By John Ubaldi
Often politics overrules reality and the veto override of President Barrack Obama’s opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) is one of these egregious acts, instead of making America safe from terrorism it made the country less safe.
The initial premise of the bill was to allow the victims’ families of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia, but by injecting politics into vetoing JASTA, Congress inadvertently made the U.S. less safe.
The central argument of the bill, was the belief that Saudi Arabia was directly or indirectly involved in the September 11th attacks and this prevailing narrative had been fueled by the withholding of 28 pages from a congressional report (to avoid compromising sources and methods) which claim to implicate Riyadh involvement.
The report has been released with few redactions by the intelligence community. Even CIA director John Brennan mentioned that the 28 pages in his estimate “a very preliminary review.” The 9/11 Commission established after that horrific day instituted a full review that Brennan remarked, “that there was no evidence to indicate that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually had supported the 9/11 attacks.”
It’s understandable to go after the financiers, supporters and perpetrators of this horrific attack on the American homeland, one in which thousands of American families were affected, but to take this approach will only make Americans less safe from terrorism.
Former POW Richard Lockhart wrote that by allowing the families of 9/11 victims to file federal lawsuits against Saudi Arabia, JASTA overturns the policy of sovereign immunity. JASTA also encourages other countries to bring Americans before foreign courts for carrying out their official duties and makes the U.S. government responsible for acts of private citizens. I don’t want our military personnel overseas tried in a foreign court because they were doing their job.
As someone who has served in the U.S. armed forces with combat deployments to both Iraq and Afghanistan, changing the language and interpretation of sovereign immunity has me incredibly concerned for our military personal, diplomats and intelligence operatives serving overseas.
The purpose of JASTA is that “
(1) an act of international terrorism in the United States; and
(2) a tortious act or acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee, or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, regardless where the tortious act or acts of the foreign state occurred.”
The bill narrowly defines foreign sovereign immunity to mean that victims of terrorism can sue foreign nation for acts conducted by its citizens, which raise all kinds of red flags.
Sovereign immunity works two ways, it not only protects foreign government officials for official actions, but it also protects our government officials for action the U.S. takes on our behalf. Many countries have begun to re-examine the concept of sovereign immunity and take legal action against U.S. government officials.
Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee Congressman Mac Thornbery is quoted as saying, “[m]any of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as ours. We have more at stake than anyone else – and our personnel will incur the most risk.”
This argument was the prevailing sediment in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, “The same is true for the United States. America has diplomats, military personnel and intelligence operatives serving in greater numbers in more places than any other country. They—and we—are sheltered in that good work by sovereign immunity, which protects them against being hauled into court by those who oppose U.S. policy and would use judicial proceedings to frustrate it, especially in countries where courts are puppets of the regimes.
Countering Lockhart’s argument Alexander Nicholson penned a Op-ED in “The Hill” by stating that when it comes to “the troops” – a term which, by the way, the troops themselves along with their families and veterans are tired of seeing abused for convenient political purposes – most Americans realize that most American troops are deployed under status of forces agreements (SOFAs) that explicitly prohibit their unilateral local prosecution. And if a country moves to repeal that part of their respective SOFA, the U.S. would likely withdraw its presence and leave the host country to fend for itself against whatever enemy the U.S. was helping it fend off.
Missing from Nicholson’s argument, is that currently the U.S. has close to 6,000 military personnel operating inside both Iraq and Syria conducting combat military operations again the Islamic State, without a SOFA agreement. More are on the way, but all combat operations are being conducted without a SOFA agreement and the administration has not brought one forward.
The United States has more to lose than any nation with regarding to changing the interpretation of sovereign immunity, one which easily can be used against us. How many countries our hostile to the United States, how many countries, even those with good relations with the U.S. would welcome the passage of JASTA.
Current and former government officials have been threatened with legal actions in Europe over U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe.
President Obama’s current expansive use of drone’s in the war against terrorism that kills noncombatants throughout the Middle East, could have unintended consequences by demanding military personnel and intelligence personnel be dragged into foreign courts without the constitutional protections afforded in the U.S. legal system.
A total an objective re-examination of JASTA is long overdue, if we don’t re-examine JASTA we as nation will have to live with its consequence to the detriment of U.S. government officials operating overseas.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.