[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.
____________________