Bush Administration trying to screw American Torture Victims

[Relbeek Einre]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... v=hcmodule

Yet today, the Bush administration is urging the Supreme Court to oppose the former prisoners of war. Resisting payment to war heroes forces the administration to walk an awkward political line, but it argues that the reconstruction of post-Hussein Iraq would be set back if the new government had to pay almost a billion dollars to the Americans.

"Whereas subjecting Iraq to suit . . . served the United States' foreign policy interests by threatening large damage awards for the wrongs of the Hussein regime, in the immediate aftermath of the removal of that regime by military force, such judgments would hinder crucial foreign policy objectives," the Justice Department told the court in a brief filed March 21.

[Klast Brell]

Now that we own Iraq it would be like suing ourselves.

[Rsak]

That is kinda a tricky line to draw.

The government is most certainly not the one that was sued so why should it be responsible for the crimes of others?

On the other hand debts of the country should not just be removed as if there were some kind of international bancruptcy court.

However even if the current Iraqi government should compensate the soldiers in the suit the award of nearly 1 Billion is extremely excessive.

[Kulaf]

After the overthrow of Hussein in 2003, however, President Bush, with Congress's approval, lifted the sanctions against Iraq. The administration intervened in the former POWs' case on Iraq's behalf, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out Roberts's decision in June 2004, ruling that the Flatow Amendment applies only to officials or agents of Iraq and other countries, not to the countries themselves.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... lfson.html

When President Bush commenced hostilities in Iraq, Congress authorized him to exclude Iraq from the reach of any law applying to state supporters of terrorism. The idea was to allow the President to lift U.S. sanctions on countries that do business in Iraq, now that Iraq is in friendly hands. But a by-product of the law is to take blocked assets out of the reach of plaintiffs who suffered torture and abuse by the predecessor regime.

Meanwhile, in a separate move under related wartime legislation, the President confiscated all Iraqi assets and vested them in the U.S. Treasury Department - essentially making them U.S. assets protected by U.S. sovereign immunity.

The result of these actions is that the plaintiffs now will not be able to enforce any judgment they may receive.

[Aabe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... v=hcmodule

Yet today, the Bush administration is urging the Supreme Court to oppose the former prisoners of war. Resisting payment to war heroes forces the administration to walk an awkward political line, but it argues that the reconstruction of post-Hussein Iraq would be set back if the new government had to pay almost a billion dollars to the Americans.

"Whereas subjecting Iraq to suit . . . served the United States' foreign policy interests by threatening large damage awards for the wrongs of the Hussein regime, in the immediate aftermath of the removal of that regime by military force, such judgments would hinder crucial foreign policy objectives," the Justice Department told the court in a brief filed March 21.

Well, we did ask Russia and a few other contries to take it in the shorts on debt to Iraq, I suppose it only fair we take some hits.

[Ddrak]

I would tend to side with the POWs on this one in terms of legality, though I think they're pushing a dead issue. Regime change shouldn't absolve a nation of responsibility for past wrongs. If that were the case, and democratic nation would write off their legal responsibilities every 3-4 years.

Dd

[Riggen]

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison though, Ddrak. In a democratic nation the faces change every few years but the government's structure remains intact. That can't be said of Iraq's former government, which is now pretty much completely gone.

It's not as if the Iraqi people benefitted from the torture of POW's. The entities responsible for those atrocities are now dead, disbanded, or incarcerated.

I view a demand for reparations in about the same light as a terrorist wanting my head for being the lapdog of Satan when I didn't even vote for the guy.

[Shallon]

Didn't Germany pay out the ass for the holocaust? Also, didn't we pay Jews and others a large sum of money for robbing valuables the Nazis stole? This is long after government changes.

[Beestyall]

Well the POWs were awared, what ~~ 960Million US? Wouldn't that money be better spent in Iraq, either in infrastructure or security? I mean sure, the families of 16 people here could be better off and their kids and their grand-grandkids-kids, but really after the first 10 million, what more do you need when you've been use to military pay???

This after waiting 6 years after the US Congress lifted the ban on suing foreign states. I'll say it again, it's a money grab, now that they (the POWs and families) figure they can get something, it lacks sencerity.

And honestly, it's a no-win situation for Bush (or any administration), they have to 'publically' come out for something they really aren't that opposed too, because it directly conflicts with a(nother) stated goal (long term stabilization of Iraq.)

[Rsak]

When Saddam was in power then this may have been a legitimate award since it was designed to hurt Saddam.

But now that it is coming from the citizens of Iraq it is just obscene.

[Relbeek Einre]

Holy missing the point, Batman.

[vaulos]

Didn't Germany pay out the ass for the holocaust? Also, didn't we pay Jews and others a large sum of money for robbing valuables the Nazis stole? This is long after government changes.

No, we paid Germany for not becoming Fascist again; and west germany for not becoming Communist. The money was going from the US to Germany (most of Western Europe really).

And no, we didn't pay the Jews for what the Nazi's stole, though we did pay them for things 'we' stole (if it couldn't be returned). And in general, the whole idea of reparations is something that was dropped as a result of German reparations to France having been one of the major causes for WWII.

[Ddrak]

Huh Vaulos?

Germany has paid over $60 billion dollars to the Jews since WW2 for the holocaust.

Dd

[vaulos]

Because of a court settlement? That would be news to me.

[Rsak]

Relbeek,

You can defend the award of nearly 1 Billion at the cost of the Iraqi citizens?

[Trollbait]

Relbeek,

You can defend the award of nearly 1 Billion at the cost of the Iraqi citizens?

I tend to agree. While the victims certainly deserve comensation it should no come at the expense of the citizens of Iraq. The greater good needs to be served in this instance.

[Relbeek Einre]

Why do the Iraqi people pay? Why wouldn't they have paid under Saddam's rule?

[Trollbait]

Why do the Iraqi people pay? Why wouldn't they have paid under Saddam's rule?

Either under Saddam's rule or the current Iraqi gov the money still would ultimately come from the people.

[Relbeek Einre]

That's specious. It wouldn't, though "the people" would be impacted by the loss.

Still, the executive branch of the government is trying to override the judiciary - again - and that's also a serious matter for concern.

[Trollbait]

Here we have a nuanced grey area though.

Where does seperation of powers "line" need to be drawn in a matter that pits the rights of a citizen or citizens against a matter of what is best for our national interest?

A citizen has a right to sue and have his day in court but what happens when that judgement negatively affects our foreign policy and becomes disruptive to our national interest?

Which serves the greater good?