War Presidency Detemined To Screw Desert Storm POWs

Is This Outrageous Enough To Finally Open Some Republican Eyes?

from JoeUser Forums

"No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein." White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan November 2003.

no amount of money is exactly what the 17 american pilots--who were tortured in abu gharib prison by saddam hussein's thugs after being captured and  held as pows during the first gulf war--are gonna get if the bush administration has its way.

to that end, the government has done everything in its power to keep the group from collecting nearly $1 billion from Iraq that a federal judge awarded them as compensation for their torture

to add insult to the injuries these former pows suffered, defense secretary rumsfeld has publicly backed paying compensation to those iraqis who were tortured in 2003-04, telling a congressional committee investigating abu gharib wrongdoing, "I am seeking a way to provide appropriate compensation to those detainees who suffered grievous and brutal abuse and cruelty at the hands of a few members of the U.S. military. It is the right thing to do,"

oh..and once again, the war president is on the wrong side of the geneva accords since the united states and other signers pledged never to "absolve" a state of "any liability" for the torture of pows.

*          *          *

the pilots--joined by 37 family members--were represented by dc lawyers steptoe & johnson who filed suit on their behalf in april 2002.  in  " Acree vs. Republic of Iraq", the plaintiffs  asked for monetary damages for "acts of torture committed against them and for pain, suffering and severe mental distress of their families"   since hussein's government didn't respond or appear before us district judge richard w. roberts, there was no trial.

judge roberts rendered his decision on july 7, 2003, awarding the group $653 million in compensatory damages plus  $306 million in punitive damages and the group sought a hold on iraq's frozen assets.  then things began to go down hill pretty rapidly.

the same group of whitehouse lawyers who attempted to subvert our constitutional balance of power--one of whom is now attorney general--began hustling to block the award claiming  bush had voided any such claims against iraq.

citing language in the emergency bill which appropriated  $80 billion for military operations and reconstruction efforts in iraq--you may remember it as the one kerry voted against--authorizing the president to suspend all  sanctions against iraq imposed following the invasion of kuwait, the administration asked the us court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit to toss out the judgement. 

the president's legal team claimed that same clause permitted bush to take iraq off the  state department's list of state sponsors of terrorism and void any  pending monetary judgments against iraq

a three-judge panel unanimously agreed with this argument and tossed out the pow's award.

the whitehouse then turned its efforts towards blocking a congressional resolution intended to ensure the pows were paid.

. "U.S. courts no longer have jurisdiction to hear cases such as those filed by the Gulf War POWs," then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said in a letter to lawmakers. "Moreover, the president has ordered the vesting of blocked Iraqi assets for use by the Iraqi people and for reconstruction."

*           *           *

the pilots and their families are hoping the supreme court will hear their appeal.  the case title has now been amended to (get this): Acree vs. Iraq and the United States.

the administration has adamantly refused to settle the case--even for pennies on the dollar according to jeffrey f. addicott, a former army lawyer and director of the center for terrorism law at st. mary's university in san antonio.

david o. savage who reported this sorry ongoing episode in the la times, february 15, 2005 notes:  "The POWs say the justices should decide the "important and recurring question [of] whether U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorism [may] seek redress against terrorist states in federal court."

the justice department--acting on behalf of the pows' brother-in-arms who now occupies the whitehouse--intends to file a brief this week calling for the court to deny the pilots' appeal.

politics
9,992 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Keep exposing the tratorious war monger george w. bush, please help my innocent brave, heroic jihadis keep fighting. you do a much better job of sending more men to blow themselves up in the name of the almighty allah to keep your vile western ways and freedom away from us. Good job my brother. may allah bless you.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for posting this, kingbee.

I believe the POW's are deserving of compensation of some sort to partially offset the suffering they endured (no amount of money could offset it completely). I don't think it should come from the government of Iraq, however. I think you and I (in the form of the U.S. Government) should do the compensating.

In a way, I wish they hadn't sued Iraq. If I slip & fall in Picadilly Circus, break a hip, get surgery that is botched and suffer permanent disability as a result, should I be able to sue the United Kingdom for damages? In what court could I do so? Why would the U.K. bother to defend itself? The whole notion of suing Country X in Country Y and Country Y's judge saying, "Right on, brother... Country X owes you some money." is a bit wierd, when Country Y has no jurisdiction in or over Country X. Had Saddam's Iraq not been invaded & Saddam not overthrown, how were the POW's expecting the judgement to be enforced?

As worthy of just compensation as these men are, there must be one or more collateral issues involved that take precedence. That's why I don't think men & women who have suffered as a consequence of answering our call to duty should be compensated by anyone but us. Our collective decisions placed them at risk, we should be accountable for the consequences of our decisions. I understand the bitter ironies of the facts as you've laid them out, but just imagine the consequences if American assets were subject to arbitrary seizure for satisfaction of private suits brought by citizens of foreign countries, say France, simply because one of their own judges rules in their favor.

Cheers,
Daiwa
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The whole notion of suing Country X in Country Y and Country Y's judge saying, "Right on, brother... Country X owes you some money." is a bit wierd, when Country Y has no jurisdiction in or over Country X. Had Saddam's Iraq not been invaded & Saddam not overthrown, how were the POW's expecting the judgement to be enforced


while international law traditionally provides nation states with a shield of sovereignity, congress enacted the anti-terrorism act of 1996 specificaly authorizing us courts to award "money damages … against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage [or] hostage taking."

at the time that bill was signed into law, iraq was one of 7 countries the state department identified as sponsoring terrorist activities

in a joint letter to atty general ashcroft supporting the pows claim, senators allen (r va) and collins (r me)stated that act was "designed to hold terrorist nations accountable for the torture of Americans and to deter rogue nations from engaging in such actions in the future"

the money is--or was at the time the roberts' decision was published--recoverable from frozen iraqi assets (presumably in us banks or otherwise accessible accounts).

actions filed against iran by former hostages provide a precedent for this type of award i believe--altho ill have to check into it further.

i'd happily support us taxpayer-funded payments to pows (makes considerably more sense than the payments to the families of private citizens who died in the 9/11 attacks)as a matter of policy--maybe even retroactive to those captured in vietnam.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
tratorious


i see yall are still using that style manual someone trashed back when you were sweepin up the pennysaver offices...umm i mean in journalism school.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm glad you wrote this, kingbee. I remember reading something about it a while back...it's very, very sad...disgusting, even.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's very, very sad...disgusting, even


toss in deplorable and i think ya nailed it, mz w.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I can't even imagine what those POWs went through back then, and they have definitely earned my respect and admiration, I think allowing this kind of precedence to go forward would be dangerous. I know many people who are permently disabled for things that happened in war, things that are a direct result of stupid mistakes by someone in their NCO chain, or Chain of Command. Are we going to allow vets to sue their commanders or the pentagon? Furthermore, there are thousands of former POWs from WWI on still living. A lot of them were tortured for years. Where is their $58,823,529.41 each???

Another precedent this could set is opening the way for those held by the U.S. How many lawyers would just love to see their cut of a class action suit against the U.S. for everything from the acts of abuse we know about (Abu Graib.. etc), to the "tantamount to torture" acts at Gitmo. Sec. Rumsfeld would do well to be successful at getting them compensation, as long as it comes with a bar from sueing the U.S. Allowing everyone to sue would be devastating.

I know these sound like "slippery slope" arguments, but in law precendents are everything. Not everything is compensatable and the courts are no place to make decisions like this. These former POWs should use their efforts to increase benefits and compensation through the VA and other vet orgs, not the courts.

Of course, the former POWs are going to keep up the fight, and more power to them, I wish them well and much happiness in their lives.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Your anger and outrage is misplaced.  Look at it this way.  You buy a house.

Then someone slaps you with a lawsuit demanding you pay them $1m because they broke their leg on your property 10 years ago (when it belonged to the previous owner). HOw would you feel?  Is that fair?

First, you have to ask, why did they wait 11 years to sue.  Second, why penalize the current owner for the sins of the previous owner.

While their treatment at the hands of Saddam are deplorable, that in itself does not entitle them to $1b.  Just compensation, sure.  And as Daiwa pointed out, perhaps it would be better to come from the US government.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
But the owner of the house is still the same one as 11 years ago (the government, more specifically, hte military), it is just the current occupant has changed (the president).

First, you have to ask, why did they wait 11 years to sue.


11 years is a long time, but when you consider how long the Michael Jackson case has been on, and the jury is not even SEATED!!!

These POWs have probably been in the lower courts getting all the information needed for the case. My opinion, don't actually know.

IG
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

But the owner of the house is still the same one as 11 years ago (the government, more specifically, hte military), it is just the current occupant has changed (the president).

I would disagree.  The current regime is not the same as Saddams.  The owner has changed.  You would not blame Schmidt for Hitlers crimes would you?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
No. But if the United States under George the first incurred a debt, would not George the II be responsible for the countries debt? Or is the slate wiped clean becuase the governement changes?

IG
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

No. But if the United States under George the first incurred a debt, would not George the II be responsible for the countries debt? Or is the slate wiped clean becuase the governement changes?

The government did not change in that case, the president did.  IN the Case of Iraq, the Government went from a represive dictatorship to a democracy.

Look at it another way.  What was one of the key factors in WWII?  The Oppressive reparations that post war Germany was forced to pay.  That is why after WWII, we did the Marshall Plan instead of forcing the defeated into a mountain of debt they could not hope to pay off.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is why after WWII, we did the Marshall Plan instead of forcing the defeated into a mountain of debt they could not hope to pay off.


Which was very nice of us, but the debt was still incurred and was still due, save for our "benevolence" and Iraq has a debt. The US controlls a good portion of Saddam's money. Let's pay the men.

IG
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Which was very nice of us, but the debt was still incurred and was still due, save for our "benevolence" and Iraq has a debt. The US controlls a good portion of Saddam's money. Let's pay the men.

I agree.  Let us pay the men with Saddams money.  That I would agree with.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Great, so if we have it, and they deserve it, why can't we give it to them?

IG
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Great, so if we have it, and they deserve it, why can't we give it to them?

You ever seen any politician 'give' money? 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top


I agree. Let us pay the men with Saddams money. That I would agree with.


It's not saddams money, it's the Iraqi peoples money.
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
I second that..Moderaterman....It isn't ours to use or way...
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
I second that..Moderaterman....It isn't ours to use or way...
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
I second that..Moderaterman....It isn't ours to use or way...
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
It's not saddams money, it's the Iraqi peoples money.


They are never going to see it. Might as well do some good.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
I
It's not saddams money, it's the Iraqi peoples money.


If the US government incurs a monetary penalty, the US goverment has to pay the penalty with the money it has, namely out tax dollars, our money. If Iraq under Saddam incurs a monetary paenalty Iraq has to pay the penalty with the money in it's treasury, namely the money Iraq collected form it's citizenry. Regardless of the government change Iraq still owes the penalty.

IG
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know these sound like "slippery slope" arguments, but in law precendents are everything. Not everything is compensatable and the courts are no place to make decisions like this. These former POWs should use their efforts to increase benefits and compensation through the VA and other vet orgs, not the courts.


the law supporting this type of suit was enacted in 1996. i provided more information about it in reply#3. as far as precedent goes, the record is sorta vague in that i can't determine whether terri anderson (who was awarded a judgement against iran for their support of the terrorists who held him hostage in lebanon) has been able to collect.

on the other hand, there is at least one american citizen who has been enforced a judgement against iran...and the families of those killed over lockerbie have successfully negotiated a settlement with the libyan government. two families who lost members as a result of palestinian actions in israel are attempting to collect their judgements from islamic charities and banks that handle funds alleged to support hamas and other militant groups there.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Second, why penalize the current owner for the sins of the previous owner


as mentioned in the article, the us is a signatory to a provision in the geneva accord pledging to 'never absolve" torture of pows.

this 'bad guys' are now 'good guys' argument is a bit specious in that light. it didn't prevent holocaust victims'from asserting claims against germany, austria or the swiss banks used by the nazis.

on the other hand, japan and its emperor have been pretty much been permitted to avoid compensating its victims--or even having to submit an unqualified apology.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee -

Was there a provision in that 1996 law which made it retroactive to Gulf War 1?

Also, there is a big difference between a civilian settlement with Libya and collecting a third-party judgment on behalf of members of our military. For active duty military personnel, if compensation is appropriate, it should come from us. I personally disagree with the 1996 law - I think it's wrong. We chose a course of action which placed those POW's in harm's way and we should buck up & do the right thing out of our pockets, not steal it from the Iraqi people. And, while a price tag can't be placed on various types of torture, $58mil each seems rather generous, considering the regulations our military operate under, their volunteer status, etc.

Cheers,
Daiwa