Second of two parts

This is the second article about the recently passed Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, also known as the 9/11 Act. Congress overwhelmingly overrode President Obama’s veto of this bill. We continue our analysis of this act with a brief examination of three examples why this act, as presently written, is not in the best interests of America and America’s military and intelligence personnel.

The use of Agent Orange in Vietnam: With no war declared, America’s use of Agent Orange decimated segments of the Vietnamese civilian population. This writer’s heart condition and exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War results in Uncle Sam sending him a disability check each month. As a result of the 9/11 Act, will injured Vietnamese citizens receive checks from Uncle Sam; or shamefully calamitous, from an individual American warrior?

The Vietnamese could form their own civil court and let their citizens sue America and perhaps personnel who were associated with the program. Was the Agent Orange program a terrorist program? Of course not, but the Vietnamese could sue America’s warriors for redress. Irony in action: I am a victim of my government’s use of Agent Orange but I might be sued because of my government’s very use of this chemical. As stated, it appears initial lawsuits will be brought against nations, but there is no guarantee this practice will hold.

Attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan: Hundreds of attacks by U.S. forces resulted in civilian deaths. Yet our warriors were carrying out orders. Who would these courts in other countries go after? The G.I. doing the killing and injuring? The commander in charge of the operations? The intelligence personnel who targeted the attacks? The nation itself?

The U.S. Drone and Missile Programs: The BureauInvestigates.com research facility has compiled the number of drone and missile strikes (and estimated casualties) the U.S. has conducted in four countries, as shown in the tables below. Due to the ambiguity of warfare, these figures might be imprecise. Nonetheless, they reflect that the attacks have resulted in the deaths of non-combatants. These attacks could easily be considered acts of terrorism by the countries that have been attacked.

Sleeping on it

Shorty after the passage of this veto, the leaders in Congress said they needed to modify some of their views on the subject. Their rethinking came less than a day after they overrode Obama’s veto. Here are several paraphrases and quotes that came forth the day after the 9/11 Act override vote occurred:

• Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, both acknowledged Thursday that the bill, which narrows a foreign nation’s immunity from legal challenge, could backfire by exposing the United States to retaliatory lawsuits by foreign victims of terrorism.

Ryan said lawmakers were focused on giving 9/11 families “their day in court.” However, now the speaker is worried that other countries will retaliate — as the White House had warned — by adjusting their own laws to target the United States and its military personnel with lawsuits.

How obtuse can the members of Congress be? By the very nature of this act, they could subject America’s warriors to lawsuits for our men and women doing their mandated duty. A probable effect: “I’m not going to fire into that group of terrorists. There may be civilians among them. It’s not worth my being hauled into courts for who knows how many months or years, maybe fined with the loss of any financial security I have labored to obtain.”

I am not suggesting this intellectual self-debate would occur during the heat of battle, but any reasonably intelligent person is certainly going to think about this situation at some point before a battle occurs.

I admire Paul Ryan. I believe him to be a reasonable man, but his statement below is mushy, wishful thinking:

“I would like to think there may be some work to be done to protect our service members overseas from any kind — any kind of legal ensnarements that could occur….I’d like to think that there’s a way we could fix [the act] so that our service members do not have legal problems overseas, while still protecting the rights of the 9/11 victims.”

Mr. Ryan, you should have thought of that idea before you cast your override veto vote. But no, the override of the veto was an easy political call. It entailed the universal acceptance of a bill that is meant to be patriotic and solicitous of a revered part of America’s population.

But the 9/11 Act could very well result in a countereffect of placing more burdens on our military and intelligence personnel, with the possibility of making them more hesitant in carrying out their duties. As the act reads today, our U.S. warriors could bear the burden of Congressional short-sightedness.

If the 9/11 Act remains in force, it should be amended to make clear that any lawsuit brought against a United States citizen who has been tasked with carrying out his/her military or intelligence duties in accordance with U.S. military law will have America build a wall around that warrior. This wall should shield this person completely from the political and economic maelstrom that this bill will create. This is one wall whose construction is feasible and the right thing to do.

• • •

Writer and researcher Uyless Black was awarded the U.S. Navy Commendation Medal for his participation in eight amphibious landings, six amphibious assaults, and five amphibious raids during the Vietnam conflict. He currently resides in Hayden, Idaho and Palm Springs, Calif.