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.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
As the most Exceptional purveyor of state terrorism in the world today, we ought to do all that we can to avoid exposing the truth about our actions and any any resulting possibility of justice for our victims. Obama is truly building a legacy that will be remembered, for generations to come.
Spot on! More brazen evidence of the increasing corporate power and the diminishment of individuals’ rights. In this case, unlike Citizens United, which gave corporations the same rights as citizens, this gives corporations more rights than citizens. This is another in a along list of evidence that the world is clearly moving in that direction.
Only when the suits fit their frame
“engaged in the world”
Orwell would be impressed.
President Obama, why should you be afraid if you haven’t done anything wrong?
Spot on. Obama when defending his veto had the callous arrogance to call the war crimes wreaked on the world by the US … ‘work’.
Well, if the law suit against Saudi Arabia – which should have been the victim of retaliation after 9/11 instead of defenceless and innocent Afghanistan – will bring about similar ones against US war criminals, I’ll applaud each one of them, even though I know that few if any will be successful, judging by those filed so far by GWOT victims. There already have been several ones.
I wish some artist would make a photoshopped real-life-like picture of NYC bombed into ruins, as were Dresden, Hiroshima, Fallujah, to name just a few.
Maybe that would finally bring home the atrocious reality of US ‘work’ in many foreign countries. Even in allied countries during WW II, American liberators tended to unnecessarily over-bomb towns and villages, instead of making more of an effort to save both the population and buildings. As for ‘enemy’ countries, bombing is what aspirin is for self-medication and that grisly examply unfortunately is widely copy-catted : Saudi Arabia in Yemen, Russia (and increasingly Turkey) in Syria. Let’s bomb, the ‘free & democratic’ US cannot blame us: it does the same thing.
The US turned distant Afghanistan into a strategically located private military base from which it can easily bomb surrounding countries, including China?
Then why would Putin not colonize the – at least largely Russian – Crimea?
How did this beautiful country end up with such imperialistic governments?
I suppose African and Native Americans know the answer to that all too well.
One of the networks reported that this legislation could be used for example, to go after Donald Rumsfeld. In the words of George W. Bush, “bring it on”. I couldn’t agree more.
There is no question that this nation is FUBAR. The American people are starting to recognize this fact.
The “Big Papers” have zero credibility. They have no more credibility than CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, MSNBC or the rest.
if usa said saudia is behind 9/11 and saudia have yo answer for few 100 lifes?
than what about iraq,afghanistan which was the return of 9/11 when usa impose war on many crore people in return of 9/11 and killed many million people till now… billions are displaced…. those were innocents how can you kill millions of people just bcoz few terrorists kill few people in usa?… is this justice???? what face will you show to god on last day??
It didn’t occur to me to juxtapose these things. Great insight by Adam Johnson.
Why hell, what was Nuremberg all about ? .. or more to the point what happened to that bench mark of international law and justice ?
Whatthehell are we goddammn discussing here: cavemanAlphas ?
Well done as usual, Adam. Thank you.
I’m not understanding how or when it has come to pass that one entirty (the USA) can prevent two separate entities (911 claimants and Saudi Arabian Government) from a law suit.
Can someone show me the justification/story here?
JWS
The good news for you, then, is that when these cases actually come to trial, and should you find yourself on jury duty, you can be certain that you won’t be stuck on a panel. And, if you have all this evidence that proves who was responsible for 9/11, you should be in line for some hefty expert witness fees from the Saudi defendants’ counsel. And If, while testifying, you really do “reveal…the complete destruction of our Sovereignty and Freedoms for all People In The World under the Beast Evil System,” it will be one of the most entertaining trials ever.
It’s Win-Win!!
It’s my considered opinion that the half-century of Cold War propaganda that the Western, and particularly US, population was exposed to has taken a terrible toll on the intellectual acuity of a great many of them. That includes many who should know better eg. educated liberals, psychologists-sociologists, etc., but who nevertheless just accepted the notion that public ownership of industry somehow equates to Stalinism or that government/public oversight of aspects of a nations economy eg. financial sector, somehow equates to dictatorial government control over everything and everybody….that it doesn’t matter if that oversight emenates from a democratically elected government. That free markets aka capitalism spreads freedom of civilization itself. BS of course.