Justice against whom, America?

27 October 2016

By Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

SOMETHING hard about laws… they are hard to grasp, even for some wise guys. JASTA is no different. But what makes it harder for most is the tricky language it uses — more of a political slogan than the title of a historic, serious constitutional law. JASTA stands for Justice Against Sponsor of Terrorism Act. It assumes too much before it even applies. In advance, it decides that the accused are guilty — sponsors of terrorism — and the accusers are victims seeking justice. When you put it that way, any patriotic American cannot afford to side with terrorists against his own people. It is like the Bush rhetoric (either you are with us or against us)! No wonder the majority of US lawmakers fell for it, especially in a highly-contested election year.

This might be acceptable for a lesser class of politicians on a lesser issue. But this is an act of Congress that would break away with international laws and agreements signed and sponsored by the US to protect itself and other sovereign nations from being judged by foreign local courts. This is a law that would put the country, with its long history of war-waging, militia-sponsoring and coup manufacturing, at the mercy of foreign courts and laws.

What if Nagasaki and Hiroshima survivors and their families decided to sue the US for the nuclear holocaust it perpetrated against them? What if the families of the victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, Nicaragua and other South American countries decided to sue the US for bombing, interfering and sponsoring of terrorist militias? The list is long, and the evidence is plentiful. Worst, it directly involves the US government — army, CIA and embassies.

You would be excused to think Congress members were ignorant of all the above. Who in his right mind would think such educated, responsible, patriotic elite would sign something that would endanger their own country standing in the world, and their own people's best interests? It defies logic, right?

Well, forget about all the president's statements. Let's also put aside what the CIA, Pentagon, the State Department, and military have warned about. And just take what 28 senators have written and submitted to the Senate, on the eve of Sept. 28, expressing the same concerns the White House had about the JASTA bill.

According to ''The Huffington Post,'' a day after the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to override President Obama's veto, GOP leaders are expressing reservations about the legislation that would allow lawsuits related to 9/11 to go forward against Saudi Arabia.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) both said they were open to discussions about changing the bill, which Congress approved unanimously.

''We want to make sure the 9/11 victims and their families have their day in court,'' Ryan told reporters. ''At the same time, I would like to think that there may be some work to be done to protect our service members overseas from any kind of legal ensnarement that occur, any kind of retribution.''

If all these issues were crystal clear and obvious, why, then, an overwhelming majority, including the ''concerned'' 28 senators, signed the bill? Could it be because they really consider Saudi Arabia as a sponsor of terrorism? If so, why did they turn down an earlier bill to prevent selling arms to the same country?

I'd say it is all politics and economics, not ethics and principles. The first bill would have denied arms companies billions of dollars. The second was about supporting a popular cause, pleasing voters, getting more Saudi money and allowing the government more leverage over Saudi policies.

''Show me the money,'' does explain lots of Congress actions whether it goes to their own campaign funds and charity organizations, or to their campaign contributors' pockets. Votes count explains the rest.

This is so un-American. The ''Founding Fathers,'' who wrote one of the most ethical and principled constitutions in history, would be shocked and ashamed if they were to learn how the ''representatives of the people,'' turned out to be like.

So how do we deal with this new face of the US? I'd say we should stop thinking of America as the best investment and business environment — it is simply unsafe. Saudi, Gulf, Arab and Turkish investments should return home or find safer places, like Europe, China, Japan, Korea, Australia and Brazil. Our anticipated two-trillion state fund and the ARAMCO fund would be better advised to look for alternative markets and bourses.

The US is neither a reliable ally. Russia, France and China are more trustworthy and loyal to their allies. We should emphasize our strategic partnership with them.

We should also build better alliance with our Arab and Muslims brethren, and increase our self-reliance and independence.

The US will still be a friend, a partner and an ally, but not ''the'' friend, partner and ally.

— Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah. He can be reached at kbatarfi@gmail.com. Follow him at Twitter:@kbatarfi 

©  EsinIslam.Com

Add Comments