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