[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 178 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7005-S7008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 JASTA

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to share some of my thoughts 
on an issue relating to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
  Few dispute the noble goal of ensuring that justice is done for the 
families of the victims of September 11. Time after time, this body has 
acted to honor the memories of the fallen from that terrible day, just 
as it should. But in acting to honor the victims of September 11 and 
the grieving families they left behind, we cannot lose sight of other 
crucial policy goals that enjoy broad bipartisan support, such as 
preserving important legal principles that protect the members of our 
Armed Forces and perpetuate strong relations with important allies.
  As an article in the December 6 edition of the New York Times 
explains, there are ample concerns that individual citizens of a close 
U.S. ally have funded terrorist activities and may have assisted those 
who carried out the September 11 attacks.
  Despite the claim that this ally has taken any official action to 
support the September 11 attackers remains far from proven and, in 
fact, has been of great and instrumental assistance that this ally has 
provided in prosecuting the war on terrorism, questions do remain.
  In response, the families of numerous September 11 victims looked to 
resolve these questions through the courts. Specifically, they sought a 
change to the law that greatly expands the ability of a private 
individual to bring a suit in federal court against a sovereign nation. 
Heeding the calls for justice from victims' families, we recently 
enacted the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act law, and as a 
result, the scope of the legal principle known as sovereign immunity--
here, the immunity of a foreign government from a civil suit in our 
Federal courts--has been distinctly reduced.
  Again, there is nothing wrong with September 11 families seeking 
justice; in fact, I laud them for their commitment and perseverance, 
which is why I supported the passage of this legislation at the time 
and still strongly support its goals. Nevertheless, one of the 
consequences of the exact language of the new statute is that our 
important ally now faces the prospect of going through the extensive 
and intrusive discovery process in federal court. As a result, one of 
our closest partners in the war on terrorism could be ordered by a 
Federal judge to turn over some of their most sensitive documents in 
order to show that their official governments actions did not directly 
support the September 11 attackers. Indeed, nothing in the recently 
declassified portions of the September 11 Commission Report suggests 
that our ally's government leadership had any role in the attack.
  We must consider how the technical features of this change in the law 
will affect our national security. If we allow such lawsuits to proceed 
under the particulars of the newly enacted statutory language here in 
the United States, we undermine the central premise of our objection to 
other countries that might seek to modify their sovereign immunity laws 
by permitting lawsuits against the United States. We could easily find 
ourselves at the mercy of a foreign justice system--one far different 
than our own--if someone filed suit in a foreign nation against the 
United States and demanded that our government turn over highly 
classified documents. If our government refused, that foreign court 
could potentially exact serious consequences, such as freezing American 
assets overseas. Worse yet, if other nations change their sovereign 
immunity laws, foreign courts could potentially begin to hold U.S. 
service members personally liable, both civilly and criminally, for 
actions they have based upon the lawful orders of their superiors.
  In sum, once we begin to unravel sovereign immunity at home, we risk 
creating a cascade of unintended consequences abroad.
  These concerns are widely shared. In a recent op-ed in the Wall 
Street Journal, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Ambassador 
John Bolton made those very same arguments. They also point out that 
the new law ``shifts authority for a huge component of national 
security from the politically accountable branches--the President and 
the Congress--to the Judiciary, the branch least competent to deal with 
international matters of life and death.
  In fact, I was particularly struck by the fact that the editorial 
boards of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington 
Post, the Los Angeles Times, and Bloomberg have all raised serious and 
substantial concerns regarding the particulars of the new legislation. 
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some of these editorials be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  Not only do these editorial boards believe this is not in the best 
interest of the United States, but so do our closest allies as well. 
Specifically, officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, 
and the Netherlands have all written public messages or passed 
resolutions echoing these arguments. Mr. President, I ask unanimous 
consent that a letter from the government of the Netherlands be printed 
in the Record following my remarks.
  Nevertheless, I do believe a solution can be found that provides 
justice for the September 11 families while enhancing our national 
security. My optimism stems in no small part from the leaders involved. 
I understand Senators McCain and Graham are working on just such a 
compromise, and I fully support their efforts to achieve a just 
resolution of this issue. Furthermore, we all owe Senator Cornyn a debt 
of gratitude for his leadership in ensuring that justice is done. I am 
also greatly encouraged that Senator Schumer is leading the Democratic 
efforts on this matter.
  The role of the Senate is to resolve the great issues facing our 
Nation by forging lasting consensus. We have numerous such challenges 
in the past, and I fervently believe that building such a solution is 
possible. I urge all my colleagues to help us move toward this goal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, Sept. 28, 2016]

                 The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       The Senate and the House are expected to vote this week on 
     whether to override President Obama's veto of a bill that 
     would allow families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks 
     to sue Saudi Arabia for any role it had in the terrorist 
     operations. The lawmakers should let the veto stand.
       The legislation, called the Justice Against Sponsors of 
     Terrorism Act, would expand an exception to sovereign 
     immunity, the legal principle that protects foreign countries 
     and their diplomats from lawsuits in the American legal 
     system. While the aim--to give the families their day in 
     court--is compassionate, the bill complicates the United 
     States' relationship with Saudi Arabia and could expose the 
     American government, citizens and corporations to lawsuits 
     abroad. Moreover, legal experts like Stephen Vladeck of the 
     University of Texas School of Law and Jack Goldsmith of 
     Harvard Law School doubt that the legislation would actually 
     achieve its goal.
       Co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New 
     York, and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, the 
     measure is intended to overcome a series of court rulings 
     that have blocked all lawsuits filed by the 9/11 families 
     against the Saudi government. The Senate passed the bill 
     unanimously in May, and the House gave its approval this 
     month.
       The legislation would, among other things, amend a 1976 law 
     that grants other countries broad immunity from American 
     lawsuits--unless the country is on the State Department's 
     list of state sponsors of terrorism (Iran, Sudan and Syria) 
     or is alleged to have committed a terrorist attack that 
     killed Americans on United States soil. The new bill would 
     clarify that foreign governments can be held liable for 
     aiding terrorist groups, even if that conduct occurred 
     overseas.
       Advocates say the measure is narrowly drawn, but 
     administration officials argue that it would apply much more 
     broadly and result in retaliatory actions by other nations. 
     The European Union has warned that

[[Page S7006]]

     if the bill becomes law, other countries could adopt similar 
     legislation defining their own exemptions to sovereign 
     immunity. Because no country is more engaged in the world 
     than the United States--with military bases, drone 
     operations, intelligence missions and training programs--the 
     Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to 
     legal actions abroad.
       The legislation is motivated by a belief among the 9/11 
     families that Saudi Arabia played a role in the attacks, 
     because 15 of the 19 hijackers, who were members of Al Qaeda, 
     were Saudis. But the independent American commission that 
     investigated the attacks found no evidence that the Saudi 
     government or senior Saudi officials financed the terrorists.
       Proponents of the legislation cite two assassination cases 
     in which legal claims were allowed against Chile and Taiwan. 
     Administration officials, however, say that those cases 
     alleged the direct involvement of foreign government agents 
     operating in the United States.
       The current debate is complicated by the fact that Saudi 
     Arabia is a difficult ally, at odds with the United States 
     over the Iran nuclear deal, a Saudi-led war in Yemen and the 
     war in Syria. It is home of the fundamentalist strand of 
     Islam known as Wahhabism, which has inspired many of the 
     extremists the United States is trying to defeat. But it is 
     also a partner in combating terrorism. The legislation could 
     damage this fraught relationship. Riyadh has already 
     threatened to withdraw billions of dollars in American-based 
     assets to protect them from court action.
       The desire to assist the Sept. 11 families is 
     understandable, and the bill is expected to become law. The 
     question is, at what cost?
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 28, 2016]

 Congress Overrides Obama--Too Bad It's on a Bill That Will Hurt U.S. 
                               Interests

       Wouldn't you know that Congress finally challenges 
     President Obama on foreign policy, and it's in a bad cause 
     that will harm U.S. interests. Too bad the President did so 
     little to stop it.
       On Wednesday the Senate (97-1) and House (348-77) overrode 
     Mr. Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism 
     Act (Jasta) that will let victims of terrorism sue foreign 
     governments linked to such attacks. Mr. Obama's veto message 
     rightly noted that this break from the diplomatic principle 
     of sovereign immunity will take ``consequential decisions'' 
     about terrorism from Presidents and hand them to courts and 
     private litigants.
       The law is supposed to help the families of those killed on 
     9/11 to pursue Saudi Arabia, the ultimate deep-pocket target. 
     Never mind that there is no hard proof the Saudi government 
     was complicit in those attacks. Or that Americans can already 
     sue nations that are officially designated as state sponsors 
     of terror.
       This bill has no such limit, so all it takes is a trial 
     lawyer to persuade a judge that a foreign government is 
     liable and we're off to the races. Lawyers will have endless 
     fun subpoenaing documents and testimony from the U.S. and 
     foreign governments that will complicate American diplomacy 
     and security.
       Supporters of the bill rejected any compromise, including 
     language that would limit lawsuits to 9/11 victims, which 
     shows that the real game is to enrich the trial bar. The 
     Saudis may now move to liquidate at least some of their U.S. 
     holdings so they don't become hostage to lawsuits, and some 
     countries might retaliate against U.S. officials.
       The blame is bipartisan. Democrats want another income 
     stream for their trial-lawyer campaign funders, while 
     Republicans stampeded because no one wants to be seen as 
     defending Saudi Arabia in an election year. We hope 
     Republicans appreciate their hapless cynicism. They get the 
     votes to override Mr. Obama for the first time, and it's on a 
     bill that could help make New York Democrat Chuck Schumer 
     Senate Majority Leader.
       These are the same dime-store Metternichs who denounce 
     Donald Trump for being reckless, though Mr. Trump also 
     endorsed the veto override. So did Hillary Clinton, who as a 
     former Secretary of State knows better.
       The current Commander in Chief didn't do much to help. 
     While he vetoed the measure in the end, he did almost nothing 
     along the way to rally opposition. Harry Reid was the only 
     Senate Democrat to support the veto, and he's not running for 
     re-election. Mr. Obama expected the same Republicans he 
     routinely portrays as evil to rescue him even as Mr. Schumer 
     was waiting to ambush any Republicans who supported the 
     Democratic President.
       White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the Senate vote 
     ``the single most embarrassing thing'' it has done in decades 
     and said it was ``an abdication of their basic 
     responsibilities.'' But not nearly as embarrassing as the 
     junior-varsity effort by his boss, who made it easy for 
     Congress to trample him.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2016]

        Should We Let 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia? Not So Fast.

                          (By Editorial Board)

       A BASIC precept of international law is that sovereign 
     nations, or their government officials, should not be liable 
     for official actions in the civil courts of other sovereign 
     nations. Sovereign immunity has stood the test of time 
     because it makes practical sense. And it makes practical 
     sense because the international deeds and misdeeds of 
     governments are more equitably dealt with through state-to-
     state negotiations than by hauling one country's officials in 
     front of the judges and juries of another.
       Alas, the Senate and the House have unanimously voted to 
     weaken this principle in the noble-sounding cause of justice 
     for American victims of alleged state-sponsored acts of 
     terrorism. The legislation, sparked by much-ballyhooed but 
     so-far-unsubstantiated claims of official Saudi collusion in 
     the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, would permit victims of acts of 
     terrorism in the United States to sue alleged state sponsors 
     for monetary damages in federal court. Under current law, 
     such suits are permissible only against governments that the 
     State Department has already designated as sponsors of 
     terrorism: Iran, Syria and Sudan. The bill would enable 
     private individuals and their lawyers to add oil-rich Saudi 
     Arabia, perhaps the ultimate deep-pocketed defendant, to that 
     list. Someday, other countries could find themselves in the 
     dock, too.
       Proponents describe the bill as a ``narrow'' adjustment to 
     existing law, and, to be sure, they have watered down more 
     sweeping earlier versions in the face of veto threats from 
     President Obama and criticism from international-law and 
     national-security experts. The revised bill allows the 
     executive branch to freeze any given suit for 180 days, by 
     certifying to a court that it is engaged in good-faith 
     negotiations to resolve the plaintiff's claims with the 
     defendant nation. Such a stay could be extended for as long 
     as the State Department certifies that the negotiations are 
     still ongoing. As long as an administration is willing to 
     jump through these hoops, it could probably block an 
     objectionable lawsuit indefinitely, which makes one wonder 
     what the point of the bill is anymore.
       Note, however, that this would require the executive branch 
     to conduct negotiations so it could make the certification, 
     even if it didn't think such talks were warranted. And the 
     bill leaves it up to a court whether to grant the initial 
     stay. This is still too much power to give unelected, 
     inexpert judges over a core function of the political 
     branches.
       In short, to the extent the revised bill isn't merely 
     symbolic, it's mischievous. Mr. Obama has repeatedly called 
     it a precedent other countries could easily turn against the 
     United States. It is not a far-fetched concern, given this 
     country's global use of intelligence agents, Special 
     Operations forces and drones, all of which could be construed 
     as state-sponsored ``terrorism'' when convenient. Even if a 
     future administration did succeed in blocking a lawsuit, the 
     mere filing of it could irritate the target country or 
     countries. Members of Congress have repeatedly claimed enough 
     votes to override Mr. Obama's veto threat, and they may be 
     right. Mr. Obama should carry it out anyway. If long-standing 
     principles of law and policy are to be discarded so lightly, 
     at least let it be done without his approval.
                                  ____


                      [From the Los Angeles Times]

 Allowing Americans To Sue Foreign Governments Over Terrorist Acts May 
                    Sound Like a Good Idea. It's Not

                     (By LA Times Editorial Board)

       From an emotional standpoint, the Justice Against Sponsors 
     of Terrorism Act has some appeal. The bill, which is still 
     being finalized, aims to open U.S. courts to civil lawsuits 
     by Americans against foreign governments tied to terror 
     attacks in the United States. Though it would be written 
     broadly enough to encompass all the countries in the world, 
     the bill has a clear target: Saudi Arabia. Proponents say 
     they want to allow families of the nearly 3,000 victims of 
     the 9/11 attacks seek damages in court if proof emerges that 
     the Saudi government supported the 19 al Qaeda hijackers, 15 
     of whom were Saudis. It may sound good, but it's a bad idea.
       Saudi Arabia isn't the most embraceable of U.S. allies. It 
     executes people with abandon, including 47 in one day in 
     January on charges ranging from involvement in terror attacks 
     to disloyalty. The royal family's repression of women--from 
     its draconian dress codes to its requirement that women be 
     accompanied by male chaperones when leaving the house--
     offends basic concepts of human rights and equality, as does 
     its practice of imprisoning dissidents. The government 
     embraces public flogging as punishment for some crimes, a 
     judgment facing Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh, who has been 
     sentenced to eight years in prison and 800 lashes. His 
     offense? Apostasy, based on poems that the government said 
     embraced atheism and spread ``some destructive thoughts into 
     society.''
       What's more, the Saudis have close ties to deeply unsavory 
     organizations. The bill currently making its way through 
     Congress was prompted, in part, by investigations showing 
     that leading Saudis helped bankroll Al Qaeda, though the 
     reports that have been released so far have stopped short of 
     linking Osama bin Laden's terror group to the Saudi royal 
     family or government. Speculation continues to swirl around 
     28 pages of an 838-page congressional report on the 9/11 
     attacks that were withheld as classified when the rest of the 
     report was released in 2002. The Saudi government has denied 
     any complicity in the attacks. The pages were ordered 
     classified by President George W. Bush, who said he feared 
     their release would divulge sensitive investigative 
     techniques.

[[Page S7007]]

       The Obama administration has been reviewing the 28 pages 
     and reportedly will soon declassify some of them. It ought to 
     release all of them.
       But regardless of the Saudi role in 9/11, it would be a big 
     mistake to pass the bill, which would badly undercut the 
     legal principle of ``sovereign immunity.'' Rooted in 
     international law, sovereign immunity protects governments 
     from being held to account in the courts of another country 
     (with some narrow exceptions). Obviously, the downside of 
     this is that it sometimes protects bad governments from being 
     punished for their policies and actions. But on the other 
     hand, it also serves as needed protection against trumped up 
     or politicized prosecutions in courts around the world. And 
     be warned: If Congress strips governments everywhere of their 
     protection in U.S. courts, those countries will almost 
     certainly adopt similar policies against the U.S.
       That would lead to a mish-mash of legal challenges, claims 
     of damages, and complicated international relations. Given 
     the U.S. government's disproportionate role in foreign 
     affairs, the potential exposure such a measure would bring to 
     the U.S. is inestimable. Expect to see civil claims by 
     victims of collateral damage in military attacks, lawsuits by 
     people caught up in the nation's post-9/11 detention 
     policies, including Guantanamo Bay, and challenges over 
     atrocities committed by U.S.-backed Syrian rebels. Pretty 
     much anywhere that U.S. policies have led to damages, those 
     who suffered could potentially seek redress in their own 
     courts, jeopardizing American assets overseas, where the rule 
     of law sometimes is solid, but in other cases is a tool 
     wielded for political purposes.
       Fearing its exposure in American courts, Saudi Arabia has 
     already threatened to sell $750 billion in U.S. assets that 
     it says would be at-risk if the proposed law goes into 
     effect.
       The 9/11 attacks were horrific, and the losses suffered by 
     the victims' families are incalculable. But the solution is 
     not to open this Pandora's Box. If the Saudi government is 
     found to have supported the attacks, a resolution should be 
     reached through diplomacy, nation to nation, not through 
     individual claims in civil courts.
                                  ____


                     [From Bloomberg, May 24, 2016]

          Suing the Saudis Would Make the U.S. A Legal Target

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       It's not easy to defend an obscure legal doctrine against 
     claims for justice from the victims of the worst terrorist 
     attack ever to take place on U.S. soil. But doing so has 
     become a necessity, since Congress has decided to rewrite 
     U.S. law on sovereign immunity.
       Last week the Senate unanimously passed the Justice Against 
     Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which authorizes U.S. courts to 
     hear civil claims for monetary damages against a foreign 
     state accused of direct involvement in a terrorist act 
     harming an American citizen in the U.S. Under current law, 
     almost all foreign nations are immune from lawsuits in U.S. 
     courts.
       While the bill doesn't name any particular country, it 
     would enable the 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia. Fifteen 
     of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens, and some officials 
     and members of the royal family have long been accused of 
     involvement in the plot. Despite its wide support, President 
     Barack Obama has promised to veto the bill.
       A veto would be well deserved, and before members of 
     Congress try to override it, they might want to consider the 
     value of sovereign immunity--and the nation that benefits 
     from it the most. (Hint: They represent it.)
       If other nations follow the Senate's lead, no country would 
     be a bigger, better, richer target for lawsuits than the U.S. 
     In Cuba and Iran, in fact, courts have already issued 
     billions of dollars in judgments against Washington. Changing 
     U.S. law might give them and other nations so inclined a 
     chance to actually collect on such rulings.
       This potential legal liability would hang over the U.S. 
     fight against global terrorism, and leave the government 
     liable for actions by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria 
     and elsewhere. U.S. aid to Israel, for example, could leave 
     it open to suits from Palestinians injured by Israeli troops. 
     The entirety of U.S. foreign policy could be put on trial 
     under the guise of seeking monetary justice.
       Acknowledging the importance of sovereign immunity does not 
     require overlooking the Saudis' role in the rise of Muslim 
     extremism: They have spent decades and billions of dollars 
     exporting their extremist Wahhabi version of Islam. Many 
     Saudi charities and individuals have directly supported 
     violent groups such as al-Qaeda.
       But the response to this activity properly resides in the 
     realm of diplomacy and trade policy, not in court, It is a 
     slow, uneven process, but change is possible--and there are 
     signs that the Saudi ruling family realizes this.
       No one can deny the right of the 9/11 families to truth and 
     justice. They have already received billions from the victim 
     compensation fund established by Congress, and two separate 
     government investigations spent years producing the 9/11 
     Commission report.
       A more productive exercise of congressional authority would 
     focus on that report--specifically, the so-called ``28 
     pages'' from the initial 9/11 investigation that remain under 
     seal. Many of the victims' families, as well as other 
     Americans, want to know what is in those pages.
       Some lawmakers who have seen them say there is nothing 
     damaging to national security in them and they should be 
     released. Others, including members of the 9/11 Commission 
     staff, say they are filled with hearsay implicating prominent 
     Saudi citizens.
       A compromise is not hard to envision: Release the pages, 
     along with an explanation from the commission as to why the 
     allegations don't hold up. Such an agreement would also serve 
     the cause of truth and justice--without jeopardizing 
     America's moral and legal standing in the rest of the world.
                                  ____


                    [From The Hill, Sept. 21, 2016]

                  EU Expresses Concern Over 9/11 Bill

       The European Union on Wednesday expressed concern about the 
     possible adoption by Congress of a bill that would allow U.S. 
     citizens to sue Saudi Arabia over the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
       The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), 
     which has bipartisan support and passed both houses of 
     Congress, would amend the federal criminal code to permit 
     lawsuits against foreign states and officials believed to be 
     involved in terrorist attacks.
       The White House is expected to veto it this week, arguing 
     that the bill would lead to reciprocal lawsuits against U.S. 
     citizens, but Congress is expected to attempt to override the 
     veto. In a letter dated Sept. 19 obtained by The Hill, the EU 
     said ``the possible adoption and implementation of the JASTA 
     would be in conflict with fundamental principles of 
     international law and in particular the principle of State 
     sovereign immunity.''
       ``State immunity is a central pillar of the international 
     legal order. Any derogation from the principle of immunity 
     bears the inherent danger of causing reciprocal action by 
     other states and an erosion of the principle as such. The 
     latter would put a burden on bilateral relations between 
     states as well as on the international order,'' the EU said.
       The passage of JASTA came after suspicions that Saudi 
     Arabia supported four of the 9/11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia has 
     denied any support of the attack.
                                  ____


                    [From The Telegraph, June 2016]

  Why a U.S. Law to Let 9/11 Families Sue Saudi Arabia is a Threat to 
                 Britain and its Intelligence Agencies

                          (By Tom Tugendhatmp)

       The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (Jasta) that 
     is making its way through Congress is not intended as an 
     attack on MI5 or MI6, services that work so closely with the 
     U.S. intelligence community. The law was written with the 
     intention of allowing U.S. victims of terrorism to bring 
     lawsuits in American courts against the government of Saudi 
     Arabia and other nations whose state bodies could be accused 
     of offering a blind eye--and even a helping hand--to sponsors 
     of terror. The Senate has already passed it, leading the 
     Saudi government to threaten to sell the $750 billion in 
     assets it holds in the U.S.
       Under the bill, U.S. citizens might sue the British 
     government claiming a negligent lack of effort to tackle 
     Islamic radicalism in earlier decades. Some in the U.S. 
     already accuse Britain of tolerating radical preachers in 
     ``Londonistan'' during the Nineties, an approach they say 
     spawned terrorism. Saudi Arabia may be the target of the law, 
     but it could also have serious unintended consequences for 
     Britain.
       The act would expose the British government to the 
     possibility of revealing the secrets of intelligence 
     operations in open court, or paying damages over alleged 
     failures to prevent terrorist attacks. Either outcome would 
     put the special relationship under severe strain.
       Under the bill, U.S. citizens might sue the British 
     government claiming a negligent lack of effort to tackle 
     Islamic radicalism in earlier decades. Some in the US already 
     accuse Britain of tolerating radical preachers in 
     ``Londonistan'' during the Nineties, an approach they say 
     spawned terrorism.
       Such critics cite cases such as the 2001 failed attack on 
     an aircraft by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber. A petty 
     criminal from Bromley and a Muslim convert, he was 
     radicalised at the Finsbury Park Mosque which was known to 
     the police and MI5 as a base for extremist preachers.
       A lawsuit brought under Jasta might force the UK government 
     to reveal intelligence about the plot, why it failed to act 
     and its reasons for doing so. Alternatively, Britain would 
     have to agree a financial settlement. Either way, Britain's 
     reputation would be severely damaged.
       Modern diplomacy is based on an old concept, sovereign 
     immunity, which Britain adopted in 1648. It prevents the 
     courts of any nation being used to harass government 
     officials. The bill before Congress would see the U.S. 
     abandon that principle. Foreign governments, even friendly 
     ones, would be exposed to the U.S. courts and the prospect of 
     judicial extortion to avoid revealing secret intelligence. 
     That can only lead to a cooling of relations and isolate the 
     U.S.
       Dismissing cases brought under the new law would be harder, 
     since the act also undermines the power of U.S. authorities 
     to halt trials. Federal courts would no longer be able to 
     rule on sovereign immunity protections during a trial's 
     ``motion to dismiss'' stage. That would allow U.S. lawyers to 
     either force foreign states to disclose sensitive information 
     and extort settlements.
       There is a way to prevent the most damaging of cases. The 
     U.S. president can invoke

[[Page S7008]]

     a state secrets privilege to bar certain ``discoveries'' of 
     sensitive information, even in private litigation. Under the 
     current administration, that may prove adequate protection 
     for an ally such as Britain. But given his disregard for 
     international co-operation it seems reasonable to wonder 
     whether a President Trump would ever invoke that legal 
     privilege, even on behalf of an allied nation. The decision 
     would be completely at his discretion. Such is the power of 
     the presidency.
       The Obama White House and the State Department are strongly 
     opposed to Jasta. They can see the potential for diplomatic 
     damage. They also realise the potential for revenge 
     prosecutions in foreign jurisdictions. The international 
     banking system means that most of the world's financial 
     transactions are routed through computer servers in the U.S. 
     If the U.S. allows lawsuits against foreign governments for 
     complicity in terrorism, how long before a foreign court 
     allows, case against the U.S. for negligence over terrorist 
     financing?
       The Senate was mistaken to pass this bill and the House of 
     Representatives should reject it. Sadly though, both Mr Trump 
     and Hillary Clinton have said they would sign it. Doing so 
     would weaken the U.S. and damage the special relationship. 
     The world needs U.S. leadership and partnership. Jasta would 
     only leave us all more isolated.

                          ____________________