On September 28, 2016, the United States Senate overrode President Obama’s veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) by a vote of 97 to one. JASTA limits the extent of a political concept called “sovereign immunity,” which states that a sovereign body cannot be accused of legal wrongdoing and is thus immune to any type of legal prosecution, criminal or civil. In simpler terms, JASTA will remove sovereign immunity from Saudi Arabia and allow the families of 9/11 victims to sue the Saudi Arabian Government.
Despite the unanimous vote of 97 to one in the Senate and 348 to 77 in the House of Representatives against President Obama’s veto, American lawmakers have already started backpedaling. Days after overriding the president’s veto, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated, “Everybody was aware of who the potential beneficiaries were, but nobody had really focused on the potential downsides in terms of our international relationships,” and blamed President Obama for this lack of discussion.
Come on, Mitch. Why do you think the guy vetoed the Act? ‘Saudi Arabia’s mad that we’re allowing our citizens to sue them for a crime they did not commit? Who woulda thunk!’
Some Americans might say, ‘Well, of course the Saudis funded the 9/11 attacks. They hate our freedom and our blue jeans and our rock and roll. I bet they haven’t seen a single episode of the Brady Bunch.’
To put these thoughts to rest, both the FBI and CIA have published reports which officially clear the Saudis of any suspicion of wrongdoing1. Moreover, although Osama Bin Laden was a member of the prominent Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia, Osama’s Saudi Arabian citizenship was revoked in 19942. Furthermore, in his official reasons for committing 9/11, Bin Laden clearly stated, “We call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education,” with “corrupt countries” meaning Saudi Arabia3.
Finally, Saudi Arabia and the United States have been very close allies since 1945, with Saudi Arabia investing trillions of dollars in the United States which JASTA has seriously endangered4.
While I cannot hide my disdain for this act and the immediate backpedaling of the lawmakers who we trust with our international relations, I nonetheless find this act extremely interesting, as there are few actions throughout history that truly compare to JASTA.
The closest comparison that I can muster is the “Donation of Pippin.” After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the political landscape of Europe was scattered and unclear. The Franks took control of a great deal of Western Europe, with the Lombards, the remnant of the Ostrogothic Empire, occupying Italy.
The Lombards ruthlessly attacked the Papacy’s holdings in the area surrounding Rome proper around 754 CE. While Pope Stephen III technically reported to the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire), Constantinople could spare no reinforcements as it fought the Ummayad Caliphate in the East. As such, Pope Stephen looked to the Franks for assistance. The then king of the Franks, Pippin, the son of Charles Martel, answered Pope Stephen’s call and swiftly forced the Lombards to sue for peace.
Having suppressed the Lombards, Pippin met with Pope Stephen and claimed that, due to their transgressions, the Lombards should cede land to the Papacy, which thus created the Papal States. It is important to note that this meeting took place without Lombard leadership. However, Pippin promised that the Papacy would receive the city of Ravenna, which was then held by the Lombards. The Lombards refused to cede the city, however, and, turning his attention to other problems in his empire, Pippin did not fully deliver his promise to the Papacy before his death.
It was Pippin’s son, Charles the Great, more popularly known as Charlemagne, who would deliver on his father’s promise to the Papacy. In 772, Pope Adrian I formally requested that the Lombards cede Ravenna. King Desiderius of the Lombards refused, however. Once again, the Papacy turned to the Franks for help. Charlemagne intervened and completely erased the Kingdom of the Lombards, giving Ravenna to the Papal States and declaring himself King of the Lombards, absorbing the remaining territory in Italy into his Frankish empire.
This historical example is a case, much like the one we are facing now, which involves one sovereign power forcing its will onto another sovereign power, demanding money and property for what it sees as a transgression. Yet there is no means to force a sovereign power to act against its own interest, save for violence. Unfortunately, our modern day case could similarly result in all-out war.
This all to say, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist state (they’re not – but we’re pretending). Furthermore, let’s assume that somehow an unbiased ruling originating from a New York court against Saudi Arabia actually occurs. Finally, let’s assume that a reasonable sum of money in damages is requested of Saudi Arabia.
Who is going to make them pay this sum? The United Nations? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries? The Arab League? No, none of these bodies will force Saudi Arabia to pay. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign power, just like the United States.
There is one power that can force Saudi Arabia to pay – the United States Military. Yes, the US Military would have to invade Saudi Arabia in order to extract the money a court in the United States has demanded.
While America’s potential occupation of Mecca and Medina would surely improve our relations with the Arab world (pause for nervous laughter), we probably should not invade Saudi Arabia for a crime they did not commit, according to the CIA at least.
French philosopher René Girard identified what he called a “Scapegoat Mechanism” in human history, by which every society finds a scapegoat and kills that scapegoat. When a society’s problems persist, they simply find another scapegoat and kill it as well. According to Girard, this mechanism drives human history.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did not fund the 9/11 attacks. They had no reason to do so. As this country soils itself before the international community in the upcoming presidential election like a toddler at a piano recital, our society has deemed it fit to blame someone else for our problems: the Saudis.
Please write your congressman and get this law thrown out as I try to remove myself from the watch list I have surely been added to after searching “Bin Laden’s Justification for 9/11” a few too many times today.
Lee Shaw is a junior majoring in professional writing and the current editor of The Mug.
Works Cited
1http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/politics/cia-john-brennan-saudi-arabia-9-11/
2http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/etc/cron.html
3https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
4http://www.cfr.org/saudi-arabia/us-saudi-relations/p36524
https://www.britannica.com/event/Donation-of-Pippin