(Full disclosure: on a feature of the Washington Post that asked readers to be the moderators and submit their own questions, my question was about the 9/11 bill. Congress passed the bill this week.)
This election (hell, this year in general) has been one of the most traumatizing in recent memory. Before us are two options: one who apparently (as we found out recently) believes this kind of garbage and one who's been allowed to get away with atrocities in other countries, essentially being a hypocrite in the process. It makes you cynical, despairing and angry enough to make you wish there was a way to punish these two for forcing the American people (and the world in general) for going through this disgrace. Our prayers have been answered, thanks to Congress.
Earlier this week, both houses overrode President Obama's veto for the first time in the entire history of his administration to pass the Justice Against Sponsors Against Terrorism Act (JASTA). On its face, it allows the families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for their involvement in the worst terrorist attack in American history. However, as the Washington Post reported (see link above), the Obama administration had vetted furiously for it not to get passed and is outraged that it passed. Looking more broadly, the bill would strip a number of different groups of people of immunity, but this is the best part about the bill: In an unprecedented move, it allows citizens of one country to sue the officials of another country for their involvement in terrorist attacks. Left as is, it could inspire other countries to take similar action.
That was one of the Obama administration's fears: the fear of reciprocity. If that's the big boogeyman with this bill, I have only two words: BRING IT!
Honestly, if anything, this bill is belated. In overriding the veto, Congress may have unintentionally changed American foreign policy permanently. If our citizens can sue officials from another country, why shouldn't others do the same to us? Think of Iran. Think of Guatemala. Think of Chile. And of course, the countries we decided it was a good idea to go to war with or drone to death: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq (who we may as well pay reparations to for all of eternity). Think of all the countries we destroyed or ruined because we meddled in their affairs, and even went as far as committing terrorist acts (yes, the U.S. is guilty of terrorist acts), including overthrowing heads of government. Because of this bill, we might finally be held accountable for our actions in other countries!
I want to kiss this bill. Thinking about this bill, I've even come close to wanting to cry tears of joy, it made me so happy. And that's not even the best part: with this bill, whoever wins the election will be the biggest loser. Trump (God forbid) won't be able to shove his skills as a "negotiator" in everyone's face when trying to get out of paying reparations to all these countries. And with Clinton, not only would she be so swamped with these cases that she won't have space to blame whatever scandal-of-the-month arises on the Republicans, but she would have to be held personally responsible for the degradation she inflicted on countries like Honduras and Haiti (see atrocities link above). The kind of, dare I say, "extremely careless" behavior she reveled in won't be tolerated anymore.
That same Post article (see link above) had some senators thinking about watering it down. In fact, there are already talks of changing the bill from people in Congress. Here's my advice: Don't. Let. Them. Make them suffer. Make them own this bill. Put them through hell because they decided that our democracy would be better served by ruining the democracies of other countries. And if makes the life of whoever's our next president a never-ending stream of lawsuits, reparations and blown blood vessels, all the better.
They subjected us to the worst debate in the longest time that anyone can remember. They're the most unpopular, most hated (caveat: the latter link is from May) candidates in history. One admires Vladimir Putin, the other (to put it one way) can't stand him (and the feeling is mutual, apparently). The argument of lesser evils isn't gonna cut it anymore. While there's an ongoing revolt against Donald Trump, and the results of Hillary Clinton's performance at the debate are clear, an untouched JASTA would make sure that no matter who wins, they will lose.
I can't think of a better revenge.
