There is a saying that goes this way: “Be careful what you
wish for because you may get it.” Well, something is about to happen that will
require modifying the saying to read: “...you may get it in spades”.
You'll know what it's about when you go over the editorial
that came in the Pittsburgh Tribune under the title: “Some Saudi answers?” It
was published on April 4, 2017.
The editors explain that a lawsuit was filed by families of
the 9/11 victims alleging that charities funded by the government of Saudi Arabia
might have maintained relations with Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11.
Even though the 9/11 Commission established that there was
no direct connection between the government of Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden, the
lawsuit was filed anyway. The reason is that the Commission alluded to the
possibility there might have been some sort of relationship between those
charities and Bin Laden.
This was enough for the Congress of the United States to break with the established
international norms as well as the rules that go with them – and pass
legislation allowing for this kind of lawsuits to be filed in America . And
the lawyers were happy to take the case.
What's wrong with that?
What's wrong is that the move will open a can of worms out
of which a never-ending stream of critters will come out to make the legendary
grasshopper plagues of biblical times look like welcome manna from the sky. But
the thing is that the plague will not afflict the whole world evenly; it will
only target a couple of countries for special treatment. As it happens, 90
percent of the affliction will hit America . Another 9 percent will hit
Israel ,
and the remaining 1 percent will hit the rest of the world.
It is easy to see why this will be the case. America has its
fingers in almost every existing conflict on the planet, and every conflict
that came and went since the Second World War. It was in the field and
continues to be there with the stationing of soldiers on the ground or with the
sale of weapons to foreign powers or with the weapons that make their way
illegally to troubled areas. They are taken there by dealers often referred to
as merchants of death; and America
is often thought of as their partner and accomplice.
Look what else the editors of the Tribune say is in the
lawsuit: “Saudi officials also provided direct assistance to al-Qaeda's leaders
… This reportedly included the use of the Saudi ambassador's residence in Kabul , Afghanistan
How many times did you hear American candidates that happen
to be running for office, protest they only knew that person casually before he
committed the scandal that's talked about by the whole world? But now that they
know what he is capable of doing, they'll have nothing to do with him going
forward.
Well, if that lawsuit is successful, this is the kind of
protest you'll hear all the time from American diplomats whose job is to meet
with and get to know people in the foreign lands where they are sent to serve.
They might see a person only once before he proves to be a charlatan capable of
committing horrific acts.
So the question to ask is this: Do you think American
ambassadors should be held responsible for crimes committed by everyone they
meet abroad ... people that might be as clean as a whistle when they meet them,
but then go on to commit a crime? If an ambassador is convicted in a foreign
court of law, do you think the taxpayers of America should pay damages awarded
by such court to foreign plaintiffs?
That's the can of worms the 9/11 lawsuit will open. The
astonishing thing is that the editors of the Tribune seem to welcome it. We can
only surmise they did not think through its ramifications. If not, they should
consider this: What usually happens after a civil suit, is that a criminal suit
is filed based on its findings.