Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) was endorsed by majority in the Congress without recognizing its impacts on the United States of America

as testified by one of the Republicans majority of the House of Representatives when he said that nobody exerted any effort to recognize the negative aspects of this act on the US foreign relations.
He lambasted President Obama for his failing in reflecting the potential negative aspects of the act.
New York Times also mocked the Republicans for their dragging their legs in an unnecessary dilemma which will harm the United States of America.
The New York Times suggested that the only way to reform this fault is to cancel JASTA.

 
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA):
?Before citing the dangerous and destructive economic and political impacts of JASTA we should discuss the legitimacy of the Act:
This Act contradicts all the international conventions, laws and norms as follows:
a.      As it is known for all law-makers that no law could be applied backdated. That means that any Act is valid only after the date of its endorsements and signature by the President.
But in JASTA it is to be applied on events occurred in the past. This means that the past could be extended indefinitely.
This means that Sudan could file a case against the US Administration for bombing Al-Shifa factory to go backwards to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing to the latest events in Iraq, and Afghanistan etc.
b.     It is known that any act should not exceed the geographic territories of the country which issued it according to the theory of regional validity and the zone of application, unless the Act is internationally recognized unanimously.
c.     JASTA also contradicts the principles of the punishments as it is possible to punish a country or people or any other person other than the person who committed the crime.
d.     JASTA is also against human rights which ban extending the punishment to anybody other that the committers.
e.      JASTA contradicts the US agreement with the UN on the immunity of the states and its properties signed in 2004.
f.       JASTA denies other countries its sovereignty and contradicts the justice and sovereignty principles.
 
Negative Impacts of JASTA:

According to the Financial Times, JASTA might come out with counteractive impacts as it might open the door for revenge from the US through demanding handing the US soldiers and officials working abroad a matter that will make them subject to collective suits.
The Act paves the way before other countries to issue similar act (reciprocity principle).
The Act might open allow for filing cases against the US Administration for providing support to the Turkish aborted coup leaders residing in the USA.
Some studies suggested that the losses of America are US$3.3 trillion which doubles the amount of Saudi Arabia balance in the American treasury.
It is possible for the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan who were subject to the American occupation to bring suits against the USA to get compensations and also Sudan could ask for compensation for bombing Al-Shifa and Al-Yarmouk factories.
 
September 11 Events:

The September 11 events were committed by 17 persons (15 Saudi, 1 Egyptian, and 1 UAE nationals) which means that JASTA will be applied against Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE.
I believe that the three above countries will also issue acts to protect its territories as well as its citizens just like what the UK did.
 
JASTA Integral to the ICC

As we said earlier JASTA contradicts all the international conventions and norms, and accordingly it represents a tool of financial extortion the countries exactly like the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is considered as a tool of political blackmailing. So JASTA completes the cycle of political and financial controlling on the countries.
Articles (6) and (7) of JASTA stipulate:
(6) Persons, entities, or countries that knowingly or recklessly contribute material support or resources, directly or indirectly, to persons or organizations that pose a significant risk of committing acts of terrorism that threaten the security of nationals of the United States or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States necessarily direct their conduct at the United States, and should reasonably anticipate being brought to court in the United States to answer for such activities.
(7) The United States has a vital interest in providing persons and entities injured as a result of terrorist attacks committed within the United States with full access to the court system to order to pursue civil claims against persons, entities or countries that have knowingly or recklessly provided material support or resources directly or indirectly, to the persons or organizations responsible for their injuries.
 
The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States to seek relief against persons, entities and foreign countries, whenever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.
 
Responsibility of Foreign States for International Terrorism against the United Statesforeign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any case in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for physical injury to person or property or death occurring in the United States and caused by:
1.      An act of international terrorism in the United States and
2.      A tortuous act or acts of the foreign state, or of any official, employee or agent of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, regardless where the tortuous act or acts of the foreign state occurred.
Stay of Actions Pending State Negotiations:

?The courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.
?The Attorney General may intervene in any action in which a foreign state is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of the United States for the purpose of seeking to stay of the civil action, in whole or in part.
?In general the court of the United States may stay proceedings against a foreign state if the Secretary of State certifies that the United State is engaged in good faith discussions with the foreign state, or any other parties as to whom a stay of claims is sought.  
 
The above articles give the US citizen the right to file a case against any foreign state and it give the US courts the right to subject any foreign state to the American judiciary.
 
Remarks:

The International Criminal Court gives the UNSC the authority to stop any legal proceedings according to Article 16 of its memorandum of association and in JASTA the attorney general has the authority to stay the proceedings in whole in part.
The question that poses itself is what has the attorney general to do with the issues of citizens' compensations?
 
It is the financial extortion to complete the political extortion of the ICC.