The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, more commonly referred to as the “9/11” bill, was put into action September 28th, 2016. While President Obama vetoed the act, Congress overwhelmingly voted in favor of overriding the veto, the first of Obama’s presidency. While one could argue that Congress needed to override some of Obama’s past vetoes instead of letting him get a clear pass, one thing is clear; this veto was not one to override.

Many Americans will find themselves questioning what the bill even implies. To keep it short and focused on what many call the primary reason for the law, the bill gives family members the opportunity to sue Saudi Arabia for damages from the events of 9/11. However, the bill also severely damages sovereign immunity, which prevents officials of governments from being prosecuted or facing litigation in the courts of other countries. By opening up a path for U.S. citizens to sue officials of another country, the bill has the potential to set a very deadly precedent. This could prove especially problematic – even lethal – for the United States, since our country is tied to more diplomatic policies than any other country and has a far broader military presence. If citizens of other countries feel wronged by the U.S. and choose to take similar measures and prosecute our military or diplomatic personnel who are overseas, it could put an overwhelming majority of security, diplomatic, and military personnel at risk.

The question then becomes, why was a bill with such potential consequence passed by a 97-1 vote in the Senate? If Congress knew that the bill could put millions of Americans at risk, why did they go through with it? Unfortunately, this vote reveals the biggest flaw in modern American politics. They did it because they want to secure votes. They were too worried about their public reputation. How could they feasibly vote to veto a bill that was being touted as “justice for the victims of 9/11”? The damaging effect of putting their stamp on vetoing a bill that sought to give justice to those who were wronged in the most catastrophic event of this era would be profound.

Voting to veto the bill meant putting one’s public reputation on the line. As it seems, doing such a thing, especially in an election year, was far too much to expect. This should be the biggest concern of the passing of the bill. We vote these officials into office with the expectation that they will do what is right for the country, even if the general public may not perceive it to be that way. They are the ones responsible for the well-being of our nation. The men and women who are elected to national offices need to care more about our nation and do what is in the best interest of the United States and less about their own personal reputations and making sure they save their jobs.

What is the point of being in their position if they don’t make any weighty decisions and instead opt for what will ensure them their spot? With this bill, our elected officials in Congress have revealed that they care not about the safety of our country, but rather, only for their own personal safety and job security. That is a scary thought.