The attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001. (Photo: Getty)
Sep 26, 2016
This week the House and Senate are expected to vote on whether to override the President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act ("JASTA"). JASTA would allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia over allegations Saudi officials were linked to the 9/11 attacks. The bill makes no judgment about Saudi Arabia's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. It just removes Saudi Arabia's immunity from lawsuit over support for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both support the bill.
Under current U.S. law, Americans can sue Iran for terrorism in U.S. courts, but they can't sue Saudi Arabia for terrorism in U.S. courts, because Iran is on the State Department's "state sponsor of terror" list and Saudi Arabia is not. The State Department is allowed to take "broader U.S. foreign policy interests" besides concern about support for terrorism into account in forming its list - like the Saudi government's cozy relationship with the CIA.
In January, the New York Timesreported that:
"The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades-long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities ... the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism, that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting."
To the Times' list of things that the U.S. has been reluctant to criticize Saudi Arabia for because of the CIA's cozy relationship with the Saudi government, we can add targeting civilians in Yemen with U.S. weapons, in violation of U.S. law. Last week, twenty-seven Senators voted against sending more weapons to Saudi Arabia to use against civilians in Yemen. Why didn't more Senators vote against sending more weapons to the Saudis? In part, because "the Saudis are our friends," which really means, "because the Saudis are the CIA's friends."
If you think there should be one standard for judging governments on support of terrorism, regardless of how cozy the government in question is with the CIA, why not call your Representative and urge them to vote to override the veto so the 9/11 families can have their day in court? Or, if you can't call, you could send your Representative an email.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
This week the House and Senate are expected to vote on whether to override the President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act ("JASTA"). JASTA would allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia over allegations Saudi officials were linked to the 9/11 attacks. The bill makes no judgment about Saudi Arabia's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. It just removes Saudi Arabia's immunity from lawsuit over support for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both support the bill.
Under current U.S. law, Americans can sue Iran for terrorism in U.S. courts, but they can't sue Saudi Arabia for terrorism in U.S. courts, because Iran is on the State Department's "state sponsor of terror" list and Saudi Arabia is not. The State Department is allowed to take "broader U.S. foreign policy interests" besides concern about support for terrorism into account in forming its list - like the Saudi government's cozy relationship with the CIA.
In January, the New York Timesreported that:
"The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades-long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities ... the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism, that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting."
To the Times' list of things that the U.S. has been reluctant to criticize Saudi Arabia for because of the CIA's cozy relationship with the Saudi government, we can add targeting civilians in Yemen with U.S. weapons, in violation of U.S. law. Last week, twenty-seven Senators voted against sending more weapons to Saudi Arabia to use against civilians in Yemen. Why didn't more Senators vote against sending more weapons to the Saudis? In part, because "the Saudis are our friends," which really means, "because the Saudis are the CIA's friends."
If you think there should be one standard for judging governments on support of terrorism, regardless of how cozy the government in question is with the CIA, why not call your Representative and urge them to vote to override the veto so the 9/11 families can have their day in court? Or, if you can't call, you could send your Representative an email.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
This week the House and Senate are expected to vote on whether to override the President's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act ("JASTA"). JASTA would allow 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia over allegations Saudi officials were linked to the 9/11 attacks. The bill makes no judgment about Saudi Arabia's responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. It just removes Saudi Arabia's immunity from lawsuit over support for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both support the bill.
Under current U.S. law, Americans can sue Iran for terrorism in U.S. courts, but they can't sue Saudi Arabia for terrorism in U.S. courts, because Iran is on the State Department's "state sponsor of terror" list and Saudi Arabia is not. The State Department is allowed to take "broader U.S. foreign policy interests" besides concern about support for terrorism into account in forming its list - like the Saudi government's cozy relationship with the CIA.
In January, the New York Timesreported that:
"The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades-long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities ... the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of women and its support for the extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism, that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the United States is fighting."
To the Times' list of things that the U.S. has been reluctant to criticize Saudi Arabia for because of the CIA's cozy relationship with the Saudi government, we can add targeting civilians in Yemen with U.S. weapons, in violation of U.S. law. Last week, twenty-seven Senators voted against sending more weapons to Saudi Arabia to use against civilians in Yemen. Why didn't more Senators vote against sending more weapons to the Saudis? In part, because "the Saudis are our friends," which really means, "because the Saudis are the CIA's friends."
If you think there should be one standard for judging governments on support of terrorism, regardless of how cozy the government in question is with the CIA, why not call your Representative and urge them to vote to override the veto so the 9/11 families can have their day in court? Or, if you can't call, you could send your Representative an email.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.