The United States Congress recently voted to override President Barack Obama’s veto on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

The Daily Orange spoke with Matthew Schmidt, an assistant professor in national security and political science at the University of New Haven to get an understanding of the act, the veto and its significance.

The Daily Orange: What is JASTA?

Matthew Schmidt: It is allowing U.S. citizens affected with the 9/11 bombings to sue government officials in a foreign state, which is normally not allowed because that is considered foreign diplomacy.

The D.O.: Why did Congress override the president’s veto?

M.S.: They say, “Look, we oppose this bill, but not because we don’t get the moral good or the people affected by the legislation, but because it’s moral bad for current and all future American service personnel and diplomats and any officials that are working overseas that would be subject to similar action taken against them. And even if they’re not guilty of anything, having these kind of court cases being willed against them as a technique of foreign affairs and diplomacy and that what Congress is doing is a violation of a core principle of international diplomacy.”

The administration is saying this is a terrible idea. Especially since people who are going to conduct these cases here in the states aren’t going to win anything anyway.

The D.O.: Why are time and money being spent to come to a ruling that most likely won’t come to fruition in any way?

M.S.: Politics. In essence, this looks good for all sides. Obama is on the tail end of his term and Republicans would like to make him look bad anyway and Democrats want to say, “Look I’m not just an Obama guy.” They get to look like they’re independent, like they’re on the side of average Americans that got hurt.

My guess is that the administration is working very hard to head off anyone doing this kind of thing to Americans. They probably have some expectation that they’ll be successful in doing this. Because those countries don’t have an interest in blowing up the diplomatic norms.

The D.O.: Why is it such a spectacle for the media if it’s all just politics?

M.S.: Because it’s about politics. It’s on a national stage because putting it on a national stage benefits as many politicians as possible on both sides of party. If that weren’t the case, it would be more of a technical matter, but it’s more a matter of political posturing.

The D.O.: Why did Obama veto the bill if he knew what would happen?

M.S.: He probably looked at it and said, “I have to be the adult in the room and I have to protect the capability of people to do their work and I have to protect the capability of my successors in this office to do their work and we can’t have our people running around subject to all these lawsuits.”

He has a different responsibility in his role as president than they do. Congress might be correct in seeing that their responsibility is to their constituents to take this action and the president says, “Well, my responsibility is not to my constituents from New York or from New Jersey or Maryland or Virginia, but to the entire nation. And not just to the Americans in the nation today, in 2016, but to the Americans that will be here in 2025, they have a right to expect that their foreign policy can be conducted efficiently by their officials and not be hamstrung by a bunch of these frivolous lawsuits.”

Published on October 4, 2016 at 3:08 pm

Contact: mpmoor02@syr.edu