TEHRAN – In late September the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama's veto of legislation allowing relatives of the victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian government.

The bill, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), angered Saudi rulers.
Prof. William O. Beeman, head of the anthropology department at the State University of Minnesota, tells the Tehran Times that the legislation “does not help the relationship between the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia.”

Following is the text of the interview with Professor Beeman:

Q: President Obama vetoed JASTA legislation, but Congress overrode his veto. Would you please explain about the confrontation between the administration and Congress over the legislation?

A: The matter is complicated. Current U.S. law only allows citizens to sue states who are listed as state supporters of terrorism. In order to allow American citizens to sue Saudi Arabia, legislation was needed. In the United States, citizens often press Congress to pass laws that allow legal suits to go forward, and the September 11, 2001 was a terrible tragedy. Americans are never satisfied with the idea that they can't ever have any recompense for damage, so they often seek to sue anyone with "deep pockets" to get this recompense. There was no one to sue, and so the victims and their lawyers decided that since there were so many Saudi participants they would go after the Saudi government, and would try to prove that the government had some role in the attacks. This law does NOT provide any direct recompense from the Saudi government, nor does it accuse the Saudi government of anything. It ONLY allows U.S. citizens to sue Saudi Arabia in court. They still have to prove that the Saudi government had a role in the 9/11 attacks. 

Please remember that this same thing occurred with regard to the attacks on U.S. troops in Lebanon. Iran was sued in U.S. Court and was convicted, even though Iran did not appear to defend itself, and the charges were, in my opinion, completely unjustified. But the families of the victims thought that they could get some money out of Iran for this tragedy. If Iran had defended itself, the suit probably would not have succeeded. This suit was possible because Iran had been designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

Q: Does the legislation mean that Saudi Arabia has lost its strategic importance to the U.S.?

A: No, but it does not help the relationship between the U.S. government and Saudi Arabia. In fact, President Obama did everything in his power to keep this legislation from going forward by issuing a veto. This was a way to show the Saudis that he still supported them. 
 
Q: Which groups or parties insisted on ratifying the bill? 

A: Lawyers and private citizens who lost family members and property in the 9/11 attacks. They petitioned their congressional representatives for legislation that would allow them to sue, and the congressional representatives saw this as a popular political bill, so they supported it.
 
Q: The Saudi foreign ministry said the enactment would weaken sovereign immunity and leave a negative impact on all nations. What is your analysis?
A: Yes, this was a concern for President Obama as well. If the United States can authorize its citizens to sue other states, then the United States could be sued by those other states. So, for example, Iraq could sue the United States for the Iraqi invasion and citizen deaths. This could become very widespread with citizens suing states all over the world. 
 
Q: It seems that Congress has started efforts to cancel the legislation. What do you think?

A: Having passed the legislation, some congressional representatives woke up to the fact that this could be reciprocal--that is, if the U.S. allows citizens to sue other States, then international citizens might try to sue the United States in their own courts for all kinds of things -- environmental damage, torture, war crimes, financial damage. This could become a major industry for lawyers, and would set a terribly dangerous precedent. In fact, Iran could sue the United States under a reciprocal law. This is not a good thing for world order or for peace.  It is for this reason that they decided to reverse the legislation, not because they like Saudi Arabia. 

JH/PA