As a child, your parents told you not to do things: Don’t touch the stove, it’s hot; don’t play with the outlet, it’s dangerous; stay away from the neighbor’s dog, don’t be out after dark, don’t break the law, don’t get hurt. If you’re like me, you broke some (most) of these rules, sometimes suffering painful consequences because of your rebellion. If your parents are like mine, they made sure you were OK, then said, “I told you so.”
This week, President Obama gets to tell Congress I told you so. But unlike a child and a parent, Congress cannot hide behind excuses of naïveté or ignorance. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act would allow terrorism victims to sue foreign governments that have ties to terrorists. Yet the very thought of this violates sovereign immunity, the concept that a nation cannot commit a legal wrong and is therefore exempt from the possibility of legal action. This isn’t a carte blanche, but it allows nations to act in their own self-interest without fear of litigation in another country’s judicial system.
While it might seem prudent to take that advantage away from other nations, the United States also uses sovereign immunity abroad to our national advantage, whether through the international espionage of the CIA or diplomatic backchannels. To eliminate another nation’s sovereign immunity would create a domino effect that would threaten many U.S. citizens and government officials with legal sanctions abroad.
After Congress passed the act, Obama vetoed it; Congress then voted with an overwhelming majority to override the veto. After this, Congress suddenly realized the ramifications of what the bill could do, and it is now frantically working to amend it. Really?
Members of Congress have one job, and it’s to write legislation with the best interests of the nation and its people at heart. That means understanding the legislation under consideration, not just appeasing one’s constituents with an emotionally driven argument that leverages the tragedy of 9/11 for political impetus to pass a shoddy bill. We already did that 15 years ago and called it the Patriot Act; let’s not make the same mistake twice.
Yet now, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan want to say that Obama didn’t warn them about the potential ramifications of the act. The president’s job isn’t to hold your hand and walk you through the nuance of the legislation you’re supporting. The White House sent a small army of experts on national security, including the secretary of Defense and the director of the CIA to warn Congress against the bill; how can they say they didn’t understand the nuances of this bill? The president vetoed the legislation; can any warning be stronger than that?
