sponsors? On the sponsors’ country of origin or current residence? On the country from which they received their propaganda? On the bombers’ parents, for their not reading Dr. Seuss?

Who becomes the defendant?

This act will open the floodgates of lawsuits against the U.S. and quite possibly, U.S. citizens (military and intelligence personnel) for America’s military operations around the globe. The second piece of this article describes three of what could be thousands of examples.

•••

Writer and researcher Uyless Black was awarded the U.S. Navy Commendation Medal for his participation in eight amphibious landings, six amphibious assaults, and five amphibious raids during the Vietnam conflict. He currently resides in Hayden, Idaho and Palm Springs, Calif.