No Justice for 9/11 victims – Obama chooses political alliances over America’s natural rights
There will be no closure or justice for the families of the victims of the 9/11 attack. There will be no accountability where accountability is due, there will be no trial and no further enquiry. Politicking those days supersede even patriotism.
While few ever expected US President Barack Obama to do the right thing – at least not by his people’s standards, and certainly not to risk of driving a wedge in between geostrategic alliances, the sting of betrayal nevertheless came as a shock.
Actually let me rephrase that: Americans expected, although they did not believe, that their president would speak for justice and decency, even in the face of capitalism’s siren call. Today the American presidency has placed itself beyond the interests of its people to represent that of others.
Interestingly enough this new political development was announced by non-other than Obama himself when he took to the floor of the United Nations General Assembly.
He told an expecting crowd of state officials: “The US has been a force for good, the rare superpower in history able to look beyond its narrow self-interest and respect the interests of others by binding itself to international law.”
Indeed … the United States is most definitely looking beyond, to the point one can argue that it is acting against its own national interests - at least as far as its people are concerned. A dichotomy exists today in between the US government and the American people. No longer a sovereign entity governing for the people, and in the name of the people, America’s seat of power serves an elite which interests are global.
Maybe this is what President Obama was actually implying when he spoke of the infamous “political liberal order.” Maybe the White House intended to bury nationalism and patriotism under the new deity, which is globalisation.
We ought to admit that Obama’s veto against the 9/11 Law was not a simple exercise in politicking, it wasn’t a tactical diplomatic move either. America has never been shy about making enemies in the name of its national security.
The Middle East and Asia can attest to that! The many idiotic and illegal wars, which have been waged since 2001 in the name of righteous American vengeance stand as a bleeding reminder of the vindictive nature of America’s wrath. And yet the line stops at Saudi Arabia, this grand partner Washington announced it will defend even against its own people.
Obama’s veto was a veto for the financial and ruling elite. Obama’s veto pretty much uncovered Washington’s true allegiance, and shone a light onto America’s realpolitik.
Should we worry?
Let’s just say that if I was an American citizen I would absolutely and unequivocally would. What good is a democracy if it can be vetoed by the one authority meant to safeguard it? Why speak still of national sovereignty and national security when politicking and supranational interests supersede Americans’ natural rights.
Make no mistake here, it is the natural rights of US citizens which were trampled over and reclaimed away by the White House.
If indeed the US government still spoke for and on behalf of its people, then it should have followed Justice even through the darkest of valley and demanded answers even from its closest friends.
Let me ask you another question: What of the many deaths and sacrifices America was called to make over the past decade? Why die in a foreign land if your government cannot bring itself to defend your rights at home?
But here is the kicker: Who really rules America?
It is a fair question I would say in the light of recent events. If Obama is not serving Americans’ interests … clearly now we have established that, then who is he serving at all? Or if we want to be kinder in our criticism, who is America afraid of?
I personally would postulate that Obama’s veto attest to Saudi Arabia’s blackmail. Let’s go over that presidential address: In his veto message, Obama said that the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," or JASTA, which was passed in Congress on September 9, would be “detrimental” to America's national security interests and its key alliances.
The legislation “does not enhance the safety of Americans from terrorist attacks, and undermines core US interests … A number of our allies and partners have already contacted us with serious concerns about the bill.”
What is Obama telling us? One that justice is futile … give it up. Already nobody in Washington really cares about the trauma families endure.
Two that America’s friends are not exactly keen on seeing their dirty radical laundry aired in public.
Outraged anyone? Excuse my French but you bloody well should.
If, as we were told by a grandiloquent George W. Bush, 9/11 was the one moment radicalism declared war on America’s democratic way of life, and if we can agree that War became henceforth America’s national sport in the name of counter-terrorism then why can’t we question those powers linked to 9/11?
If America could declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of righteous revenge, why can’t families demand answers from officials in Riyadh? Or is it that Riyadh in fact owns America?
That’s an interesting concept, isn’t it? But then again we kind of knew that already. America’s independence and claim to its political sovereignty remains tethered to its global debt and financial dependency. Guess who pulls those strings? The very democratic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
It’s not so much that the US government does not want to pursue Saudi Arabia – rather it cannot.
In which case a more troubling question arises: could America’s war on terror be an attempt to get out from under Saudi Arabia’s economic gravitational pull by acquiring financial independence on the back of other nations?
I will let you simmer on that one!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.