POWs win settlement, you-know-who blocks it

This is pretty fucked up. I don’t think a few guys should be splitting a billion, but toss them something. Anybody want to defend this?

I don’t believe we want to open the door for all the victims or SH’s rule to sue the pants off a fledgling government, US citizens/troops or otherwise. That is the only possible thing I can think of.

Is this consistent with the “torture is okay” doctrine? Because if there’s one thing I love, it is torture.

This seems jurisdictional to me. We give the executive in this country the authority to set foreign policy subject to legislative approval. The legislature also has special powers accorded to it regarding tariffs and treaties.

In this case, the courts were getting involved, and I don’t feel that was proper.

If there was a claim against Iraq by former POWs, it was properly the place of the State Department to press that claim.

I agree (well, not with the torture is okay bit). Like it or not, the government that wronged them no longer exists, and that makes it difficult to collect from a lawsuit, no matter how righteous.

I suppose our govt. giving them something would set a bad precedent? Anyone that was going after Iraq, would come after us instead?

If this is so…Why are the national debts accrued by Saddam still held against Iraq now?

World Eater, POW’s receive benefits from our government for disabilities and illnesses incurred in the course of captivity. And while currently you need to be a POW for thirty days for some of these benefits, the administration has proposed lifting this requirement.

So the new government of Iraq is not responsible for the debts of the old one? A lot of governments believe otherwise.

Good point. I’m no expert in international law or finance, but I’d say that yes, the new government in Iraq shouldn’t be held for the debts or crimes (or treaties) of the former regime. It’s not like they had a voice in making it.

This will probably have to be hammered out in negotiations later, with some debts being honored, some being renegotiated, and some being cancelled. While I agree that it may not be fair for a regime to be held to the actions of a toppled predecessor, lenders may be leery of backing a government that treats old debts with “we owe what? No, no, that was the old guy. He doesn’t live here any more.”

IIRC, The former USSR nations faced a similar issue, and most decided to honor debts and treaties made by the old USSR in order to smooth future relations and avoid scaring off potential lenders and investors.

IMO: It should be handled like a bankruptcy, and all entities that are owed debts incurred by the former government of Iraq should get some sort of bonds from the new government of Iraq. The bonds would initially only be worth a small fraction of the debt, but could be structured to encourage further investment in the new government.

GQ: If seventeen U.S. soldiers, who were also tortured at Abu Ghraib, get nearly a billion dollars, what sort of precedent does that set for Iraqis who were tortured at Abu Ghraib?

PIT: In a perfect fucking world, this goddamn money would be coming from the friggin pockets of the fucktards at the U.N. who helped Sodamn Insane embezzle from his country.

You forgot to add this:

And also the pockets of the United States, which tacitly endorsed oil smuggling which gave Saddam illicit profits several times greater than what he got out of the oil-for-food program.

I presume your last was supposed to read United NATIONS, not United STATES?

No, United STATES

I realize this is the Pit, but I’ve been following this story for a couple of years now.

Congress passed a bill saying that people could sue terrorist governments, and it was signed into law. The article says that. As the POWs case was proceeding, the war intervened, and when the White House asked for billions of dollars to prosecute the war, it also asked for a new provision of law that basically removed Iraq from the various portions of law that apply to state sponsors of terrorism. The request did not specifically mention these lawsuits, it was more of a blanket “Iraq is not a terrorist state” provison.

Congress didn’t really investigate what that meant. In the rush to get the money out to the troops, they just passed the provision.

So the war proceeds, and the US Government seizes billions in Iraqi funds. Not just Iraqis funds, but SADDAM’S funds. As the POWs try to collect, the White House transfers the money to Iraq and says, “So sorry, it’s not in our hands anymore.” Then the Administration argues against the POWs claim on the basis that Congress passed a law which states that Iraq is no longer a terrorist state.

And just to put more fidelity to the POW’s claim, they intended to use the money to start a foundation to help rehabilitate other POWs and victims of torture. It’s not like they were going to start driving diamond cars and living in solid gold houses.

Oh yeah, FUCK.

But what if the POWs the US is holding sue us in their home country courts?

Then we toss their ass in Gitmo again.

<wipes hands on pants>

So lemme get this straight. If I am a soldier (as I was a soldier) and am wounded, I get a pension. If I get captured, it is sort of like a lottery ticket? No, that makes little sense.

No, it is the duty and responsibility of the American government to care for ‘he that has borne the burden of battle, and his widow and his orphan.’

Soldiers do not fight for economic rewards, and such rewards ought not to be available to them. To do otherwise opens the doors to soldiers doing (or not doing) things for economic gain.

Further it is wrong to burden our Iraqi allies with the sins of their former dictator.

Nope. I meant what I wrote.

From griffen2’s link:

Odd how this story hasn’t had quite the same traction as the UN O-F-F brouhaha, innit? Damn Liberal Media…