Suing the "Supporters of Terrorism"
In 1996, our president signed a new law that would allow Americans to sue foreign countries in US courts if the State Department listed those countries as supporters of terrorism. This law was passed in a time during which the administration was recieving a lot of public pressure to take some action on terrorism. I assume they would defend this law by claiming it was enacted in order to provide some legal recourse for victims of international terrorism. What this law really does is allow Clinton to take credit for acting without taking any real action. What I don't understand is why our government thinks that Iran and the other so-called "supporters of terrorism" are going to comply with this law?
Now in an almost complete reversal, Bill Clinton is expected to sign legislation into law that basically concedes the fact that we cannot realistically expect foreign countries to submit themselves to our laws. He is conceding the fact that these nations will never pay the plaintiffs in these cases a dollar just because our judicial system says they are obligated to. But instead of eliminating this silly law, they want to further exacerbate the situation by having the US treasury pay out the awards to the plaintiffs in these cases with the hopes that the US government will somehow recoup the money through litigation in the international court in order to refill the treasury's coffers.
White House spokesman P.J. Crowley said the bill supports victims and serves the country's national security concerns. "This compromise allows us to demonstrate that support without compromising diplomatic protocols that might result in retaliations by other governments against the United States," Crowley said.
So where does this so-called compromise put us? Sure, it supports the people that the courts have already determined to be victims. They have been awarded some hefty sums. But what are we really accomplishing when we fine another country an amount of money and then go and pay the fine ourselves? This sounds a lot to me like using my Visa card to pay off my Discover card. This is not sound financial policy. Secondly, foriegn funds have been frozen with the intentions of using these moneys to pay either the victims or repay the Treasury. And again I have to say that this is not sound financial policy! This can only serve to discourage foreign investment in our country.
Not wanting to miss a chance to get his name in the papers, Senator Connie Mack, R-FL, is quoted as saying, "I am elated for the families. They have finally received the justice they deserve. The message is clear to terrorist nations -- there is a price to pay for killing Americans."
Yes, there is a price for killing Americans, and the US Treasury is paying it with your tax dollars. Our administration must be pretty eager to put an end to these cases if they are willing to go as far as to pay out about $400 million to the plaintiffs in these cases.
I am not in any way trying to make light of what Terry Anderson and countless others have endured at the hands of terrorists. I would never suggest that what happened to them was anything less than criminal. However, I am suggesting that if we are not willing to take military action, then we must wait for the international law to play itself out. I disagree with the Treasury granting what I would characterize as a loan to the "supporters of terrorism", I also have a problem with the law that even allows these cases to be brought in the first place. The only message that Clinton is sending to anybody by signing this into law is that he wants to buy his way to a quick end to this matter.
Back to the Wildebeest Editorial