There are several interesting facts and thoughts to consider regarding the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), aka Sue the Saudis Bill.
On 9 September this year the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed the JASTA bill which had been previously passed by the Senate in May. The bill is designed to end foreign countries’ immunity in the United States from lawsuits, thus allowing federal civil suits against Saudi Arabia which allege the country’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. On 28 September President Barrack Obama vetoed the bill. The White House claimed the legislation could expose US diplomats and servicemen abroad to litigation since this would remove the reciprocal agreements with other countries that now protect both sides from such lawsuits. By extension, removing the reciprocal agreements also opens the door to victims of U.S. aggression to sue the United States as well. Congress swiftly voted to override the veto.
Much of the public outrage which erupted as a result of Obama’s veto came as a natural reaction from an uninformed and misled public who depend on establishment media, and the government itself, for information regarding political issues. So, it’s not surprising that the public-at-large did not understand the larger implications of this bill. This post will discuss just a few.
The role of the Saudi government having a part in the horrors which occurred on 9/11 has been an issue of interest that began when it was disclosed that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. The suspicions of Saudi government involvement were greatly increased by a declassification of ‘The 28 Pages’ – part of a 838-page report entitled, Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the synopsis of the Joint Inquiry’s findings regarding the Saudi government’s involvement in the plot:
The rest of the ’28 pages’ relate spurious and possible connections between individuals known to have been involved with terrorist activities/groups but nothing definitive regarding Saudi government funding of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
This isn’t being presented to argue Saudi innocence, it’s presented to demonstrate that in the event the victim’s families bring this argument to court they will need a lot more proof that so far does not exist. It would have been wise for the legislators who signed on to JASTA to have investigated this fact before writing into law a bill which has bigger implications than this single case. What they did instead was play upon the emotions of their electorate rather than lead with an informed intelligence.
Another point to be made regarding Saudi involvement is the identity of the hijackers themselves. Out of the 19 individuals who have been reported to be the hijackers on 9/11, at least seven of them have been reported alive and none have any ties to terrorist networks or activities. This strange situation can be chalked up to the individuals having had their passports stolen or completely forged but it does put a question to the Saudi connection all together. We simply have no factual evidence of just exactly who the hijackers really were. Even those assumed dead cannot be positively identified if we consider the possibility of falsified credentials.
Still, let’s consider the possibility of Saudi support of al-Qa’ida. If there is a connection with al-Qa’ida, even in a spurious way, and the Saudis can be held liable for that connection, this is a very serious concern for the U.S. government. Why? Consider the points related in the following video in which Hillary Clinton clearly describes the U.S. role in creating al-Qa’ida in the first place and the analysis of how that relates to the continuing deaths of thousands of innocent civilians considered ‘collateral damage’.
So you see, contrary to the emotional bloggers, pundits, and politicians ranting that Obama was kissing up to Saudi Arabia by his veto, he was in fact acting in the best interests of the United States’ government. That being said, his decision wasn’t necessarily made with the most noble of intentions – he was, in fact, trying to halt what will become a free-for-all in investigations and/or revelations of what just might be discovered as war crimes by the U.S. military on behalf of the U.S. government.
There are numerous individuals and organizations who have questioned the veracity of the ‘official’ 9/11 Commission Report released by the U.S. government. Perhaps with all this talk of litigation there will be newer investigations less protected from scrutiny than that which has been held as gospel truth so far. This would be a good thing. I personally share the opinion expressed in this Global Research article that the ’28 Pages’ is merely a ‘Red-Herring’ used to sustain the official narrative which cannot stand up to the scrutiny of thinking intelligent persons.