```

[Senate Document 114-16]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

114th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - Senate Document 114-16
 
                             VETO--S. 2040

                                (PM 56)

                               __________

                                MESSAGE

                                  from

                     THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                               returning

             WITHOUT MY APPROVAL S. 2040, THE JUSTICE AGAINST 
                   SPONSORS OF TERRORISM ACT

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               September 26, 2016.--Ordered to be printed
                                    ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

21-622                         WASHINGTON : 2016                
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
To the Senate of the United States:
    I am returning herewith without my approval S. 2040, the 
``Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act'' (JASTA), which 
would, among other things, remove sovereign immunity in U.S. 
courts from foreign governments that are not designated state 
sponsors of terrorism.
    I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), who have 
suffered grievously. I also have a deep appreciation of these 
families' desire to pursue justice and am strongly committed to 
assisting them in their efforts.
    Consistent with this commitment, over the past 8 years, I 
have directed my Administration to pursue relentlessly al-
Qa'ida, the terrorist group that planned the 9/11 attacks. The 
heroic efforts of our military and counterterrorism 
professionals have decimated al-Qa'ida's leadership and killed 
Osama bin Laden. My Administration also strongly supported, and 
I signed into law, legislation which ensured that those who 
bravely responded on that terrible day and other survivors of 
the attacks will be able to receive treatment for any injuries 
resulting from the attacks. And my Administration also directed 
the Intelligence Community to perform a declassification review 
of ``Part Four of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 
Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the 
Terrorist Attacks of September 11,'' so that the families of 9/
11 victims and broader public can better understand the 
information investigators gathered following that dark day of 
our history.
    Notwithstanding these significant efforts, I recognize that 
there is nothing that could ever erase the grief the 9/11 
families have endured. My Administration therefore remains 
resolute in its commitment to assist these families in their 
pursuit of justice and do whatever we can to prevent another 
attack in the United States. Enacting JASTA into law, however, 
would neither protect Americans from terrorist attacks nor 
improve the effectiveness of our response to such attacks. As 
drafted, JASTA would allow private litigation against foreign 
governments in U.S. courts based on allegations that such 
foreign governments' actions abroad made them responsible for 
terrorism-related injuries on U.S. soil. This legislation would 
permit litigation against countries that have neither been 
designated by the executive branch as state sponsors of 
terrorism nor taken direct actions in the United States to 
carry out an attack here. The JASTA would be detrimental to 
U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why I am 
returning it without my approval.
    First, JASTA threatens to reduce the effectiveness of our 
response to indications that a foreign government has taken 
steps outside our borders to provide support for terrorism, by 
taking such matters out of the hands of national security and 
foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of 
private litigants and courts.
    Any indication that a foreign government played a role in a 
terrorist attack on U.S. soil is a matter of deep concern and 
merits a forceful, unified Federal Government response that 
considers the wide range of important and effective tools 
available. One of these tools is designating the foreign 
government in question as a state sponsor of terrorism, which 
carries with it a litany of repercussions, including the 
foreign government being stripped of its sovereign immunity 
before U.S. courts in certain terrorism-related cases and 
subjected to a range of sanctions. Given these serious 
consequences, state sponsor of terrorism designations are made 
only after national security, foreign policy, and intelligence 
professionalscarefully review all available information to 
determine whether a country meets the criteria that the Congress 
established.
    In contrast, JASTA departs from longstanding standards and 
practice under our Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and 
threatens to strip all foreign governments of immunity from 
judicial process in the United States based solely upon 
allegations by private litigants that a foreign government's 
overseas conduct had some role or connection to a group or 
person that carried out a terrorist attack inside the United 
States. This would invite consequential decisions to be made 
based upon incomplete information and risk having different 
courts reaching different conclusions about the culpability of 
individual foreign governments and their role in terrorist 
activities directed against the United States--which is neither 
an effective nor a coordinated way for us to respond to 
indications that a foreign government might have been behind a 
terrorist attack.
    Second, JASTA would upset longstanding international 
principles regarding sovereign immunity, putting in place rules 
that, if applied globally, could have serious implications for 
U.S. national interests. The United States has a larger 
international presence, by far, than any other country, and 
sovereign immunity principles protect our Nation and its Armed 
Forces, officials, and assistance professionals, from foreign 
court proceedings. These principles also protect U.S. 
Government assets from attempted seizure by private litigants 
abroad. Removing sovereign immunity in U.S. courts from foreign 
governments that are not designated as state sponsors of 
terrorism, based solely on allegations that such foreign 
governments' actions abroad had a connection to terrorism-
related injuries on U.S. soil, threatens to undermine these 
longstanding principles that protect the United States, our 
forces, and our personnel.
    Indeed, reciprocity plays a substantial role in foreign 
relations, and numerous other countries already have laws that 
allow for the adjustment of a foreign state's immunities based 
on the treatment their governments receive in the courts of the 
other state. Enactment of JASTA could encourage foreign 
governments to act reciprocally and allow their domestic courts 
to exercise jurisdiction over the United States or U.S. 
officials--including our men and women in uniform--for 
allegedly causing injuries overseas via U.S. support to third 
parties. This could lead to suits against the United States or 
U.S. officials for actions taken by members of an armed group 
that received U.S. assistance, misuse of U.S. military 
equipment by foreign forces, or abuses committed by police 
units that received U.S. training, even if the allegations at 
issue ultimately would be without merit. And if any of these 
litigants were to win judgments--based on foreign domestic laws 
as applied by foreign courts--they would begin to look to the 
assets of the U.S. Government held abroad to satisfy those 
judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for 
the United States.
    Third, JASTA threatens to create complications in our 
relationships with even our closest partners. If JASTA were 
enacted, courts could potentially consider even minimal 
allegations accusing U.S. allies or partners of complicity in a 
particular terrorist attack in the United States to be 
sufficient to open the door to litigation and wide-ranging 
discovery against a foreign country--for example, the country 
where an individual who later committed a terrorist act 
traveled from or became radicalized. A number of our allies and 
partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about 
the bill. By exposing these allies and partners to this sort of 
litigation in U.S. courts, JASTA threatens to limit their 
cooperation on key national security issues, including 
counterterrorism initiatives, at a crucial time when we are 
trying to build coalitions, not create divisions.
    The 9/11 attacks were the worst act of terrorism on U.S. 
soil, and they were met with an unprecedented U.S. Government 
response. The United States has taken robust and wide-ranging 
actions to provide justice for the victims of the 9/11 attacks 
and keep Americans safe, from providing financial compensation 
for victims and their families to conducting worldwide 
counterterrorism programs to bringing criminal charges against 
culpable individuals. I have continued and expanded upon these 
efforts, both to help victims of terrorism gain justice for the 
loss and suffering of their loved ones and to protect the 
United States from future attacks. The JASTA, however, does not 
contribute to these goals, does not enhance the safety of 
Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core U.S. 
interests.
    For these reasons, I must veto the bill.
                                                      Barack Obama.
    The White House, September 23, 2016.

                                  [all]
```