The United States now sees itself as judge, jury and executioner in policing the international community, a conceit that began post World War 2 when American presidents began referring to themselves as “leader of the free world.” This pretense received legislative backing with passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1987 (ATA) as amended in 1992 plus subsequent related legislation, to include the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016 (JASTA). The body of legislation can be used by US citizens or residents to obtain civil judgments against alleged terrorists anywhere in the world and can be employed to punish governments, international organizations and even corporations that are perceived to be supportive of terrorists, even indirectly or unknowingly. Plaintiffs are able to sue for injuries to their “person, property, or business” and have ten years to bring a claim.

Sometimes the connections and level of proof required by a US court to take action are tenuous, and that is being polite. Suits currently can claim secondary liability for third parties, including banks and large corporations, under “material support” of terrorism statutes. This includes “aiding and abetting” liability as well as providing “services” to any group that the United States considers to be terrorist, even if the terrorist label is dubious and/or if that support is inadvertent.

There have been two recent lawsuits seeking civil damages under ATA and JASTA involved Iran and Syria. Regarding Iran, in June 2017 a jury deliberated for one day before delivering a guilty verdict against two Iranian foundations for violation of US sanctions, allowing a federal court to authorize the US government seizure of a skyscraper in Midtown Manhattan. It was the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in United States history. The presiding judge decided to distribute proceeds from the building’s sale, which could amount to as much as $1 billion, to the families of victims of terrorism, including the September 11^th attacks. The court ruled that Iran had some culpability for the 9/11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, though it could not determine that Iran was directly involved in the attacks. 

The ruling against Iran has to be considered somewhat bizarre as it is clear that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 but was considered guilty anyway because the State Department in Washington has declared it to be a state sponsor of terror. Being able to determine guilt based on an interpretation of a foreign government’s behavior puts incredible power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who are making political decisions regarding who is “good” and who is “bad.”

A second, more recent, court case has involved Syria. Last week a federal court in the District of Columbia ruled that Syria was liable for the targeting and killing of an American journalist who was covering the shelling of a rebel held area of Homs in 2012.

The court awarded $302.5 million to the family of the journalist, Marie Colvin. In her ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson cited “Syria’s longstanding policy of violence” seeking “to intimidate journalists” and “suppress dissent.” As it is normally not possible even in American courts to sue a foreign government, a so-called human rights group funded by the US and other governments called the Center for Justice and Accountability made its case relying on the designation of Damascus as a state sponsor of terrorism. The judge believed that the evidence presented was “credible and convincing.”

The complexities of what is going on in Syria are such that it is difficult to imagine that a Washington based judge could possibly render judgment in any credible fashion. Colvin was in a war zone and the plaintiffs, whose agenda was to compile a dossier of war crimes against Syria, made their case using documents that they provided, which certainly presented a partisan viewpoint and might themselves have been fabricated. Based on her own comments, Judge Amy Berman Jackson certainly came into the game with her own particular view on Syria and what the conflict there was all about.

Another American gift to international jurisprudence has been the Magnitsky Act of 2012, a product of the feel-good enthusiasm of the Barack Obama Administration. It was based on a narrative regarding what went on in Russia under the clueless Boris Yeltsin and his nationalist successor Vladimir Putin that was peddled by one Bill Browder, who many believe to have been a major player in the looting of the former Soviet Union. It was claimed by Browder and his accomplices in the media that the Russian government had been complicit in the arrest, torture and killing of one Sergei Magnitsky, an accountant turned whistleblower working for Browder. Almost every aspect of the story has been challenged, but it was completely bought into by the Congress and White House and led to sanctions on the Russians who were allegedly involved despite Moscow’s complaints that the US had no legal right to interfere in its internal affairs relating to a Russian citizen.

Worse still, the Magnitsky Act has been broadened and is now the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act of 2017. It is being used to sanction and otherwise punish alleged “human rights abusers” in other countries. It was most recently used in the Jamal Khashoggi case, in which the US sanctioned the alleged killers of the Saudi dissident journalist even though no one had actually been convicted of any crime.

Independent of Magnitsky and the various ATA acts is the ability of the US Treasury Department and its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to sanction a country’s ability to move money through the US controlled dollar financial system. That is what is taking place currently regarding payments for Venezuela’s oil exports, which have been sanctioned and will not be able to use the dollar denominated system after April 28th. A similar US imposed sanctioning is currently in effect against Iran, with all potential purchasers of Iranian oil themselves being subject to secondary sanctions if they continue to make purchases after May 5th.

Most of the world oil business is transacted in dollars, so the Treasury Department has an effective weapon in hand to interfere in foreign countries without having to send in the Marines, but there is, of course, a danger that the rest of the world will eventually read the tea leaves and abandon the use of petrodollars altogether. If that occurs it will make it more difficult for the American government to continue to print dollars without regard for deficits as there will be little demand for the extra US currency in circulation.

The principle that Washington should respect the sovereignty of other states even when it disagrees with their internal policies has effectively been abandoned. And, as if things were not bad enough, some new legislation virtually guarantees that in the near future the United States will be doing still more to interfere in and destabilize much of the world. Congress has passed and President Trump has signed the Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which seeks to improve Washington’s response to mass killings. The prevention of genocide and mass murder is now a part of American national security agenda. There will be a Mass Atrocity Task Force and State Department officers will receive training to sensitize them to impending genocide, though presumably the new program will not apply to the Palestinians as the law’s namesake never was troubled by their suppression and killing by the state of Israel. 

Dear President Trump,

This week you are scheduled to meet with Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. As a 9/11 widow who has fought for more than 15 years for truth, justice, accountability and transparency with regard to the murder of my husband, Ron, I have a considerable interest in your upcoming meeting with the Deputy Crown Prince.

First, foremost and for good reason, I fear that the Deputy Crown Prince will not be forthright with you about his Kingdom’s role in the 9/11 attacks and global terrorism.

Indeed, many in the Kingdom refuse to tell the truth about their continued, long-standing, and well-documented clandestine, logistical and financial support of radical Islamist terrorist groups that target and kill innocent Americans.

For example, last summer when the infamous 2002 Joint Inquiry of Congress’ “28 pages” were finally released, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al Jubeir claimed that the Saudis were exonerated and that the matter surrounding the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks was “now finished.”

In reality, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks is far from over. And, in truth, the “28 pages” – actually 29 pages of the 832-page report – prove to be quite illuminating, devastating and damning towards that end:

On page 415: “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support and assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government.… [A]t least two of those individuals were alleged by some to be Saudi intelligence officers.”

On page 417: One of the individuals identified in the pages as a financial supporter of two of the 9/11 hijackers, Osama Bassnan, later received a “significant amount of cash” from “a member of the Saudi Royal Family” during a 2002 trip to Houston.

On page 418: “Another Saudi national with close ties to the Saudi Royal Family, [deleted], is the subject of FBI counterterrorism investigations.”

On pages 418 and 419: Detained al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida had in his phone book the unlisted number for the security company that managed the Colorado residence of the then-Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

On page 421: “a [deleted], dated July 2, 2002, [indicates] ‘incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists inside the Saudi Government.’”

On page 426: Bassnan’s wife was receiving money “from Princess Haifa Bint Sultan,” the wife of the Saudi ambassador. (Her correct name is actually Princess Haifa bin Faisal.)

On page 436: The general counsel of the U.S. Treasury Department, David Aufhauser, testified that “offices [of the Saudi charity al-Haramain] have significant contacts with extremists, Islamic extremists.” CIA officials also testified “that they were making progress on their investigations of al-Haramain.… [T]he head of the central office is complicit in supporting terrorism, and it also raised questions about [then-Saudi Interior Minister] Prince Nayef.”

Holding the Saudis Accountable

Fortunately, as you know President Trump, JASTA (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act) was enacted into law — overriding President Obama’s veto — on Sept. 28, 2016 and the 9/11 Families were given the right to hold the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia accountable in a court of law for its alleged role in the 9/11 attacks.

Thanks to discovery and subpoena power, the 9/11 families hope to unearth and reveal a panoply of compelling information surrounding the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks. Suffice it to say, we do not believe the Saudis should be considered an ally of America.

Unsurprisingly, the Saudis continue to wage war against the 9/11 Families and JASTA by paying millions to their 14 powerful, insider Washington DC lobbying firms, like the Podesta Group, to repeal JASTA and rob us of our day in court.

In addition, some of the Saudis’ key legislative supporters who threaten to repeal JASTA are Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain. Sadly, McCain and Graham choose to protect the Saudis rather than American victims of terrorism.

Quite horrifically, one of the Saudi lobbyists — Qorvis — was recently caught trying to dupe, manipulate, and pit U.S. veterans against the 9/11 families. According to media reports, Qorvis offered vets an all-expense-paid trip to Washington (staying at the Trump Hotel) to lobby against JASTA without telling the vets that it was Saudi money funding their trip. Given that many of these vets had joined the military in the wake of 9/11, the discovery that they were now being duped into “working” for the enemy they enlisted and risked their lives to fight against, was extremely upsetting. Pitting American veterans against American victims is the lowest of the low — yet, there seems to be no lengths that the Saudis will not go.

Which brings me to my last point — the Saudi Aramco IPO on Wall Street. Mr. President, my husband was burnt to death on September 11th. The remains I received included his two arms, a few fingers, and his wedding band.

Thousands of innocent people were brutally slaughtered and turned to ash in broad daylight on that horrific day, now more than 15 years ago. The notion that the Saudis — whom the 9/11 Families are currently trying to hold accountable in a court of law for their role in the murder of our loved ones — want to return to the scene of their own alleged crime to make billions of dollars is immoral and simply untenable.

As my fellow 9/11 widows and I have repeatedly said—not over our husbands’ dead bodies.

President Trump, you have structured your campaign and current policies around being for America First. The 9/11 Families certainly hope that you remain steadfast in your belief that Americans must be protected, supported, and heard, first and foremost above all others—particularly those like the Saudis who fund radical Islamic terrorists that target and kill Americans.

consortiumnews.com

We might have thought the Congress of the United States hit rock bottom in 2011, when it nearly drove the country into a sovereign debt default. It was averted in time, but Standard and Poor’s still downgraded America’s debt rating. Or was rock bottom the government shutdown of 2013? Or was the low point reached in the summer of 2016, when the Senate refused to perform its constitutional duty to consider a Supreme Court nominee, and left a court vacancy in the midst of several important judicial decisions?

No, Congress achieved its nadir of dysfunction at the end of September, with how it handled its first veto override of Barack Obama’s presidency. The bill in question is the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which narrows the scope of foreign sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts: a state involved in the death of U.S persons becomes liable for court claims. The bill was intended as relief for the next of kin of those killed in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Because the likeliest target of a lawsuit over the 9/11 attacks was the government of Saudi Arabia, the administration had already issued a veto threat back in April: rescinding sovereign immunity would immensely complicate foreign relations, could subject the United States to similar suits, and might result in the Saudis pulling their estimated $750 billion of investments out of American financial markets.

Congress was not about to take this affront to its institutional majesty lying down, and accordingly overrode Obama’s veto by the overwhelming votes of 348 to 77 in the House and 97 to1in the Senate.

Instantly, buyer’s remorse set in, accompanied by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s and House Speaker Paul Ryan’s plaintive wails that it was all Obama’s fault for not telling them the implications of JASTA forcefully enough – despite the fact that the administration had already threatened a veto for precisely the reasons that now weighed so heavily upon the members, and despite the fact that the whole thing was Congress’s bright idea, not Obama’s.

And, incidentally, when have the Republicans, who control both chambers, ever refrained from doing something because Obama thought it was a bad idea? Typically, he is a reverse barometer for their course of action. One suspects Obama’s actions or lack of them were irrelevant to Congress’s instant regret.

After the override vote, did the House and Senate leadership offices receive calls from some well-placed entities on Wall Street reminding them that the Saudis’ pulling their investments out of New York might kill the golden goose, as well as dampen the financial services industry’s appetite to attend fundraisers? I’ll leave further speculation to the reader.

This is not the place to analyze the merits or demerits of JASTA. Perhaps the moral and jurisprudential arguments override the principle of sovereign immunity – but Congress obviously never weighed the balance of those interests in a deliberative fashion, as it was constitutionally intended to do. Instead, members wanted cheap credit for associating themselves with 9/11 victims, and all other considerations be damned.

Selling the Saudis Weapons

The cherry on the cake of this tragicomedy is the fact that only a few days before approving JASTA, the Senate agreed to a $1.15 billion sale of weapons to the very same government of Saudi Arabia that it now wants to subject to lawsuits on the grounds that it is presumptively involved in terrorism!

JASTA is only the tip of the legislative iceberg. Congress simply hasn’t done its job: it has not agreed to a budget resolution – the most basic blueprint for spending – since 2009, and the last time all appropriations bills were enacted by Oct. 1 (the beginning of the new fiscal year) was in 1996. Partly this is just laziness, and the growing preference of members to pontificate via press release and sound byte rather than doing the public business.

But it is hard to interpret some of it as anything other than malign intent. Congress, like any halfway awake newspaper reader, has known for the last six months that the Zika virus was an immanent menace. Yet funding for public health measures were held hostage until late September by the insistence that the measure could only pass when paired with cuts to Planned Parenthood: in other words, poorer women would not be allowed to obtain fetal screening for potential health problems, including Zika.

The Zika funding only passed when it became clear even to the most addled member of Congress that the majority of the public preferred action on public health to ideological grandstanding.

It is all too easy for the American people to throw up their hands and sigh, “Congress! There go the two parties again! Like kids in a schoolyard!” Notice how the criticism, like rain, falls on the just and the unjust alike, implying that the sad state of Congress is inevitable. There are three answers to this criticism.

First, the American people need to take greater responsibility for the people they elect. When they send a representative to Congress, it is a serious business bound up with maintenance of constitutional government. The notion of “sending a message” or “shaking things up” by inflicting a Louis Gohmert, or a Steve King, or an Alan Grayson on the country, is immature and unworthy of a serious body politic. Congress is a legislative body, not WrestleMania.

Second, there is plenty of blame to go around on a bipartisan basis – note that the veto override votes in both Houses were overwhelming. And, yes, politicians of both parties are beholden to corporate special interests. Nevertheless, the source of Congress’s extreme dysfunction lies predominantly in one party.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

For decades, the Republican Party has been damning government – established by the very Constitution that the party claims to revere. They promise to clean up the mess in Washington, and then proceed to throw sand in the gears of any possibility of orderly governance.

The resulting increased disarray then becomes their rationale to be reelected: a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is apparently a convincing argument for millions of low-information voters who want to shrink government to a size that it can be drowned in a bathtub, but also want their Social Security checks delivered on time, and with the customary cost-of-living increase.

Finally, democracies, like civilization itself, are inherently fragile. The self-brainwashing of millions of Americans by habitual exposure to the right-wing media-entertainment complex has replaced social trust with resentment, vitriol, and the perpetual hunt for scapegoats. This process has been faithfully reproduced in the actions of Congress.

At one time the inequitable political treatment of different parts of the country suffering from natural disasters would not have occurred to anyone. But with the seating of the Tea Party faction in Congress in 2011, that changed. Tornadoes in Joplin, Missouri, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, were promptly addressed, but Red State Republicans dragged their feet in addressing 2012’s Superstorm Sandy. Why? It affected predominantly Democratic constituencies.

The same syndrome repeated itself this year: September’s inundations in Louisiana were speedily tackled, but Republicans only grudgingly included funding to solve the Flint, Michigan water crisis to avoid being blamed for another government shutdown, even though the contamination had been a nationally known issue for a year.

This kind of endemic bad faith within our national legislature provides abundant evidence that the problem in our governing institutions is not confined to nominating the occasional lunatic to be a presidential candidate. The rot extends to Congress, the focus of the very first article of the Constitution and, as James Madison believed, the premier instrument of popular self-government.

It is well past time to clean up Congress. The first step is for the electorate to understand that choices have consequences, and that voting is a serious responsibility – not just for president, but down the ballot as well.

consortiumnews.com

On May 17 the US Senate approved the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). This bill essentially accuses Saudi Arabia of involvement in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The proposal would provide US citizens «with the broadest possible basis… to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries… that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States».

If the bill is passed by the House of Representatives and signed by the president, it will eliminate the sovereign immunity protections enjoyed by the members of the al-Saud family, and US courts will be able to demand compensation from that kingdom for the families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on New York’s Twin Towers. (According to the official US version of that event, 15 of the 19 terrorists who carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were Saudi nationals).

The act was sponsored by Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and his Republican colleague John Cornyn. The Senate’s decision hinged on testimony obtained from Zacarias Moussaoui, who has been accused of helping to plot the September terrorist attacks and is currently being held in a US prison in Colorado. Moussaoui claimed that King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Princes Bandar bin Sultan and Turki bin Faisal were some of the members of the royal family who supported al-Qaeda.

A ruling handed down by a US District Court in New York on March 16 set an amount for prospective compensation from Iran, ordering the Islamic Republic to pay $10.5 billion to the victims of the terrorist attacks.

The US Senate’s decision followed an announcement by Saudi officials that the kingdom might sell the US securities that it owns. The US bonds purchased by the Saudi treasury are estimated to be worth $116.8 billion. And the total value of the US assets owned by both the state as well as individuals in that country – primarily those connected to the royal family – comes to $750 billion.

Naturally a sell-off of more than $100 billion in US securities would deal a painful blow to the US economy. However, an even more important factor is that this would make Riyadh significantly less dependent on Washington. JASTA would allow the US Treasury to place a freeze on all transactions involving US securities and Saudi assets within US borders. Another aspect of the problem is that if the Saudis decide to sell their US assets, they will try to convert them into dollars, and all dollar transactions are controlled by the US Treasury. Washington used this against Tehran in 2010, imposing «crippling sanctions» on Iran’s economy.

Cracks were already appearing in the US-Saudi alliance back in 2005 when the Americans were occupying Iraq and abetted the rise to power in Baghdad of a coalition of Shiite parties with close ties to Iran. Then, in the fall of 2013, the US redoubled its efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem. The closure of Iran’s nuclear program and gradual lifting of sanctions from that country has drawn the ire of the Saudi elite, for whom Iran is still the biggest enemy in the region.

The vote in the US Senate approving the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, as well as Barack Obama’s March interview in the Atlantic that was published this spring, can be viewed as a gradual withdrawal from Washington’s strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia. 

When it was created, the US-Saudi alliance served the two countries’ mutual interests. Those included combating Soviet influence in the Middle East, countering the forces of secular Arab nationalism (Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government in Egypt and the Baathists in Syria and Iraq), and ensuring an uninterrupted flow of oil into the US economy. None of these factors retains its former significance, including America’s reduced dependence on oil imports from the Middle East (the US currently extracts nearly nine million barrels of shale oil per day, enough to supply half of America’s daily oil needs).

The US senators’ support for the JASTA bill is a sign that Washington is stepping up the pressure on Riyadh. It is possible that certain ranks of the American elite are growing increasingly concerned that the kingdom might begin to pursue a more independent political line. The latest shuffling of top Saudi policy makers, as well as the economic plans of Prince Mohammed bin Salman, indicate that this is more than just a theoretical possibility.

On the eve of President Obama’s April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission’s conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayatpublished an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia. He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls “victory by means of archives.”

Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari’s article:[3]

 ”Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting… [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi’ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.

“September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings… Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed ‘victory by means of archives.’

“On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined. Some of them can be enumerated as follows:

“1.   The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

“2.   Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic…

“3.   The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country's budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

“Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

“The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy… [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War… Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

“So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives.”

Notes:

Fifteen out of the nineteen hijackers in 2001 were Saudi citizens. The approval is setting up a potential showdown with the White House, which has threatened a veto. The bill passed on a voice vote, a rare feat in the divided chamber, especially for a controversial issue. The Justice against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) bill was sponsored by Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas and is expected to be passed by the House of Representatives soon.

The bill has been approved by a large number of the Democratic Senate members, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, putting them at odds with the Obama administration to indicate the division inside the Democratic Party.

A 1976 law in force gives foreign nations some immunity from lawsuits in US courts. The Senate bill carves out an exception to the law if foreign countries are found culpable for terrorist attacks that kill American citizens within the United States. If it were in force, the legislation could clear a path for the role of the Saudi government to be examined in the Sept. 11 suits.

The bill represents a great risk for the US-Saudi relations and the Saudi investments in the United States. It would change long standing international law regarding sovereign immunity and make the US vulnerable in other court systems around the world. In a move intended to address some White House concerns, the bill’s sponsors included a provision that would allow the Attorney General to put a hold on individual court cases if the administration can show that it is negotiating with the defendant government to resolve the claims.

The President has decided to veto the bill. «The President of the United States continues to harbor serious concerns that this legislation would make the United States vulnerable in other court systems around the world», said  White House spokesman Josh Earnest. «It could put the United States, and our taxpayers, and our service members and our diplomats at significant risk, if other countries were to adopt a similar law», he added.

The US Congress could challenge and override the presidential veto from Obama’s administration if it decided to object the bill and return it to the Congress. «I think we easily get the two-thirds override if the president should veto», said Senator Schumer.

The US-Saudi Arabia relations have been strained of late – partly the result of regional unrest and frustration over the legislative efforts in question. In March, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir warned lawmakers that it would sell $750 billion of US assets, including Treasury securities, should the bill become law.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is considering whether to declassify 28 pages of the 2002 congressional report – the portion of the lawmakers’ investigation that cited some evidence that Saudi government officials and other Saudi citizens living in the United States had a hand in the terrorist plot.

Recently the National Archives posted a separate document on its website that appears to offer a glimpse at the classified pages.

The publication is a series of memos written by Sept. 11 commission staff members compiling numerous possible connections between the hijackers and Saudis in the United States.

These events will inevitably deteriorate the relationship further. It makes Saudi Arabia gradually move away from the US orbit of influence striking deals with other countries. In April, Saudi Arabia and Egypt announced the construction of a bridge which will connect the Sinai Peninsula with the Arabian Peninsula for the first time. The bridge will span between 7 to 10 kilometers (about four to six miles) and cross the Red Sea south of the Straits of Tiran. The project will generate billions of dollars in annual revenue, and the construction will create thousands of jobs for Egyptian workers. The deal had been preceded by handing over Tiran and Sanafir – the disputed islands under Cairo’s control – to Saudi Arabia.

The two large Arab states with the long history of being close US allies are forging an alliance dissatisfied with Washington’s Middle East policy. Despite the existing differences over Syria, Saudi Arabia is also set on building pragmatic relations with Moscow. Last October, Russian President Vladimir Putin met Sheikh Mohammed bin Salman, a son of the Saudi king, to discuss the prospects for cooperation. Moscow hosted a joint Russian-Saudi Business Forum at the end of the last year. A delegation from the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia visited Moscow this February to discuss regional and bilateral problems and ways to boost relations. «Saudi Arabia’s warming ties with Russia surely speak of the waning regional influence of the US, with which the kingdom has been closely allied for 70 years», writes David Gardner, an international affairs editor at the Financial Times. 

Russia and Saudi Arabia are quite capable of working well together. The Middle East landscape is changing with the US regional policy failing. The United States is losing old friends against the background of Russia’s growing influence. Other actors change their policies. New alliances are being formed. The region is being reshaped. It will never be the same. The Senate has just undermined US position in the Middle East. There is a slim chance the legislation could be rejected by the House. And there is a big chance a presidential veto could be overridden, if imposed. On May 17 the damage to the US-Saudi relationship and America influence in the Middle East was done and there is no way to repair it.