Big Papers Want Foreign Companies, Not War Crime Victims, to Sue US
The editorial boards of the US's four most influential newspapers joined President Barack Obama in opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a bill that makes suing Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks markedly easier:
The editorial boards of the US's four most influential newspapers joined President Barack Obama in opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a bill that makes suing Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks markedly easier:
- Should We Let 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia? Not So Fast (Washington Post, 9/15/16)
- An Obama Veto Worth Backing (Wall Street Journal, 9/20/16)
- The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 (New York Times, 9/27/16)
- Uphold Veto on 9/11 Lawsuits: Our View (USA Today, 9/27/16)
The uniform opposition to such a popular piece of legislation by the major US papers provides a good snapshot of their essential role: gatekeepers of American national security orthodoxy.
This position is expressed in their primary objection to the bill: Its passing could potentially expose the US military and intelligence agencies to liabilities for crimes they commit overseas.
After some bluster about the sacredness of sovereign immunity, the Washington Post finishes off its editorial with the main problem:
Mr. Obama has repeatedly called it a precedent other countries could easily turn against the United States. It is not a far-fetched concern, given this country's global use of intelligence agents, special operations forces and drones, all of which could be construed as state-sponsored "terrorism" when convenient.
The New York Times shared this near-fetched concern:
Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States -- with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs -- the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.
As did USA Today:
Weakening sovereign immunity could invite retaliation, opening the military and other US officials serving abroad to similar lawsuits from other countries filed in courts all over the world.
Notice that the possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. The Washington Post puts "terrorism" in irony quotes because, of course, the US could never actually commit terrorism; claims to this effect could only be invoked "when convenient" by greedy non-Americans.
The New York Times uses its trademark euphemisms to describe how the US is "engaged in the world" with "drone operations." A nice way of saying the US uses drones to bomb people in a half-dozen countries with--so far--legal impunity. Changing this state of affairs is simply glossed over as a nonstarter.
USA Today frames any attempt at legal recourse over American terrorism overseas as "retaliation"--presumably for some righteous kill executed by the United States in the service of freedom.
The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today are saying that exposing American military and intelligence personnel to foreign liability is per se bad--a nativism so casual and matter-of-fact one might hardly notice it until circumstances force them to explicitly state it. No account is taken of the 7 billion non-Americans or their rights. No explanation is given as to why victims of US terror-of which there are many-shouldn't register in our moral calculus. They just don't.
The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for Investor-State Dispute Settlement--meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The editorial boards of the US's four most influential newspapers joined President Barack Obama in opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a bill that makes suing Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks markedly easier:
- Should We Let 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia? Not So Fast (Washington Post, 9/15/16)
- An Obama Veto Worth Backing (Wall Street Journal, 9/20/16)
- The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 (New York Times, 9/27/16)
- Uphold Veto on 9/11 Lawsuits: Our View (USA Today, 9/27/16)
The uniform opposition to such a popular piece of legislation by the major US papers provides a good snapshot of their essential role: gatekeepers of American national security orthodoxy.
This position is expressed in their primary objection to the bill: Its passing could potentially expose the US military and intelligence agencies to liabilities for crimes they commit overseas.
After some bluster about the sacredness of sovereign immunity, the Washington Post finishes off its editorial with the main problem:
Mr. Obama has repeatedly called it a precedent other countries could easily turn against the United States. It is not a far-fetched concern, given this country's global use of intelligence agents, special operations forces and drones, all of which could be construed as state-sponsored "terrorism" when convenient.
The New York Times shared this near-fetched concern:
Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States -- with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs -- the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.
As did USA Today:
Weakening sovereign immunity could invite retaliation, opening the military and other US officials serving abroad to similar lawsuits from other countries filed in courts all over the world.
Notice that the possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. The Washington Post puts "terrorism" in irony quotes because, of course, the US could never actually commit terrorism; claims to this effect could only be invoked "when convenient" by greedy non-Americans.
The New York Times uses its trademark euphemisms to describe how the US is "engaged in the world" with "drone operations." A nice way of saying the US uses drones to bomb people in a half-dozen countries with--so far--legal impunity. Changing this state of affairs is simply glossed over as a nonstarter.
USA Today frames any attempt at legal recourse over American terrorism overseas as "retaliation"--presumably for some righteous kill executed by the United States in the service of freedom.
The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today are saying that exposing American military and intelligence personnel to foreign liability is per se bad--a nativism so casual and matter-of-fact one might hardly notice it until circumstances force them to explicitly state it. No account is taken of the 7 billion non-Americans or their rights. No explanation is given as to why victims of US terror-of which there are many-shouldn't register in our moral calculus. They just don't.
The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for Investor-State Dispute Settlement--meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.
The editorial boards of the US's four most influential newspapers joined President Barack Obama in opposition to the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, a bill that makes suing Saudi Arabia for the 9/11 attacks markedly easier:
- Should We Let 9/11 Victims Sue Saudi Arabia? Not So Fast (Washington Post, 9/15/16)
- An Obama Veto Worth Backing (Wall Street Journal, 9/20/16)
- The Risks of Suing the Saudis for 9/11 (New York Times, 9/27/16)
- Uphold Veto on 9/11 Lawsuits: Our View (USA Today, 9/27/16)
The uniform opposition to such a popular piece of legislation by the major US papers provides a good snapshot of their essential role: gatekeepers of American national security orthodoxy.
This position is expressed in their primary objection to the bill: Its passing could potentially expose the US military and intelligence agencies to liabilities for crimes they commit overseas.
After some bluster about the sacredness of sovereign immunity, the Washington Post finishes off its editorial with the main problem:
Mr. Obama has repeatedly called it a precedent other countries could easily turn against the United States. It is not a far-fetched concern, given this country's global use of intelligence agents, special operations forces and drones, all of which could be construed as state-sponsored "terrorism" when convenient.
The New York Times shared this near-fetched concern:
Because no country is more engaged in the world than the United States -- with military bases, drone operations, intelligence missions and training programs -- the Obama administration fears that Americans could be subject to legal actions abroad.
As did USA Today:
Weakening sovereign immunity could invite retaliation, opening the military and other US officials serving abroad to similar lawsuits from other countries filed in courts all over the world.
Notice that the possibility of other countries suing the US for war crimes its government commits is automatically assumed to be undesirable. The Washington Post puts "terrorism" in irony quotes because, of course, the US could never actually commit terrorism; claims to this effect could only be invoked "when convenient" by greedy non-Americans.
The New York Times uses its trademark euphemisms to describe how the US is "engaged in the world" with "drone operations." A nice way of saying the US uses drones to bomb people in a half-dozen countries with--so far--legal impunity. Changing this state of affairs is simply glossed over as a nonstarter.
USA Today frames any attempt at legal recourse over American terrorism overseas as "retaliation"--presumably for some righteous kill executed by the United States in the service of freedom.
The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today are saying that exposing American military and intelligence personnel to foreign liability is per se bad--a nativism so casual and matter-of-fact one might hardly notice it until circumstances force them to explicitly state it. No account is taken of the 7 billion non-Americans or their rights. No explanation is given as to why victims of US terror-of which there are many-shouldn't register in our moral calculus. They just don't.
The irony is that none of these publications were overly concerned with exposing the US to foreign lawsuits when they offered support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a corporate trade deal that includes a provision for Investor-State Dispute Settlement--meaning it permits corporations to sue governments, including the US, in the event that a regulation undermines corporate profits. So increased exposure to liability to the US government when it gives more power to corporations is permissible, even desirable, but when it might provide recourse for victims of US war crimes? Not so much.