In lead editorials Friday tipping the balance further toward forcing release of the secret “28 pages” over Obama’s opposition, both the New York Times and USA Today pulled back from attacking Obama’s threat to veto JASTA, the Justice Against Supporters of Terrorism Act now in the Senate. The Obama White House is twisting arms hard against passage in the Senate next week, claiming that recognizing sovereign immunity of other countries from lawsuits is essential to U.S. national security.

But this claim was blown up in plain sight in Washington this week, when the Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, upheld a 2012 law, a virtual earlier copy of JASTA, which Obama signed! The difference: The 2012 law was passed to compel courts to allow survivors of terrorist actions to win financial compensation from Iran; whereas JASTA does not name any country specifically, but is furiously opposed by Saudi Arabia.

As JASTA sponsor Sen. Charles Schumer of New York has insisted, no “boomerang” lawsuits against the United States, or U.S. officials, have resulted since the 2012 law against Iran was passed and signed.

But to the point, Obama was not only happy to sign the anti-Iran “JASTA” law, but pushed for it, and his administration seized accounts of Iran in the United States in part so that terrorism victims’ survivors could get access to them.

In that case, the terrorist acts alleged to be Iran’s responsibility, included the 1983 bombing of U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, attributed to Hezbollah and claimed to be at Iran’s direction. The current, actual JASTA legislation by Senators Schumer and Corzyn is intended to allow suits against Saudi Arabia, by survivors and families of victims of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, to go ahead. It limits its reference only to “acts of terrorism committed on U.S. soil” for which other nations are charged with responsibility.

Obama shows himself in this, as in everything, a hypocrite and apologist for the British/Saudi policy of international “permanent war” and terrorism.