Gratitude...dubya style!

WTF?

from JoeUser Forums
I couldn't believe this one
Link

I remember when this ruling came down.


Thanks for reading,
thatoneguyinslc
politics
10,648 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gratitude liberal style is what? spending the iraqi's people money ? IT's not nor never has been saddams money anymore that what MY president spends is HIS money.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you're saying it's ok to disregard rulings from the courts we don't like? Also, YOUR president is spending billions like it's his $. In the end it's a shitty way to treat people who were captured and tortured by the enemy. And the repubs say they are for the fighting man? BAH!
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: thatoneguyinslcPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005So you're saying it's ok to disregard rulings from the courts we don't li


where did I say that?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think your comment states that. But it was a question Mod.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

You might have missed it, but Kingbee already blogged on this:

http://al-fahryd-i-nhumon.joeuser.com/articlecomments.asp?AID=65264&s=1

And for the record, I agree with the thought that these crimes were not perpertrated by the current leadershipof Iraq, and they should not be held accountable for the sins of Saddam.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: thatoneguyinslcPosted: Wednesday, February 16, 2005I think your comment states that. But it was a question Mod.


ok fair enought then , my answere to the question is... why should the Iraqi people have to pay for the sins of saddam? man o man now I am starting to answer questions with questions.. Smack inna face{ MY OWN}
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
hmmmmmm apparently that 'great minds' thing is still workin my friend.

what's being ignored here is the pows are supposed to be aided by the government in their efforts to collect according to the 1996 anti-terrorism law enacted by congress.

those nominal conservatives who so rabidly attack 'activist judges' for rewriting law are apparently untroubled when an activist executive branch engages in the exact same perversion of the system.

as to this administration's support for the military, you're right. talk about sunshine patriots...jeez.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
So let me make sure i understand this. The judgement was made during saddam's reign, the crimes occurred during saddam's reign, but since he's put of power the debt is non existant?

How come we taxed Germany & other euro governments for crimes during the holocaust and still continue to do so when assets are found?

Sounds like a double standard to me.
P.S. Thanks for the backup King!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

those nominal conservatives who so rabidly attack 'activist judges' for rewriting law are apparently untroubled when an activist executive branch engages in the exact same perversion of the system.

Nowhere does the article say the administration is breaking or making new law.  They are just now arguing, in court as is the law, against the settlement.  I think you are barking on the wrong leash.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

How come we taxed Germany & other euro governments for crimes during the holocaust and still continue to do so when assets are found?

For the STOLEN assets.  NO one is making any country pay for the war crimes committed by a different regime.  Get your facts straight.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nowhere does the article say the administration is breaking or making new law. They are just now arguing, in court as is the law, against the settlement. I think you are barking on the wrong leash


please google the 1996 anti-terrorism act and youll see it requires the government to assist claimants rather than antagonize them.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
A crime is a crime and a judgement is a judgement Guy. If you wanna talk about compensation for the Jews..Does the name "Israel" ring a bell? What do you call our support of them all these years? It's compensation for the holocaust. Plain and simple.

You need to get YOUR facts straight.

The point of the matter is that these folks are entitled to compensation. Just because we went in there and overthrew saddam's regieme is irrelevant.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
wow a rational discussion with no name calling. yaa hoooooooooooo

Now if this can of worms gets opened are ww2 pows entitled to sue? how about korean war pows, vietnam pows?
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

please google the 1996 anti-terrorism act and youll see it requires the government to assist claimants rather than antagonize them.

In your opinion they are harrassing them.  IN reality, they are arguing a point of law

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

A crime is a crime and a judgement is a judgement Guy. If you wanna talk about compensation for the Jews..Does the name "Israel" ring a bell? What do you call our support of them all these years? It's compensation for the holocaust. Plain and simple.

So you are guilty of your father's sins?  By Your logic you are.  Our Support for Israel has nothing to do with any crimes we committed or did not commit againstJews in WWII.  You jumped a track in logic there.

There is a crime, but the Current Iraq leadership did not do it.  And yes, a judgement is a judgement unless it is over turned on appeal, also something very legal and a way of life.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

You need to get YOUR facts straight.

Unless you are posting lies, I am just going by what you posted. 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now if this can of worms gets opened are ww2 pows entitled to sue? how about korean war pows, vietnam pows?


the law was enacted in 1996 and isnt retroactive...so no. but as daiwa suggested on my blog, it would be appropriate for the taxpayers to compensate american pows. i agreed and suggested vietnam pows should be eligible
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
In your opinion they are harrassing them. IN reality, they are arguing a point of law



the government is clearly NOT acting in accordance with the 1996 anti-terrorism law's mandate that it support claimants in their efforts to recover damages from rogue states. it's not my opinion. look the law up and read it.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
yall amaze me. talk about parroting the party line.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mod,

I think unless they filed suit within a few years of the end of the war (statute of limitations..Anybody have any insight here?) and had a judgement in hand, that ship has sailed.

But it does bring up a good point.

Guy,

The point i was making was that arming and supporting Israel is guilt payment for allowing the holocaust to happen. Say what you will, but an apple is an apple when it comes to that. It's the truth. So by doing that for all these years and then telling POW's who have a VALID judgement form an american court they cannot collect on said judgement perverts the system of justice. So by your logic, it's ok to vacate judgements at will? Where does it end? recinding all judgements. Or just the ones the current administration sees fit to vacate.

This is a matter for the courts. NOT the White House.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

yall amaze me. talk about parroting the party line

If you read all my responses, you would see where I clearly was stating they should be compensated.  However, you would also know that I do not advocate judicial activism, or that the sins of the father are visited upon the sins of the sons.  If that is anyone else's line, then we came to the same conclusion via different roads as I am not arguing anyones line.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

So by your logic, it's ok to vacate judgements at will?

I dont recall where I said anyone could vacate a valid judgement at will.  If you can find it, please post it.

And while it may be argued that we ignored the holocaust, that is not why we support Israel.  And it never has been.  Supporting a democracy in an area of tin plated dictatorships might give you a hint of why we are supporting them.  That and the clout that the largest Jewish population in the world has on government decision here in this country.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I gotta back Guy up here. I think this whole agreeing with the other team stuff is still new to us all
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're right Guy, but it's not the only reason. I think we both get half credit on that point.

Maybe vacate was the wrong choice. I think disregard is more accurate.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Maybe vacate was the wrong choice. I think disregard is more accurate.

I think they are fighting it, as the law allows.  This is clearly a black eye issue, where the 'good' thing to do would be to allow them to get their money, but the 'right' thing todo is not penalize the innocent.