Amending the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Bill

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCAIN. My friend is correct. He and I were both Members of this body the day the 9/11 attacks took place as we fled the Capitol and watched the Pentagon. Of course, none of us will ever forget the horror and terror of that day, nor will we ever stint in our commitment to making sure the families of those who sacrificed their lives and were wantonly murdered on that terrible day are adequately compensated in every possible way for the tragedy--and we can never fully repay them.

But it is a reality. None of us will ever forget it. But that does not mean, that cannot mean that we would endorse legislation that would hold the government of a nation responsible for an act that was committed from that country.

We know that today as we speak, in Iraq, in Mosul, there are weapons factories. There are chemical weapons factories designed to attack different places in the world.

I would ask my friend, if there is an attack from Mosul and lives are lost, and of course the government of Iraq doesn't know anything about it, is the government of Iraq now liable, held responsible for the actions of terrorists within their country without them knowing that those activities are taking place?

Unfortunately, there are terrorist organizations in many nations throughout the world, as Al Qaeda has metastasized and terrorism has spread throughout the regions. Acts of terror are committed and innocent people are killed every single day. Does that mean the governments of those countries are to be held responsible? Obviously, I think the answer is no.

What we are doing with this well intentioned legislation, which all of us are supportive of--but what we do not intend and should not intend is to hold a foreign government responsible for actions that were taken by a terrorist or terrorist organizations. We know that some of those who committed the attacks of 9/11 were Saudi citizens, but that does not then necessarily mean the Saudi Government is responsible for the actions of terrorists. Unfortunately, this legislation does not define that. That is why it is so important.

There are several aspects of this legislation that need to be fixed, but the most important aspect is the phrase that says that this nation has to ``knowingly'' assist a terrorist group. If you can prove that any government was behind a terrorist attack of the United States of America, that government, that nation, should be held responsible.

Those who are injured or harmed should be compensated in every possible way, but to hold a nation's government responsible for acts of terror that were taken by individuals or organizations within that country, without them even knowing about it, then that opens a Pandora's box of incredible proportions.
For example, is the Government of Saudi Arabia responsible for the acts that took place on 9/11? Is the government of other Middle Eastern citizens from other Middle Eastern nations? For example, are organizations that exist within--again, I use Iraq and other countries where terrorist organizations exist, and there are many. Libya is another example.

The Government of Libya is not responsible for acts of terror committed by terrorist organizations that exist and are functioning today within Libya.

All the Senator from South Carolina and I are saying is, we do not in any way want to prevent the families, loved ones, and those who have suffered so much agony and pain over this horrendous and horrific attack that took place on 9/11--in fact, I am proud of our record of support of everything we could possibly do for those families, but we are going to invoke the law of unintended consequences.

For example, if we are going to sue--if a nation that has significant investments in the United States of America, whether it be in the stock market or other investments, and that country knows it is going to be sued and possibly have its assets frozen, any thinking government is going to withdraw those assets so they cannot be frozen as the court proceedings go on. That is just a small example.

The other example is our Middle Eastern friends doubt us. They doubt us because when the redline was crossed and we said we would act, we didn't. They doubt us when we see the rise of terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and their spread. They doubt our commitment. If they believe that because of the actions of an organization or citizens from within their country they are going to be brought to court, prosecuted, sued for damages and held liable, obviously, I think their course of action would be to withdraw.

We don't want our friends to withdraw from the United States of America nor do we want to see long, drawn-out legal cases which, frankly, don't benefit them nearly as much as the trial lawyers.

The changes that Senator Graham and I are proposing are modest.

Logically, I think you should not pursue or prosecute a government that did not knowingly--the word isn't ``abetted'' or ``orchestrated''--but knowingly stand by and assist a terrorist group. They shouldn't be dragged into our courts. If we don't fix it, our ability to defend ourselves would be undermined.

I just wish to emphasize one point the Senator from South Carolina made. We have had drone strikes in many countries in the world.

Pakistan is another example. All of us have supported the efforts, many of them successful, in destroying those leaders who were responsible for the deaths of American servicemen and servicewomen. It is a weapon in the war against terror, but sometimes, as in war, mistakes were made and innocent civilians were killed along with those terrorists. Does that mean the United States of America, the government, is now liable? I am afraid that some in the tort profession would view this as an opening to bring suits against the United States of America. In fact, we are already hearing that is being contemplated in some places.

I hope Senator Schumer and Senator Cornyn will look at these concerns that we and our friends have, especially in the Middle East, and make these very modest modifications, which are modest in nature but of the most significant impact.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source