 |
| Flag from Ground Zero appears in September 11 commemoration last week at American History Museum in Washington, D.C. G. Edward Johnson via Wikimedia Commons CC BY 4.0 |
Terry Strada is the widow of Thomas S. Strada, a father of three and Cantor Fitzgerald bond broker killed in the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. She broke the tradition of exclusively apolitical statements at the annual memorial. But she drew applause from the crowd and shamed the assembly of every living former President and the current Vice President, who were there.
Here's more of what Strada had to say, from The Hill:
"For 25 years, administration after administration, including leaders in front of us here today, chose to protect the Saudis instead of standing with the 9/11 families," she said.
"They withheld evidence," Strada continued. "They vetoed JASTA [Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act]. They broke promises, both public and private. It has been one betrayal after another."
"Tell them that if they want to be friends with the USA, they cannot continue to deny all of this, all of the pain, all of the destruction that we have all been suffering through," Strada said.
The Guardian has further coverage.
There's no disputing Strada's facts. Twenty-eight pages of the 2002 congressional report on 9/11 were redacted for 14 years and did show possible ties, though nothing definitive, between Saudi officials and 9/11 hijackers. Many 9/11 records, including parts of the 2002 report, remain classified and have dribbled out over the years, including daily presidential briefings released just last week. Tim Burke at the Freedom of the Press Foundation has more on the latest. The City of New York also dumped a document trove into sunlight last week, including revelations of especial interest to first responders showing what officials knew about dangerous air quality.
Both Bush and Obama administrations tried to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from accusations of 9/11 responsibility. The United States is not dependent on Saudi oil. But the White House saw, and still sees, KSA as an essential diplomatic and military partner in Middle East security.
In 2016, President Obama did veto JASTA. Congress overrode the veto five days later. The law waives foreign sovereign immunity in civil claims against foreign governments that aid and abet terrorism, whether with action or with money.
Legislators were not so noble as it might seem. They knew well that JASTA claims would be next to impossible to prove against KSA, especially while 9/11 intelligence remained classified. So JASTA was really symbolic, something to boast about back home in the district. September 11 families would be pacified for a time while preoccupied with the bureaucracy of civil litigation.
Even if JASTA plaintiffs could obtain evidence, they would have a hard time ever proving a causal chain from the Saudi state to the 9/11 attacks. KSA might have ignored warning signs—so did the United States—but was hardly looking to destabilize geopolitics and send energy demand into free fall.
Indeed, since 2016, no JASTA suit has gained serious traction. A much touted suit against Israel in 2017 has gone nowhere and certainly has not been a deterrent to Israeli warfare. Iran has not even defended against JASTA suits and has suffered default judgments. That just moves plaintiffs into enforcement actions in the United States, in which they've been profoundly unsuccessful. Administrations of both parties have intervened against the plaintiffs, preferring that the government control Iranian assets to use them for diplomatic leverage.
The determination of Strada and other JASTA plaintiffs despite long odds, dim enforcement prospects, and opposition of their own government is a stirring reminder of the manifold purposes of tort law, or civil dispute resolution more generally. The U.S. tort system tends to emphasize, usually to a fault, the aim of compensation. But most 9/11 plaintiffs have received some compensation already from the federal victim compensation find.
Rather, plaintiffs in many types of cases, and especially in wrongful death, are usually after something else entirely. No amount of money can bring back a loved one. But justice is a relentless motivator.
Nevertheless, the law never has favored compensation for plaintiffs in U.S. courts for matters implicating foreign affairs. The preference is partly structural. The Constitution provides roles for both the executive and legislature in foreign policy. Congress often has abdicated, justifiably and not. But foreign policy in any event was always to be policy, by design, a matter of distributive justice for the political branches, not a problem in corrective justice for the courts.
The preference also is political and is less defensible in that vein. As money became the lingua franca of Washington especially in the post-World War 20th century, policymakers became reluctant to trust courts, much less civil complainants, with regulatory influence over powerful and wealthy actors. In other words, the grubby hands of the unwashed masses must not be allowed to derail the gravy trains of the elite. The distaste for civil complainants against states supporting terrorism is a cousin, and not even a distant one, of the reluctance to create private causes of action in civil rights and consumer protection.
In an outcome under-reported by mass media amid the usual flurry of Supreme Court opinions late in the last term, in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, in June, the Court disallowed a lawsuit accusing a U.S. corporation of knowingly developing technology for the Chinese government to facilitate the identification, arrest, and torture of members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The Court ruled out both corporate liability under the 1789 Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and aiding-and-abetting liability under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), appended to the ATS in 1991.
Both conclusions are debatable on the merits; the Court ruled 6-3. But more significant is the problem that remains: whether, or when and how, transnational actors can be held accountable in the United States for their complicity in human rights violations abroad.
As the United States has sought to eschew judicial involvement in foreign matters, other nations and the international legal system have been trying to step up. There is needed and dawning recognition around the world that transnational actors, public and private, have for too long been permitted to operate above the law. From Big Oil in South America, to Big Ag in Africa, to Russia in the former SSRs, the supposed rule of law has failed to stop bad actors from literally getting away with murder.
Which brings us back to KSA. To be fair to the past presidents, the United States always has been in a tough spot with the Saudis.
KSA seems to enjoy impunity in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, oppression of dissidents at home and abroad, dubious policies on gender and sexual orientation equality, religious freedom, and immigrant labor, and financing war in Syria and Yemen. I'm not saying all such Saudi policies are indefensible, and I'm not letting the United States off the hook for its own issues. I mean only that there seems to be no official inquiry at all; other nations fairly accuse the United States of a double standard.
The pandering of Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump to Saudi royals is perennially stomach-churning. Western politicians will smile and abide when KSA hosts the 2034 FIFA World Cup, just as they abided Saudi acquisition of LIV Golf (until this year), Newcastle United, and Electronic Arts. And the United States is moving forward (probably) on an agreement to share nuclear technology with KSA for, one hopes, only civilian applications.
And no wonder. The United States and KSA continue to rely mutually on strategic alliance for security interests in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Trump and allies, including son-in-law Jared Kushner, are profiting handsomely from Saudi investments.
One might wonder whether a time will come to pay the piper. Late last week, KSA grew frustrated as Iran-backed Houthi rebels seized from Saudi-financed government forces the entire Red Sea coast of Yemen. The Houthis thus gained control—this might sound familiar—of a vital strait and key islands in the transit of oil.
About the same time, KSA suffered a drone attack on its East-West oil pipeline. The massive conduit, stretching 1,200 km (746 miles), vital in the best of times, is a critical overland bypass to the Strait of Hormuz. The attack came from Iraqi territory, but almost certainly was the work of Iran-backed forces, and the timing dovetailed with the Houthi advance. The pipeline is shut down now for damage and risk assessment. I hope you filled your gas tank over the weekend.
In the wake of this one-two punch, reports say that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) himself—whom you might remember from such hits as the Khashoggi dismemberment and Biden fist bump—asked the White House to intervene militarily against the Houthis. Middle East commentator Professor James M. Dorsey observed analogously seven years ago: "The Saudis do not want an open conflict with Iran. The Saudis would like others to fight that war, and the others are reluctant."
Whether or not Trump personally felt inclined to oblige in Yemen, U.S. military resources happen to be running thin. And Republicans campaigning for midterm election would go into full meltdown if the country were to go to war on a second front.
So the President had to let down his Riyadh chum, but did pledge to send 200 military advisers to beef up intelligence sharing. Why does that also sound familiar (inflation since 128 in 1950)? Well, don't worry, the President said. He had a call with MBS, and "everything's going to work out fine and dandy. It's going to be very good."
A deepening Saudi alliance, a merely symbolic JASTA, and a neutered ATS: Seems to me that the United States is succumbing to sycophancy as its place in the new world oligarchy.
.jpg){kind=link}