The United States has an inalienable right to pursue justice when terror strikes our nation. Indeed, the atrocities of 9/11 serve a raw reminder of our unwavering duty to protect our security and, with it, the brave men and women in uniform at the forefront in serving our country.

The recently passed Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), however, goes against every grain of this obligation.

For centuries, countries have operated under the legal framework of sovereign immunity, ensuring the exemption of states from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts. Our efforts worldwide to counter emerging and ongoing threats relies on the viability of sovereign immunity and the protections it guarantees to our military members.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet JASTA guts all aspects of this agreement by enabling American citizens to sue sovereign states believed — albeit not proven — to have abetted acts of terrorism. JASTA puts our national security and military members’ interests on the line.

It is a fallacy to suggest otherwise.

Sovereign immunity is rooted in reciprocity. Any degradation to this agreement will certainly lead to worldwide retaliation. Global players have already promised to follow suit by introducing their own version of JASTA.

The U.S.’s military footprint worldwide makes us a prominent target for this type of litigation. Countries without due process embedded into their legal structures could unjustly bring U.S. military and intelligence personnel to their local courts.

No nation, least of all the U.S., wants this.

Proponents of the legislation have suggested that JASTA bears no threat to our men and women serving overseas. The law, JASTA advocates have stated, holds only nations accountable. But the actions already underway in Pakistan, Iraq and Turkey aimed at bringing U.S. veterans to court contradict this argument.

Aside from the severity of convictions these veterans could now face for previously protected actions, the classified information that would definitively emerge in these trials’ discovery phases would thwart a spectrum of our U.S. national security efforts.

This not only risks American lives but calls into question the reliability of us, the U.S., as a trusted ally. This is not justice — but a grave misstep.

As a former U.S. military general, I hold to heart our right to defend ourselves from the real dangers threatening U.S. safety. That is why I support Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCainCOVID response shows a way forward on private gun sale checks Trump pulls into must-win Arizona trailing in polls Nonprofit 9/11 Day bashes Trump for airing political ads on Sept. 11 anniversary MORE (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamGOP senators say coronavirus deal dead until after election Tucker Carlson accuses Lindsey Graham of convincing Trump to talk to Woodward Trump courts Florida voters with moratorium on offshore drilling MORE (R-S.C.)’s recent amendment introduced to fix JASTA.

The proposal would narrow the scope of JASTA’s application to only the nations concretely identified as directly involved in terrorist activities. The amendment would allow us to preserve the trust that cements our relations with our global partners, and best position our military to protect our U.S. interests domestically and abroad.

“America must pursue justice,” Sen. McCain underscored firmly on the Senate floor in December 2016, addressing the fix proposed to counter the consequences JASTA presents.

“In the long run,” he continued, “JASTA will make it harder—not easier—to bring terrorists to justice and prevent terrorism in the first place.”

I stand by Sen. McCain’s statement. We cannot obstruct the inroads made in our counterterrorism efforts to date. 9/11 families undeniably deserve justice, but not at the expense of our country’s interests and our military members’ protection.

Major Gen. (Ret.) Charles E. Tucker Jr., JD, is the executive director and co-founder of the World Engagement Institute. He served as senior advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, senior advisor to the High Representative in Bosnia, and for the U.N. Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) in the Balkans and in Central Asia.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.