Last week, President Obama vetoed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow the 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi government for its apparent involvement. Many leaders in Congress claimed they had the votes needed to overcome the veto (2/3 in both houses), but it almost seemed too good to be true.
On Wednesday, the votes finally occurred and it wasn’t even a contest. The Senate overrode Obama’s veto 97-1, and the House overrode the veto at 348-77. JASTA will become law, and the principle of sovereign immunity now has an exception for terrorism. Congress doesn’t deserve praise often, but this is one of those days.
JASTA is likely to have several important effects. Here’s a brief rundown:
A Chance for Justice
As a simple matter of justice, JASTA is a very positive development. Until now, there’s been a lot of violent retribution in response to the 9/11 attacks, but the vast majority of it was directed at unsavory people and governments that had little or no connection to the attacks themselves. Thus, real justice has remained elusive.
In the name of 9/11, the US first invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government. This occurred in spite of the fact that the Taliban is not the same thing as Al Qaeda and actually offered to extradite Osama bin Laden for prosecution, under fairly reasonable conditions. The US opted not to pursue diplomacy, however, and threw the country of Afghanistan into chaos that still persists to this day. The Iraq invasion was also partly justified on Iraq’s alleged involvement in 9/11 – even though Saddam Hussein’s government was actually a bitter enemy of Al Qaeda and like-minded groups. This too created a situation of unimaginable suffering for the Iraqi people that also persists to the present.
Thus, it’s been darkly ironic that Saudi Arabia, the country that appears to have the most substantial links to the 9/11 attacks, suffered no consequences whatsoever in the aftermath of 9/11. Their alliance with America was preserved intact as America threatened or bombed many of its neighbors. The US government eventually got around to finding and executing Osama bin Laden in 2011 – nine years after he might have been captured if the US had accepted the Taliban’s offer. Given this history, it’s fair to say justice hasn’t been fully served in the case of 9/11, and Congress’s action this week will do something to rectify this situation.
New Evidence Could Jeopardize the Saudi Alliance
The discovery procedure involved in the 9/11 lawsuits may reveal new information that has previously been withheld. If this information further confirms suspicions of Saudi complicity in the attacks, it may have negative implications for the US-Saudi alliance. And given that the Saudi government is currently engaged in an aggressive war against neighboring Yemen, with US support, an end to the alliance would be a positive development for peace.
Economic Uncertainty for US and Saudi
Naturally, the Saudi government has opposed any measures that aim to shine a brighter light on Saudi involvement in the 9/11 attacks. One tactic used by the Saudis was a threat to sell off billions in US government debt.
It’s not clear exactly how much US government debt the Saudi government and its officials actually own. It’s also unclear whether the Saudi government will follow through on this threat now that their nightmare has become a reality. But it is a real risk nevertheless.
Assuming they do decide to sell all of their portfolio, the repercussions in the US economy could be considerable. A large sell-off of US debt would put upward pressure on interest rates that are currently near all-time lows. If the shock is significant enough, it could spark a larger panic in the financial markets.
Unfortunately for Saudi Arabia, liquidating their US assets is a double-edged sword. For their threat to be meaningful, they’d have to be willing to try to cause an outright recession. But if such a recession really did occur, the Saudis would suffer as well, because oil prices would likely fall further in the event of a recession.
It remains to be seen what the Saudis will ultimately decide. In the meantime, JASTA just gave the global economy, one more source of uncertainty.
Accountability for US Crimes?
One of the most popular arguments against passing JASTA was that it would subject US personnel to lawsuits as well. However, this argument conveniently omits the fact that the bill only lifts sovereign immunity in the case of terrorism. Should US personnel and the US government really be immune to any legal sanctions if they are committing acts of terrorism? What reasonable person could possibly justify this?
Of course, it seems virtually certain that some parts of the US government have participated in activities consistent with terrorism. This explains the opposition to the law.
Having said that, the official concern that US personnel would be subject to the rulings of foreign courts should be treated with skepticism. The US violates international law and other countries’ wishes on a regular basis, without consequences. The US government has also proved eager to apply double standards internationally whenever it proves convenient. It’s difficult to imagine any of these trends would change just because Congress passed a law.
In fact, the day after the veto was defeated, many lawmakers were already talking up the possibility that the legislation could be modified to further protect US personnel from any legal ramifications. If such a modification is passed, it should be viewed as a formality. The probability that the US government would honor the rulings of a foreign court was basically zero. The most likely modification of JASTA will amount to a novel legal rationale to justify the double standard. But the double standard will exist either way.
Summary
The passage of JASTA over President Obama’s veto may be the most promising foreign policy development this year. It marks the continuing deterioration of the US-Saudi alliance and the decline of Saudi power in the region.
For supporters of peace and nonintervention, this is all to the good.
Eric Schuler is the author of The Daily Face Palm, where he writes mostly about foreign policy and economics from a pro-peace perspective.
Afghanistan was being ruled by the Taliban at the time of the invasion. Running those folks out of power was a blessing even if it resulted in never ending conflict. Maybe you preferred that those fanatics continue their rule.
Take a look around, Bro. Save for Kabul, the Taliban is more powerful than ever. Not to mention how many American and innocent Afghani lives it cost to run “those folks out of power”.
Because of course we as Americans are exempt from our own laws like the constitution and foreign treaties entered into and ratified under articles 4 and 6. Unless the perpetrators are people who are not massively rich or other extenuating circumstances. It’s the WHIP principle. Wealth Hath Its Privileges.
“It always seems a bit abstract, doesn’t it? Other people dying” Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister
Plus those savages stopped all the opium trade, how could the world live without that!
….and the walls came tumbling down!
Israel*, ISIS and Saudi Arabia – the new axis of evil in the Middle East
ISIS is only the second major Israeli– Saudi operation, the first of which was of course 911 with Israel running interference for the Saudi jihadists
*Including the Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby in the US, the spearhead of which is Hillary, Saban and her Neocons, as well as Trump and Adelson
A couple of side issues. But related. Not major focus. During the buildup against Iraq, Koalition of the Killing forces including and especially the U.S. Navy stopped a freighter carrying SCUD missiles in the Gulf. They allowed the shipment to continue when it was found it was headed for Yemen. No attempt was made by American government toady press to even question it.
Then there’s the large number of war criminals in America, such as Kissinger. Most of them having refugee status. The U.S. broke confidence with regard to the Treaties, entered into and ratified by The Congress thus having the full weight of the Constitution, which in turn is to be the Law of the land in all courts in the states, territories, ships at sea and embassies. (that would include territories under U.S. military occupation, which is in turn illegal anyway)
During the war between britain and Argentina over the Falkland/Maldivas the U.S. would be bound by treaties to both parties. Which should automatically trigger neutrality unless the U.S. was attacked by either party. But the U.S. Navy refueled and provisioned the brits at among other locations Charleston. (witnessed by my brother whose word I value more than any official source). This would be just one of a large number of what would be acts of war under the “patriot act” committed by the U.S. Thus the large number of war criminals just from the Americas. Anastasio Somoza García, Raphael Trujillo, Manny Noriega, Eden Pastora,The Duvaliers, every president of Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Porfirio Diaz, Both presidents of the “democratic” Republic of VietNam, the interim government of Grenada which was voted out and Grenada routinely hosts meetings of the OAS. I mean, it’s a rogues gallery of felons promoted by U.S. assassinations and other coup methods.
That should include “acts of Terrorism under the patriot act”
Do you really think the trials will dig up anything? If the courts can find Iran guilty of 9/11 why won’t they find Saudi Arabia? Saudis or Iranians don’t vote for the judges. This certainly is not a pro-peace perspective, the idea seems to be that we have destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq by mistake let us destroy Saudi Arabia too maybe they had something to do with 9/11.
Or perhaps dissolve the Coalition. Deliberately. And set a new standard of proof, and discredit the PNAC for a long time.
Those in the peace movement whether left or right could petition for a direct one person – one vote referendum to dismantle the Patriot Act. Which I do know is an acronym and not the full title. It’s just faster to type it like that.