# 1991 Gulf War POWs Sue Saddam **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 21, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957 "2003-03-21T01:27:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/1 "2003-03-21T01:27:13Z")
[The Story](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/2020_powsuit030318.html) POW’s from the 1991 Gulf War are suing the Iraqi government for damages because of their treatment. Here’s an excerpt: > [@](#): > > _Seventeen former American POWs, brutally tortured during the Gulf War, and thirty-seven of their family members filed suit against the Republic of Iraq, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, and Saddam Hussein on April 4, 2002. This case (Acree v. Republic of Iraq) was filed under a narrowly-drawn amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that permits civil suits against countries on the State Department’s list of terrorist nations for acts of torture, hostage-taking, aircraft sabotage, or extra-judicial killing._ Does anyone think they will win? Should they? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/2 "2003-03-21T02:07:53Z")
So … they’re suing a foreign country … under a U.S. law that was passed with only U.S. approval? How old is this “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, anyway? ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/3 "2003-03-21T02:27:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*So … they’re suing a foreign country … under a U.S. law that was passed with only U.S. approval? > > How old is this “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, anyway? \*\* The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 provides (in part): > [@](#): > > **General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state** > > (a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case - > > (1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver; > > (2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States; > > (3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States; > > (4) in which rights in property in the United States acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in the United States are in issue; > > (5) not otherwise encompassed in paragraph (2) above, in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state or of any official or employee of that foreign state while acting within the scope of his office or employment; except this paragraph shall not apply to - > > (A) any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function regardless of whether the discretion be abused, or > > (B) any claim arising out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights; > > (6) in which the action is brought, either to enforce an agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a private party to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between the parties with respect to a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration under the laws of the United States, or to confirm an award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate, if > > (A) the arbitration takes place or is intended to take place in the United States, > > (B) the agreement or award is or may be governed by a treaty or other international agreement in force for the United States calling for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, > > © the underlying claim, save for the agreement to arbitrate, could have been brought in a United States court under this section or section 1607, or (D) paragraph (1) of this subsection is otherwise applicable; or > > (7) not otherwise covered by paragraph (2), in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such act or provision of material support is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency, except that the court shall decline to hear a claim under this paragraph - > > (A) if the foreign state was not designated as a state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time the act occurred, unless later so designated as a result of such act; and > > (B) even if the foreign state is or was so designated, if - > > (i) the act occurred in the foreign state against which the claim has been brought and the claimant has not afforded the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the claim in accordance with accepted international rules of arbitration; or > > (ii) neither the claimant nor the victim was a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) when the act upon which the claim is based occurred. [28 U.S.C. § 1605](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1605.html). ---
**Author:** ![Sock\_Munkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Sock\_Munkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sock_Munkey)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/4 "2003-03-21T02:31:42Z")
What if Saddam spilled hot coffee on our troops? ---
**Author:** ![GTPhD1996](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/97f17d/32.png) [@GTPhD1996](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GTPhD1996)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/5 "2003-03-21T03:26:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sock Munkey \* > \*\*What if Saddam spilled hot coffee on our troops? \*\* Only if it is McDonald’s coffee. GTPhD1996 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/6 "2003-03-21T04:36:00Z")
Well, if there’s a regime change, then how can you sue a new regime for what its predecessor did? I think it would be politically sort of bad form to set up a brand-spanking new puppet government and then try to _sue_ them, especially since they won’t have any money anyway. The guy the POWs have beef against is dead…even if he’s not dead yet. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/7 "2003-03-21T05:05:20Z")
Diogenes the Cynic, You made an interesting point: how you do hold a current adminstration guilty of a previous administration’s crime? How often on this message board has someone blamed Pres Bush for actions the US made during the past 200 years? ie “The US is the only country to use nuclear weapons.” or “the US shouldn’t attack Iraq because the US supported Saddam over 20 years ago” ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2003, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1991-gulf-war-pows-sue-saddam/162957/8 "2003-03-21T13:08:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emacknight \* > \*\*Diogenes the Cynic, > > You made an interesting point: how you do hold a current adminstration guilty of a previous administration’s crime? > > How often on this message board has someone blamed Pres Bush for actions the US made during the past 200 years? > > ie “The US is the only country to use nuclear weapons.” or “the US shouldn’t attack Iraq because the US supported Saddam over 20 years ago” \*\* Changing administrations is far less dramatic than changing regimes. When a new president takes office, the regime is just changing leaders; the same constitution and laws are in force, the government’s debts are still valid, and the new president carries on his or her predecessor’s executive orders and policies until they are changed by the applicable process. This continuity is lacking in a regime change, where the new regime can easily repudiate its predecessor’s acts and debts.